This Annual Report on Form 10-K of ~~Santander Holdings USA, Inc. (“SHUSA” or the “Company”)~~SHUSA contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding the financial condition, results of operations, business plans and future performance of the Company. Words such as “may,” “could,” “should,” “looking forward,” “will,” “would,” “believe,” “expect,” “hope,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “assume," "goal," "seek" or similar expressions are intended to indicate forward-looking statements.

Although SHUSA believes that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date on which the statements are made, these statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties based on various factors and assumptions, many of which are beyond the Company's control. Among the factors that could cause SHUSA’s financial performance to differ materially from that suggested by forward-looking statements are:

~~Santander Holdings USA, Inc. ("SHUSA" or the "Company")~~SHUSA is the parent holding company of ~~Santander Bank, National Association, (the "Bank" or "SBNA"),~~SBNA, a national banking association, and owns ~~a majority interest (approximately 68%)~~approximately 76.3% (as of ~~Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, "SC"),~~March 4, 2020) of SC, a specialized consumer finance ~~company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing.~~company. SHUSA is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and the Bank's main office is in Wilmington, Delaware. SC is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. SHUSA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ~~Banco Santander, S.A. ("Santander").~~Santander. SHUSA is also the parent company of Santander BanCorp, ~~(together with its subsidiaries, “Santander BanCorp”),~~ a holding company headquartered in Puerto Rico ~~which~~that offers a full range of financial services through its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, ~~Banco Santander Puerto Rico; Santander Securities, LLC (“SSLLC”),~~BSPR; SSLLC, a registered broker-dealer headquartered in Boston; ~~Banco Santander International (“BSI”), an Edge Act corporation located~~BSI, a financial services company headquartered in Miami ~~which~~that offers a full range of banking services to foreign individuals and corporations based primarily in Latin America; ~~Santander Investment Securities Inc. (“SIS”),~~SIS, a registered broker-dealer ~~located~~headquartered in New York providing services in investment banking, institutional sales, trading and offering research reports of Latin American and European equity and fixed-income securities; and several other subsidiaries. SSLLC, SIS and another SHUSA subsidiary, Santander Asset Management, LLC are registered investment advisers with the SEC.

The Bank's principal markets are in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. At December 31, ~~2017,~~2019, the Bank had ~~647~~588 branches and ~~2,046 automated teller machines ("ATMs")~~2,231 ATMs across its footprint. The Bank uses its deposits, as well as other financing sources, to fund its loan and investment portfolios. The Bank earns interest income on its loan and investment portfolios. In addition, the Bank generates non-interest income from a number of sources, including deposit and loan services, sales of loans and investment securities, capital markets products and ~~bank-owned life insurance ("BOLI").~~BOLI. The Bank's principal non-interest expenses include employee compensation and benefits, occupancy and facility-related costs, technology and other administrative expenses. The ~~volumes, and accordingly the~~ financial results of the Bank are affected by the economic environment, including interest rates and consumer and business confidence and spending, as well as the competitive conditions within the Bank's geographic footprint.

~~SC's~~SAF is SC’s primary ~~business~~vehicle brand, and is available as a finance option for automotive dealers across the ~~indirect origination of retail installment contracts ("RICs"), principally through manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection~~United States. Since May 2013, under its agreement with ~~their sale of new~~FCA, SC has operated as FCA's preferred provider for consumer loans, leases, and ~~used vehicles to retail consumers. SC also offers a full spectrum of auto financing products~~dealer loans and provides services to ~~Chrysler~~FCA customers and dealers under the Chrysler Capital brand, the trade name used in providing services ("Chrysler Capital") under the ten-year private label financing agreement with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles US LLC ("FCA"), formerly Chrysler Group LLC, signed by SC in 2013 (the "Chrysler Agreement").brand. These products and services include consumer RICs and leases, as well as dealer loans for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital and revolving lines of credit.

On June 28, 2019, SC entered into an amendment to the Chrysler Agreement with FCA, which modified the Chrysler Agreement to, among other things, adjust certain performance metrics, exclusivity commitments and payment provisions. The amendment also ~~originates vehicle loans through a web-based direct lending program, purchases vehicle RICs from other lenders,~~terminated the previously disclosed tolling agreement dated July 11, 2018 between SC and ~~services automobile and recreational and marine vehicle portfolios for other lenders. Additionally,~~FCA.

Since its IPO, SC has ~~several relationships through which it provides other consumer finance products. Common stock~~been consolidated with the Company and Santander for financial reporting and accounting purposes. If the Company directly, owned 80% or more of SC ("Common Stock, SC could be consolidated with the Company for tax filing and capital planning purposes. Among other things, tax consolidation would (1) facilitate certain offsets of SC’s taxable income, (2) eliminate the double taxation of dividends from SC, and (3) trigger a release into SHUSA’s income of an approximately $414 million deferred tax liability recognized with respect to the GAAP basis vs. the income tax basis in the Company's ownership of SC. Tax consolidation would also allow for SC's net deferred tax liability to off-set the Company's net deferred tax asset, which would provide a regulatory capital benefit. In addition, SHUSA and Santander would recognize a larger percentage of SC's net income. SC Common ~~Stock")~~Stock is listed for trading on the ~~New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE")~~NYSE under the trading symbol "SC".

In February 2013, SC entered into the Chrysler Agreement, pursuant to which SC became the preferred provider for FCA’s consumer loans and leases and dealer loans effective May 1, 2013. Business generated under terms of the Chrysler Agreement is branded as Chrysler Capital. During ~~2017,~~2019, SC originated more than ~~$6.7~~$12.8 billion of Chrysler Capital ~~retail installment contracts ("RICs")~~RICs and more than ~~$6.0~~$8.5 billion of Chrysler Capital vehicle leases.

The Chrysler Agreement requires, among other things, that SC bears the risk of loss on loans originated pursuant to the agreement, but also that FCA shares in any residual gains and losses from consumer leases. The agreement also requires that SC ~~maintains~~maintain at least $5.0 billion in funding available for dealer inventory financing and $4.5 billion of financing dedicated to FCA retail financing. In turn, FCA must provide designated minimum threshold percentages of its subvention business to SC.

The Chrysler Agreement has a ten-year term, subject to early termination in certain circumstances, including the failure by either party to comply with certain of their ongoing obligations. These obligations include, for SC, meeting specified escalating penetration rates for the first five years and, for FCA, treating SC in a manner consistent with comparable ~~original equipment manufacturers' ("OEMs")~~OEMs` treatment of their captive providers, primarily regarding sales support. In addition, FCA may also terminate the agreement if, among other circumstances, (i) a person other than Santander or its affiliates or its other stockholders owns 20% or more of its common stock and Santander and its affiliates own fewer shares of common stock than such person, (ii) ~~the Company~~SC becomes, controls, or becomes controlled by, an OEM that competes with Chrysler, or (iii) certain of SC's credit facilities become impaired.

In connection with entering into the Chrysler Agreement, SC paid FCA a $150 million upfront, nonrefundable fee on May 1, 2013. This fee is considered payment for future profits generated from the Chrysler ~~Agreement. Accordingly, the Company amortizes the Chrysler~~ Agreement and is being amortized into Other expenses over the expected ten-year term. In addition, in June 2019, in connection with the execution of the sixth amendment to the Chrysler Agreement, the Company paid a $60 million upfront fee to FCA. This fee is being amortized into Other expenses over the remaining term ~~as a component~~ of ~~net finance and other interest income. The Company~~the Chrysler Agreement. SC has also executed an equity option agreement with FCA, whereby FCA may elect to purchase, at any time during the term of the Chrysler Agreement, at fair market value, an equity participation of any percentage in the Chrysler Capital portion of SC's business.

~~For~~In June 2018, SC announced that it was in exploratory discussions with FCA regarding the future of FCA's U.S. finance operations. FCA announced its then intention to establish a ~~period~~captive U.S. auto finance unit and indicated that acquiring Chrysler Capital is one option it would consider. Subsequently, FCA decided not to establish a captive U.S. auto finance unit, and FCA and the Company entered into the amendment described above as of ~~20 business days after FCA's delivery~~June 2019. The amendment revised previously established retail and lease share (penetration) expectations and clarified key factors associated with the revenue and risk share guidance referenced in the Chrysler Agreement. Pursuant to the amendment, SC made a one-time payment of $60 million to FCA.

FCA has not delivered a notice ~~of intent~~ to exercise its equity option, and the Company isremains committed to ~~discuss with FCA, in good faith,~~ the ~~structure and valuation~~success of ~~the proposed equity participation. If the parties are unable to agree on a structure and FCA still intends to exercise its option, SC will be required to create a new company into which~~ the Chrysler Capital ~~assets will be transferred and which will own and operate the Chrysler Capital~~ business. If FCA and SC cannot agree on a fair market value during the 20-day negotiation period, each party will engage an investment bank and the appointed banks will mutually appoint a third independent investment bank to determine the value, with the cost of the valuation divided evenly between FCA and SC. Each party has the right to a one-time deferral of the independent valuation process for up to nine months. FCA will have a period of 90 days after a valuation has been determined, either by negotiation between the parties or by an investment bank, to deliver a binding notice of exercise. Following this notice, FCA's purchase is to be paid and settled within 10 business days, subject to a delay of up to 180 days if necessary to obtain any required consents from governmental authorities.

On July 1, 2016, due to both its global and U.S. non-branch total consolidated asset size, Santander became subject to both of the provisions of the FBO Final Rule discussed below under the ~~"Supervision and Regulation"~~"Regulatory Matters" section of Item 17, MD&A, of this Form 10-K. As a result of this rule, ownership of several Santander subsidiaries, including Santander BanCorp, BSI, SIS and SSLLC, were transferred to the Company, which became a U.S. ~~intermediate holding company (an "IHC").~~IHC. On July 1, 2017, an additional Santander subsidiary, ~~Santander Financial Services, Inc. (“SFS”),~~SFS, a finance company located in Puerto Rico, was transferred to SHUSA, and on July 2, 2018, another Santander subsidiary, SAM, an investment adviser located in Puerto Rico, was transferred to SHUSA. Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional details.

On October 21, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement to sell the stock of Santander BanCorp (the holding company that owns BSPR) for total consideration of approximately $1.1 billion, subject to adjustment based on the consolidated Santander BanCorp balance sheet at closing. At December 31, 2019, BSPR had 27 branches, approximately 1,000 employees, and total assets of approximately $6.0 billion. Among other conditions precedent to the closing, the transaction requires the Company to transfer all of BSPR's non-performing assets and the equity of SAM to the Company or a third party prior to closing. In addition, the transaction requires review and approval of various regulators, whose input is uncertain. Subject to satisfaction of the closing conditions, the transaction is expected to close in the middle of 2020. Once it becomes apparent that this transaction is more likely than not to receive regulatory approval, the Company will recognize a deferred tax liability of approximately $50 million for the unremitted earnings of Santander BanCorp. Completion of the transaction is not expected to result in any material gain or loss.

The Company's reportable segments are focused principally around the customers the Company serves. In ~~2017,~~2019, the Company has identified the following reportable segments:

The Consumer and Business Banking segment includes the products and services provided to Bank consumer and business banking customers, ~~through the Bank's branch locations,~~ including consumer deposit, business banking, residential mortgage, unsecured lending and investment services. ~~The branch locations offer~~This segment provides a wide range of products and services to consumers and business banking customers, including demand and interest-bearing demand deposit accounts, money market and savings accounts, CDs and retirement savings products. ~~The branch locations~~It also ~~offer~~provides lending products such as credit cards, mortgages, home equity ~~loans and~~ lines of credit, and business loans such as ~~commercial~~business lines of credit and ~~business credit~~commercial cards. In addition, the Bank provides investment services to its retail customers, including annuities, mutual funds, and insurance products. Santander Universities, which provides grants and scholarships to universities and colleges as a way to foster education through research, innovation and entrepreneurship, is the last component of this segment.

The ~~Commercial Banking~~C&I segment ~~currently~~ provides commercial lines, loans, letters of credit, receivables financing and deposits to ~~medium~~medium- and ~~large business banking~~large-sized commercial customers, as well as financing and deposits for government ~~entities,~~entities. This segment also provides niche product financing for specific industries.

The CRE & VF segment provides CRE loans and multifamily loans to customers. This segment also provides commercial loans to dealers and financing for commercial equipment and ~~commercial~~ vehicles. ~~This segment also provides financing and deposits for government entities and niche product financing for specific industries, including oil and gas and mortgage warehousing, among others.~~

The ~~Commercial Real Estate segment offers commercial real estate loans and multifamily loans to customers.~~

SC is a specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. SC’s primary business is ~~the indirect origination of~~indirectly originating RICs, principally through ~~manufacturer-franchised~~OEM-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to retail consumers. In conjunction with ~~a ten-year private label financing agreement with FCA that became effective May 1, 2013~~,the Chrysler Agreement, SC offers a full spectrum of auto financing products and services to FCA customers and dealers under the Chrysler Capital brand. These products and services include consumer RICs and leases, as well as dealer loans for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital and revolving lines of credit. SC also originates vehicle loans through a web-based direct lending program, purchases vehicle RICs from other lenders, and services automobile, recreational and marine vehicle portfolios for other lenders. In ~~the third quarter of~~ 2015, SC ~~announced that it would~~made a strategic decision to exit the personal lending market to focus on its core objectives of expanding the reach and ~~such assets were accordingly classified as held~~realizing the value of its vehicle finance and servicers for ~~sale. In February 2016, SC sold substantially all of the $869.3 million Lending Club portfolio and the remaining portfolio was sold in April 2017.~~

SC continues to hold the Bluestem portfolio, which had a carrying balance of approximately ~~$1.1~~$1.0 billion as of December 31, ~~2017,~~2019, and ~~remain~~remains a party to agreements with Bluestem that includes obligations, among other things, to purchase new advances originated by Bluestem and existing balances on accounts with new advances, for an initial term ending in April 2020 and renewable through April 2022 at Bluestem’s option. Both parties have the right to terminate this agreement upon written notice if certain events were to occur, including if there is a material adverse change in the financial condition of either party. Although a third party is being sought to assume ~~this obligation,~~these obligations, SC may not be successful in finding such a party, and Bluestem may not agree to the substitution. The Bluestem portfolio continues to be classified as ~~held-for sale.~~held-for-sale. Significant lower-of-cost-or-market adjustments have been recorded on this portfolio and may continue as long as SC holds the portfolio, particularly due to the purchase commitments. There is a risk that material changes to SC’s relationship with Bluestem, or the loss or discontinuance of Bluestem’s business, would materially and adversely affect SC’s business, financial condition and results of operations. On March 9, 2020, Bluestem Brands, Inc., together with certain of its affiliates, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

SC has entered into a number of intercompany agreements with the Bank. All intercompany revenue and fees between the Bank and SC are eliminated in the consolidated results of the Company.

The financial results for each of these reportable segments are included in Note 23 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and are discussed in Item 7, "Line of Business Results" within the ~~Management's Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations ("~~MD~~&A")~~&A section of this Form 10-K. These results have been presented based on the Company's management structure and management accounting practices. The structure and accounting practices are specific to the Company and, as a result, the financial results of the Company's reportable segments are not necessarily comparable with similar information for other financial institutions.

The Other category includes certain immaterial subsidiaries such as BSI, ~~Banco Santander Puerto Rico,~~BSPR, SIS, SSLLC, and SFS, the unallocated interest expense on the Company's borrowings and other debt obligations and certain unallocated corporate income and indirect expenses.

At December 31, ~~2017,~~2019, the Company had approximately ~~17,000~~16,900 employees among itself and its subsidiaries. No Company employees are represented by a collective bargaining agreement.

The Bank is subject to substantial competition in attracting and retaining deposits and in lending funds. The primary factors in competing for deposits include the ability to offer attractive rates, the convenience of office locations, the availability of alternate channels of distribution, and servicing capabilities. Direct competition for deposits comes primarily from other national, regional, and state banks, thrift institutions, and ~~broker dealers.~~broker-dealers. Competition for deposits also comes from money market mutual funds, corporate and government securities, and credit unions. The primary factors driving competition for commercial and consumer loans are interest rates, loan origination fees, service levels and the range of products and services offered. Competition for originating loans normally comes from thrift institutions, national and state banks, mortgage bankers, mortgage brokers, finance companies, and insurance companies.

The Company also provides investment management, broker-dealer and private banking services for its clients. We face competition in providing these services from trust companies, full-service banks, asset managers, investment advisors, securities dealers, mutual fund companies, and other financial institutions.

SC is also subject to substantial competition, particularly in the automobile finance industry. SC competes on the pricing ~~it offers~~offered on ~~its~~ loans and leases as well as the customer service SC provides automobile dealer customers. Pricing for these loans and leases is transparent because SC, along with its competitors, provides pricing and other terms and conditions for loans and leases through web-based credit application aggregation platforms. When dealers submit applications for consumers acquiring vehicles, they can compare SC's terms and conditions against its competitors’ pricing. Dealer relationships are important in the automotive finance industry. Vehicle finance providers tailor product offerings to meet dealers' needs. SC's primary competitors in the vehicle finance space are national and regional banks, credit unions, independent financial institutions, and the affiliated finance companies of automotive manufacturers.

SHUSA is a ~~bank holding company (“BHC”)~~BHC pursuant to the ~~Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “BHC Act”).~~BHC Act. As a BHC, the Company is subject to consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve. SBNA is ~~an FDIC-insured~~a national bank ~~authorized~~chartered under the National Bank Act and subject to supervision by the ~~OCC.~~OCC and a member of the FDIC. In addition, the CFPB has oversight over SHUSA, SBNA, and SHUSA’s other non-bank affiliates, including SC, for compliance with federal consumer protection laws.

Refer to the "Regulatory Matters" section within Item 7- MD&A for discussion of current regulatory matters impacting the Company.

Federal laws restrict the types of activities in which BHCs may engage, and subject them to a range of supervisory requirements, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and policies. BHCs may engage in the business of banking and managing and controlling banks, as well as closely-related activities.

The Company would be required to obtain approval from the Federal Reserve if the Company were to acquire shares of any depository institution or any holding company of a depository institution, or any financial entity that is not a depository institution, such as a lending company.

Under the Change in Bank Control Act, individuals, corporations or other entities acquiring SHUSA's common stock may, alone or together with other investors, be deemed to control the Company and thereby the Bank. Ownership of more than 10% of SHUSA’s capital stock may be deemed to constitute “control” if certain other control factors are present. If deemed to control the Company, those persons or groups would be required to obtain the Federal Reserve's approval to acquire the Company’s common stock and could be subject to certain ongoing reporting procedures and restrictions under federal law and regulations.

The federal banking agencies adopted certain operational and managerial standards for depository institutions, including internal audit system components, loan documentation requirements, asset growth parameters, information technology and data security practices, and compensation standards for officers, directors and employees.

The Bank is a member of the Deposit Insurance Fund, which is administered by the FDIC. The Bank's and BSPR's deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the FDIC. The FDIC assesses deposit insurance premiums and is authorized to conduct examinations of, and require reporting by, FDIC-insured institutions like the Bank and BSPR. It also may prohibit any FDIC-insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund. The FDIC also has the authority to initiate enforcement actions against banking institutions and may terminate an institution’s deposit insurance if it determines that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices or is in an unsafe or unsound condition.

The FDIC charges financial institutions deposit premium assessments to ensure it has reserves to cover deposits that are under FDIC-insured limits, which is currently $250,000 per depositor per ownership category for each ownership deposit account category.

FDIC insurance premium expenses were $60.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2019.

Under the FDIA, insured depository institutions must be classified in one of five defined tiers (well-capitalized, adequately-capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized). Under OCC regulations, an institution is considered “well-capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or greater, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8% or greater, (iii) has a CET1 capital ratio of 6.5% or greater, (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% or greater and (v) is not subject to any order or written directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level. As of December 31, 2019, the Bank met the criteria to be classified as “well capitalized.”

If capital levels fall to significantly or critically undercapitalized levels, further material restrictions can be imposed, including restrictions on interest payable on accounts, dismissal of management and, in critically undercapitalized situations, appointment of a receiver or conservator. Critically undercapitalized institutions generally may not, beginning 60 days after becoming critically undercapitalized, make any payment of principal or interest on their subordinated debt. All but well-capitalized institutions are prohibited from accepting brokered deposits without prior regulatory approval. Pursuant to the FDIA and OCC regulations, institutions which are not categorized as well-capitalized or adequately-capitalized are restricted from making capital distributions, which include cash dividends, stock redemptions and repurchases, cash-out mergers, interest payments on certain convertible debt and other transactions charged to the institution’s capital account.

~~Foreign Banking Organizations (“FBOs”~~Federal banking laws, regulations and policies limit the Bank’s ability to pay dividends and make other distributions to the Company. The Bank must obtain prior OCC approval to declare a dividend or make any other capital distribution if, after such dividend or distribution: (1) the Bank’s total distributions to the Company within that calendar year would exceed 100% of its net income during the year plus retained net income for the prior two years; (2) the Bank would not meet capital levels imposed by the OCC in connection with any order, or (3) the Bank is not adequately capitalized at the time. In addition, the OCC's prior approval is required if the OCC deems it to be in troubled condition or a problem institution.

Any dividends declared and paid have the effect of reducing the Bank’s Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets and risk-based capital ratios. During 2019, 2018, and 2017, the Company paid cash dividends of $400.0 million, $410.0 million and $10.0 million, respectively. During 2019, 2018 and 2017, the Company paid cash dividends to preferred shareholders of zero, $11.0 million and $14.6 million, respectively. During the third quarter of 2018, SHUSA redeemed all of its outstanding preferred stock.

Under Federal Reserve regulations, the Bank is required to maintain a reserve against its transaction accounts (primarily interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing checking accounts). Because reserves must generally be maintained in cash or in low-interest-bearing accounts, the effect of the reserve requirements is to reduce an institution’s asset yields.

The amount of total reserve requirements at December 31, 2019 and 2018 were $534.6 million and $429.0 million, respectively. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company complied with these reserve requirements.

The FHLB system was created in 1932 and consists of 11 regional FHLBs. FHLBs are federally-chartered but privately owned institutions created by Congress. The Federal Housing Finance Agency is an agency of the federal government that is charged with overseeing the FHLBs. Each FHLB is owned by its member institutions. The primary purpose of the FHLBs is to provide funding to their members for making housing loans as well as for affordable housing and community development lending. FHLBs are generally able to make advances to their member institutions at interest rates that are lower than could otherwise be obtained by such institutions. As a member, the Bank is required to make minimum investments in FHLB stock based on its level of borrowings from the FHLB. The Bank is a member of and held investments in the FHLB of Pittsburgh which totaled $316.4 million as of December 31, 2019, compared to $230.1 million at December 31, 2018. The Bank utilizes advances from the FHLB to fund balance sheet growth, provide liquidity and for asset and liability management purposes. The Bank had access to advances with the FHLB of up to $17.3 billion at December 31, 2019, and had outstanding advances of $7.0 billion or 41% of total availability at that date. The level of borrowing capacity the Bank has with the FHLB of Pittsburgh is contingent upon the level of qualified collateral the Bank holds at a given time.

The Bank received $16.6 million and $6.6 million in dividends on its stock in the FHLB of Pittsburgh in 2019 and 2018, respectively.

Several federal laws, including the Bank Secrecy Act, the Money Laundering Control Act, and the USA Patriot Act require all financial institutions to, among other things, implement policies and procedures relating to anti-money laundering, compliance, suspicious activities, currency transaction reporting and due diligence on customers. The USA Patriot Act substantially broadened existing anti-money laundering legislation and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the U.S., imposed compliance and due diligence obligations, created criminal penalties, compelled the production of documents located both inside and outside the U.S., including those of non-U.S. institutions that have a correspondent relationship in the U.S., and clarified the safe harbor from civil liability to clients. The U.S. Treasury has issued a number of regulations that further clarify the USA Patriot Act’s requirements and provide more specific guidance on their application.

Under the GLBA, financial institutions are required to disclose to their retail customers their policies and practices with respect to sharing nonpublic customer information with their affiliates and non-affiliates, how they maintain customer confidentiality, and how they secure customer information. Customers are required under the GLBA to be provided with the opportunity to “opt out” of information sharing with non-affiliates, subject to certain exceptions.

Environmentally-related hazards are a source of high risk and potentially significant liability for financial institutions related to their loans. Environmentally contaminated properties owned by an institution’s borrowers may result in a drastic reduction in the value of the collateral securing the institution’s loans to such borrowers, high environmental cleanup costs to the borrower affecting its ability to repay its loans, the subordination of any lien in favor of the institution to a state or federal lien securing clean-up costs, and liability to the institution for cleanup costs if it forecloses on the contaminated property or becomes involved in the management of the borrower. To minimize this risk, the Bank may require an environmental examination of, and reports with respect to, the property of any borrower or prospective borrower if circumstances affecting the property indicate a potential for contamination, taking into consideration the potential loss to the institution in relation to the burdens to the borrower. Such examination must be performed by an engineering firm experienced in environmental risk studies and acceptable to the institution, and the costs of such examinations and reports are the responsibility of the borrower. These costs may be substantial and may deter a prospective borrower from entering into a loan transaction with the Bank. The Company is not aware of any borrower which is currently subject to any environmental investigation or clean-up proceeding or any other environmental matter that is likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or results of operations of SHUSA or its subsidiaries.

The Company conducts its securities and investment business activities through its subsidiaries SIS and SSLLC. SIS and SSLLC are registered broker-dealers with the SEC and members of FINRA. SIS’s activities include investment banking, institutional sales, trading and offering research reports of Latin American and European equity and fixed income securities. SIS, SSLLC and SAM are also registered investment advisers with the SEC, and BSI conducts certain securities transactions exempt from SEC registration on behalf of its clients.

All reports filed electronically by the Company with the SEC, including the Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K, as well as any amendments to those reports, are accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Our filings are also accessible through our website at https://www.santanderus.com/us/investorshareholderrelations. The information contained on our website is not being incorporated herein and is provided for the information of the reader and are not intended to be active links.

The Company is subject to a number of risks that if realized could affect its business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and access to liquidity materially. As a financial services organization, certain elements of risk are inherent in our businesses. Accordingly, the Company encounters risk as part of the normal course of its businesses. Some of the Company’s more significant challenges and risks include the following:

The above list is not exhaustive, and we face additional challenges and risks. Please carefully consider all of the information in this Form-K including matters set forth in this "Risk Factors" section.

Risk management and mitigation are important parts of the Company's business model and integrated into the Company's day-to-day operations. The success of the Company's business is dependent on management's ability to identify, understand, manage and mitigate the risks presented by business activities in light of the Company's strategic and financial objectives. These risks include credit risk, market risk, capital risk, liquidity risk, operational risk, model risk, investment risk, compliance and legal risk, and strategic and reputational risk. We discuss our principal risk management processes in the Risk Management section included in Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The following are the most significant risk factors that affect the Company. Any one or more of these could have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows, in addition to presenting other possible adverse consequences, many of which are described below. These risk factors and other risks we may face are also discussed further in other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our loan portfolios are concentrated in the United States. Accordingly, the recoverability of our loan portfolios and our ability to increase the amount of loans outstanding and our results of operations and financial condition in general are dependent to a significant extent on the level of economic activity in the United States. A return to recessionary conditions in the United States economy would likely have a significant adverse impact on our loan portfolios and, as a result, on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

We face, among others, the following risks in the event of an economic downturn or another recession:

Despite the long-term expansion of the U.S. economy, some uncertainty remains regarding U.S. monetary policy and the future economic environment. There can be no assurance that economic conditions will continue to improve. Such economic uncertainty could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations. A downturn of the economic expansion or failure to sustain the economic recovery would likely aggravate the adverse effects of these difficult economic and market conditions on us and on others in the financial services industry.

In addition, these concerns continue even as the global economy recovers, and some previously stressed European economies have experienced at least partial recoveries from their low points during the recession. If measures to address sovereign debt and financial sector problems in Europe are inadequate, they may delay or weaken economic recovery, or result in the further exit of member states from the Eurozone or more severe economic and financial conditions. If realized, these risk scenarios could contribute to severe financial market stress or a global recession, likely affecting the economy and capital markets in the United States as well.

Increased disruption and volatility in the financial markets could have a material adverse effect on us, including our ability to access capital and liquidity on financial terms acceptable to us, if at all. If capital markets financing ceases to become available, or becomes excessively expensive, we may be forced to raise the rates we pay on deposits to attract more customers and become unable to maintain certain liability maturities. Any such decrease in capital markets funding availability or increased costs or in deposit rates could have a material adverse effect on our net interest margins and liquidity.

If some or all of the foregoing risks were to materialize, they could have a material adverse effect on us.

While the United States economy has performed well overall, it has experienced volatility in recent periods, characterized by slow or regressive growth. This volatility has resulted in fluctuations in the levels of deposits at depository institutions and in the relative economic strength of various segments of the economy to which we lend.

Negative and fluctuating economic conditions, such as a changing interest rate environment, impact our profitability by causing lending margins to decrease and leading to decreased demand for higher margin products and services. Negative and fluctuating economic conditions could also result in government defaults on public debt. This could affect us in two ways: directly, through portfolio losses, and indirectly, through instabilities that a default on public debt could cause to the banking system as a whole, particularly since commercial banks' exposure to government debt is high in certain Latin American and European regions or countries.

In addition, our revenues are subject to risk of loss from unfavorable political and diplomatic developments, social instability, and changes in governmental policies, international ownership legislation, interest rate caps and tax policies. Growth, asset quality and profitability may be affected by volatile macroeconomic and political conditions.

There is uncertainty about how proposals and initiatives of the current U.S. presidential administration or the broader government could directly or indirectly impact the Company. Although certain proposals and initiatives, such as income tax reform or increased spending on infrastructure projects, could result in greater economic activity and more expansive U.S. domestic economic growth,

other initiatives, such as protectionist trade policies or isolationist foreign policies, could constrict economic growth. The continued uncertainty around these proposals and initiatives, could increase market volatility and affect the Company’s businesses directly or indirectly, including through the effects of such proposals and initiatives on the Company’s customers and/or counterparties.

Implementing the results of the U.K.’s referendum on remaining part of the EU has had and may continue to have negative effects on global economic conditions and global financial markets. The U.K.'s decision to withdraw from the EU, and the U.K.'s implementation of that referendum, means that the U.K.'s EU membership will cease. The long-term nature of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU is unclear (including with respect to the laws and regulations that will apply as the U.K. determines which EU laws to replicate or replace) and, as negotiations continue in 2020, uncertainty remains as to when the framework for any such relationship governing both the access of the U.K. to European markets and the access of EU member states to the U.K.’s markets will be determined and implemented, and whether such a framework will be established prior to the U.K. leaving the EU. The result of the referendum has created an uncertain political and economic environment in the U.K., and may create such environments in other EU member states. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned that the U.K. exiting the EU could lead to considerable financial instability, a very significant fall in property prices, rising unemployment, depressed economic growth, and higher inflation and interest rates. This could affect the U.K.’s attractiveness as a global investment center, and contribute to a detrimental impact on U.K. economic growth. These developments, or the perception that they could occur, could have a material adverse effect on economic conditions and the stability of financial markets in the U.K., and could significantly reduce market liquidity and restrict the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. While the Company does not maintain a presence in the U.K., political and economic uncertainty in countries with significant economies and relationships to the global financial industry have in the past led to declines in market liquidity and activity levels, volatile market conditions, a contraction of available credit, lower or negative interest rates, weaker economic growth and reduced business confidence on an international level, each of which could adversely affect our business.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced in July 2017 that it will no longer persuade or require banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021. This announcement suggests that LIBOR is likely to be discontinued or modified by 2021.

Several international working groups are focused on transition plans and alternative contract language seeking to address potential market disruption that could arise from the replacement of LIBOR with a new reference rate. For example, in the U.S., the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a group convened by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and comprised of private sector entities, banking regulators and other financial regulators, including the SEC, has identified the SOFR as its preferred alternative for LIBOR. SOFR is a measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight, collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, and is based on observable U.S. Treasury-backed repurchase transactions. In addition, the ISDA is working to develop alternative contract language applicable in the event of LIBOR’s discontinuation that could apply to derivatives entered into on ISDA documentation. Separately, the SEC issued a statement in July 2019 encouraging market participants to focus on managing the transition from LIBOR prior to 2021 to avoid business and market disruptions, including incorporating fallback language in contracts in the event LIBOR is unavailable and proactive negotiations with counterparties to existing contracts that utilize LIBOR as a reference rate.

The Company, in collaboration with its subsidiaries and affiliates, is engaged in an enterprise-wide initiative to identify, assess and monitor risks associated with the potential discontinuation or unavailability of LIBOR and the transition to use of alternative reference rates such as SOFR. As part of these efforts, the Company has established a LIBOR Transition Steering Committee that includes the Company’s Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer and representatives of the Company’s significant subsidiaries and business lines. Among other matters, the Company is identifying assets and liabilities tied to LIBOR, the exposure of its subsidiaries to LIBOR, the degree to which fallback language currently exists in the Company’s contracts that reference LIBOR, and monitoring relevant industry developments and publications by market associations and clearing houses.

While we have begun the process of identifying existing contracts that extend past 2021 to determine their exposure to LIBOR, there can be no assurance that we and other market participants will be adequately prepared for an actual discontinuation of LIBOR, or of the timing of the adoption and degree of integration of alternative reference rates in financial markets relevant to us. If LIBOR ceases to exist, or if new methods of calculating LIBOR are established, interest rates on our loans, deposits, derivatives and other financial instruments tied to LIBOR, as well as revenue and expenses associated with those financial instruments, may be adversely affected, and financial markets relevant to us could be disrupted. As of December 31, 2019, we have approximately $24 billion of assets and approximately $14 billion of liabilities with LIBOR exposure. We also have approximately $63 billion in notional amounts of off-balance sheet contracts with LIBOR exposure.

Even if financial instruments are transitioned to alternative reference rates successfully, the new reference rates are likely to differ from the previous reference rates, and the value and return on those instruments could be impacted adversely. We could also be subject to increased costs due to paying higher interest rates on our existing financial instruments. We could incur legal risks in the event of such changes, as renegotiation and changes to documentation for new and existing transactions may be required, especially if parties to an instrument cannot agree on how to effect the transition. We could also incur further operational risks due to the potential need to adapt information technology systems, trade reporting infrastructure, and operational processes and controls, including models and hedging strategies.

In addition, it is possible that LIBOR quotes will become unavailable prior to 2021. This could result, for example, if a sufficient number of banks decline to make submissions to the LIBOR administrator. In that scenario, risks associated with the transition away from LIBOR would be accelerated for us and the rest of the financial industry.

As a financial institution, the Company is subject to extensive regulation, which materially affects our businesses. The statutes, regulations, and policies to which the Company is subject may change at any time. In addition, regulators' interpretation and application of the laws and regulations to which the Company is subject may change from time to time. Extensive legislation affecting the financial services industry has been adopted in the United States, and regulations have been and are in the process of being implemented. The manner in which those laws and related regulations are applied to the operations of financial institutions is still evolving. Any legislative or regulatory actions and any required or other changes to our business operations resulting from such legislation and regulations could result in significant loss of revenue, limit our ability to pursue business opportunities in which we might otherwise consider engaging and provide certain products and services, affect the value of assets we hold, compel us to increase our prices and therefore reduce demand for our products, impose additional compliance and other costs on us or otherwise adversely affect our businesses. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that future changes in regulations or in their interpretation or application will not affect us adversely.

Regulation of the Company as a BHC includes limitations on permissible activities. Moreover, the Company and the Bank are required to perform stress tests and submit capital plans to the Federal Reserve and the OCC on an annual basis, and receive a notice of non-objection to the plans from the Federal Reserve and the OCC before taking capital actions such as paying dividends, implementing common equity repurchase programs, or redeeming or repurchasing capital instruments. The Federal Reserve may also impose substantial fines and other penalties and enforcement actions for violations we may commit, and has the authority to disallow acquisitions we or our subsidiaries may contemplate, which may limit our future growth plans. Such constraints currently applicable to the Company and its subsidiaries and/or regulatory actions could have an adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

Other regulations that significantly affect the Company, or that could significantly affect the Company in the future, relate to capital requirements, liquidity and funding, taxation of the financial sector, and development of regulatory reforms in the United States.

In addition, the volume, granularity, frequency and scale of regulatory and other reporting requirements necessitate a clear data strategy to enable consistent data aggregation, reporting and management. Inadequate management information systems or processes, including those relating to risk data aggregation and risk reporting, could lead to a failure to meet regulatory reporting requirements or other internal or external information demands that may result in supervisory measures.

From time to time, we are or may become subject to or involved in formal and informal reviews, investigations, examinations, proceedings, and information gathering requests by federal and state government agencies, including, among others, the FRB, the OCC, the CFPB, the FDIC, the DOJ, the SEC, FINRA the Federal Trade Commission and various state regulatory and enforcement agencies.

The DFA will continue to result in significant structural reforms affecting the financial services industry. This legislation provided for, among other things, the establishment of the CFPB with broad authority to regulate the credit, savings, payment and other consumer financial products and services we offer, the creation of a structure to regulate systemically important financial companies, more comprehensive regulation of the OTC derivatives market, prohibitions on engaging in certain proprietary trading activities, restrictions on ownership of, investment in or sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity funds and restrictions on interchange fees earned through debit card transactions.

The DFA provides for an extensive framework for the regulation of OTC derivatives, including mandatory clearing, exchange trading and transaction reporting of certain OTC derivatives. Entities that are swap dealers, security-based swap dealers, major swap participants or major security-based swap participants are required to register with the SEC, the U.S. CFTC or both, and are or will be subject to new capital, margin, business conduct, record-keeping, clearing, execution, reporting and other requirements. We may register as a swap dealer with the CFTC.

Within the DFA, the Volcker Rule prohibits “banking entities” from engaging in certain forms of proprietary trading and from sponsoring or investing in covered funds, in each case subject to certain exceptions. The Volcker Rule also limits the ability of banking entities and their affiliates to enter into certain transactions with such funds with which they or their affiliates have certain relationships. The final regulations implementing the Volcker Rule contain exclusions and certain exemptions for market-making, hedging, underwriting, and trading in United States government and agency obligations as well as certain foreign government obligations, and trading solely outside the United States, and also permit certain ownership interests in certain types of funds to be retained.

Under regulations issued by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, and as required by Section 165(d) of the DFA, we and Santander must provide to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC a Section 165(d) Resolution Plan. The purpose of this DFA provision is to provide regulators with plans that would enable them to resolve failing financial companies that pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States in a manner that mitigates such risk. The most recently filed Section 165(d) Resolution Plan by Santander, dated as of December 31, 2018, provides a roadmap for the orderly resolution of the material U.S. operations of Santander under hypothetical stress scenarios and the failure of one or more of its U.S. MEs. Material entities are defined as subsidiaries or foreign offices of Santander that are significant to the activities of a critical operation or core business line. The U.S. MEs identified in the 2018 Resolution Plan include, among other entities, the Company, the Bank and SC.

The 2018 Resolution Plan describes a strategy for resolving Santander’s U.S. operations, including its U.S. MEs and the core business lines that operate within those U.S. MEs, in a manner that would substantially mitigate the risk that the resolutions would have serious adverse effects on U.S. or global financial stability. Under the 2018 Resolution Plan’s hypothetical resolutions of the U.S. MEs, the Bank would be placed into FDIC receivership and the Company and SC would be placed into bankruptcy under Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, respectively.

The Company, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC are not obligated to follow the Company’s preferred resolution strategy for resolving its U.S. operations under its resolution plan. In addition, Santander could in the future change its resolution strategy for resolving its U.S. operations. In an alternative scenario, the Company alone could enter bankruptcy under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and the Company’s subsidiaries would be recapitalized as needed, using assets of the Company, so that they could continue normal operations as going concerns or subsequently be wound down in an orderly manner. As a result, the losses incurred by the Company and its subsidiaries would be imposed first on the holders of the Company’s equity securities and thereafter on unsecured creditors, including holders of our LTD and other debt securities. Holders of our LTD and other debt securities would be junior to the claims of creditors of the Company’s subsidiaries and to the claims of priority (as determined by statute) and secured creditors of the Company. Under either of these scenarios, in a resolution of the Company under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, holders of our LTD and other debt securities would realize value only to the extent available to the Company as a shareholder of the Bank, SC and its other subsidiaries, and only after any claims of priority and secured creditors of the Company have been fully repaid.

The ability of holders of our LTD and other debt securities to recover the full amount that would otherwise be payable on those securities in a resolution proceeding under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code may be impaired by the exercise of the FDIC’s powers under the “orderly liquidation authority” under Title II of the DFA.

Title II of the DFA created a new resolution regime known as the “orderly liquidation authority” to which financial companies, including U.S. IHC of FBOs with assets of $50 billion or more, such as the Company, can be subjected. Under the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver to liquidate a financial company if, upon the recommendation of applicable regulators, the United States Secretary of the Treasury determines that the entity is in severe financial distress, the entity’s failure would have serious adverse effects on the U.S. financial system, and resolution under the orderly liquidation authority would avoid or mitigate those effects, among other things. Absent such determinations, the Company would remain subject to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

If the FDIC were appointed as receiver under the orderly liquidation authority, then the orderly liquidation authority, rather than the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, would determine the powers of the receiver and the rights and obligations of creditors and other parties who have transacted with the Company. There are substantial differences between the rights available to creditors under the orderly liquidation authority and under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For example, under the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC may disregard the strict priority of creditor claims in some circumstances (which would otherwise be respected under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code), and an administrative claims procedures is used to determine creditors’ claims (as opposed to the judicial procedure utilized in bankruptcy proceedings). Under the orderly liquidation authority, in certain circumstances, the FDIC could elevate the priority of claims if it determines that doing so is necessary to facilitate a smooth and orderly liquidation without the need to obtain the consent of other creditors or prior court review. Furthermore, the FDIC has the right to transfer assets or liabilities of the failed company to a third party or “bridge” entity under the orderly liquidation authority.

Regardless of what resolution strategy Santander might prefer for resolving its U.S. operations, the FDIC could determine that it is a desirable strategy to resolve the Company in a manner that would, among other things, impose losses on the Company’s shareholder, unsecured debtholders (including holders of our LTD) and other creditors, while permitting the Company’s subsidiaries to continue to operate. It is likely that the application of such an entry strategy in which the Company would be the only legal entity in the U.S. to enter resolution proceedings would result in greater losses to holders of our LTD and other debt securities than the losses that would result from the application of a bankruptcy proceeding or a different resolution strategy for the Company. Assuming the Company entered resolution proceedings and support from the Company to its subsidiaries was sufficient to enable the subsidiaries to remain solvent, losses at the subsidiary level could be transferred to the Company and ultimately borne by the Company’s securityholders (including holders of our LTD and other debt securities), with the result that third-party creditors of the Company’s subsidiaries would receive full recoveries on their claims, while the Company’s securityholders (including holders of our LTD) and other unsecured creditors could face significant losses. In addition, in a resolution under the orderly liquidation authority, holders of our LTD and other debt securities of the Company could face losses ahead of our other similarly situated creditors if the FDIC exercised its right, to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims described above.

The orderly liquidation authority also requires that creditors and shareholders of the financial company in receivership must bear all losses before taxpayers are exposed to any losses, and amounts owed by the financial company or the receivership to the U.S. government would generally receive a statutory payment priority over the claims of private creditors, including holders of our LTD and other debt securities. In addition, under the orderly liquidation authority, claims of creditors (including holders of our LTD and other debt securities) could be satisfied through the issuance of equity or other securities in a bridge entity to which the Company’s assets are transferred, as described above. If securities were to be delivered in satisfaction of claims, there can be no assurance that the value of the securities of the bridge entity would be sufficient to repay all or any part of the creditor claims for which the securities were exchanged.

Although the FDIC has issued regulations to implement the orderly liquidation authority, not all aspects of how the FDIC might exercise this authority are known, and additional rulemaking is possible.

The Company is subject to stress testing and capital planning requirements under regulations implementing the DFA and other banking laws and policies. Effective January 2017, the Federal Reserve finalized a rule adjusting its capital plan and stress testing rules, exempting from the qualitative portion of the CCAR certain BHCs and U.S. IHCs of FBOs with total consolidated assets between $50 billion and $250 billion and total nonbank assets of less than $75 billion, and that are not identified as global systemically important banks. Such firms, including the Company, are still required to meet CCAR’s quantitative requirements and are subject to regular supervisory assessments that examine their capital planning processes. In 2017, 2018, and 2019 the Federal Reserve provided its non-objection to SHUSA’s capital plan; however, in 2015 and 2016, the Federal Reserve, as part of its CCAR process, objected on qualitative grounds to the capital plans the Company submitted. There is risk that the Federal Reserve could object to the Company’s future capital plans, which would limit the Company's ability to make capital distributions or take certain capital actions.

In addition to the foregoing, U.S. bank regulatory agencies from time to time take supervisory actions under certain circumstances that restrict or limit a financial institution’s activities. In many instances, we are subject to significant legal restrictions on our ability to disclose these actions or the full details of these actions publicly. In addition, as part of the regular examination process, certain U.S. subsidiaries’ regulators may advise the subsidiary to operate under various restrictions as a prudential matter. The U.S. supervisory environment has become significantly more demanding and restrictive since the financial crisis of 2008. Under the BHC Act, the Federal Reserve has the authority to disallow us and certain of our U.S. subsidiaries from engaging in certain categories of new activities in the United States or acquiring shares or control of other companies in the United States. Such actions and restrictions currently applicable to us or certain of our U.S. subsidiaries could adversely affect our costs and revenues. Moreover, efforts to comply with nonpublic supervisory actions or restrictions could require material investments in additional resources and systems, as well as a significant commitment of managerial time and attention. As a result, such supervisory actions or restrictions could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations, and we may be subject to significant legal restrictions on our ability to publicly disclose these matters or the full details of these actions.

As noted above, our business and operations are subject to increasingly significant rules and regulations relating to the banking and financial services business. These apply to business operations, affect financial returns, include reserve and reporting requirements, and the conduct of our business. These requirements are established by the relevant central banks and regulatory authorities that authorize, regulate and supervise us in the jurisdictions in which we operate. The relationship between the Company and its customers is also regulated extensively under federal and state consumer protection laws. Among other things, these prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive trading practices, require disclosures of the cost of credit, provide substantive consumer rights, prohibit discrimination in credit transactions, regulate the use of credit report information, provide financial privacy protections, and restrict our ability to raise interest rates.

In their supervisory roles, regulators seek to maintain the safety and soundness of financial institutions with the aim of strengthening, but not guaranteeing, the protection of customers and the financial system. Supervisors' continuing supervision of financial institutions is conducted through a variety of regulatory tools, including the collection of information by way of reports obtained from skilled persons, visits to firms and regular meetings with management to discuss issues such as performance, risk management and strategy. In general, regulators have an outcome-focused regulatory approach that involves proactive enforcement and penalties for infringement. As a result, we face increased supervisory intrusion and scrutiny (resulting in increasing internal compliance costs and supervision fees), and in the event of a breach of our regulatory obligations we are likely to face more stringent regulatory fines.

Some of the regulators focus strongly on consumer protection and on conduct risk. This has included a focus on the design and operation of products, the behavior of customers and the operation of markets. Some of the laws in the relevant jurisdictions in which we operate give regulators the power to make temporary product intervention rules either to improve a company's systems and controls in relation to product design, product management and implementation, or address problems identified with financial products. These problems may potentially cause significant detriment to consumers because of certain product features, governance flaws or distribution strategies. Such rules may prevent institutions from entering into product agreements with customers until such problems have been solved. Some regulators in the jurisdictions in which we operate also require us to be in compliance with training, authorization and supervision of personnel, systems, processes and documentation requirements. Sales practices with retail customers, including incentive compensation structures related to such practices, have recently been a focus of various regulatory and governmental agencies. If we fail to be compliant with such regulations, there would be a risk of an adverse impact on our business from sanctions, fines or other actions imposed by regulatory authorities.

As noted above, we face risk of loss from legal and regulatory proceedings, including tax proceedings that could subject us to monetary judgments, regulatory enforcement actions, fines and penalties. The current regulatory environment reflects an increased supervisory focus on enforcement, combined with uncertainty about the evolution of the regulatory regime, and may lead to material operational and compliance costs. In general, amounts financial institutions pay in settlements of regulatory proceedings or investigations and the severity of terms of regulatory settlements have been increasing. In certain cases, regulatory authorities have required criminal pleas, admissions of wrongdoing, limitations on asset growth, managerial changes, and other extraordinary terms as part of such settlements, all of which could have significant economic consequences for a financial institution.

We are subject to civil and tax claims and party to certain legal proceedings incidental to the normal course of our business from time to time, including in connection with lending activities, relationships with our employees and other commercial or tax matters. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal matters, particularly when the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, or when the cases present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or are in the early stages of investigation or discovery, we cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of these pending matters will be or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. We believe that we have established adequate reserves related to the costs anticipated to be incurred in connection with these various claims and legal proceedings. However, the amount of these provisions is substantially less than the total amount of the claims asserted against us and, in light of the uncertainties involved in such claims and proceedings, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves we have currently accrued. As a result, the outcome of a particular matter may materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations for a particular period, depending upon, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and our level of income for that period.

In addition, from time to time, the Company is, or may become, the subject of governmental and self-regulatory agency information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings and other forms of regulatory inquiry, including by the SEC and law enforcement authorities.

Often, the announcement or other publication of claims or actions that may arise from such litigation and regulatory proceedings or of any related settlement may spur the initiation of similar claims by other customers, clients or governmental entities. In any such claim or action, demands for substantial monetary damages may be asserted against us and may result in financial liability, changes in our business practices or an adverse effect on our reputation or client demand for our products and services. In regulatory settlements since the financial crisis, fines imposed by regulators have increased substantially and may in some cases exceed the profit earned or harm caused by the breach.

Regular and ongoing inspection by our banking and other regulators may result in the need to enhance our regulatory compliance or risk management practices. Such remedial actions may entail significant costs, management attention, and systems development, and such efforts may affect our ability to expand our business until those remedial actions are completed. In some instances, we are subjected to significant legal restrictions on our ability to disclose these types of actions or the full detail of these actions publicly. Our failure to implement enhanced compliance and risk management procedures in a manner and timeframe deemed to be responsive by the applicable regulatory authority could adversely impact our relationship with that regulatory authority and lead to restrictions on our activities or other sanctions.

The magnitude and complexity of projects required to address the Company’s regulatory and legal proceedings, in addition to the challenging macroeconomic environment and pace of regulatory change, may result in execution risk and adversely affect the successful execution of such regulatory or legal priorities.

In many cases, we are required to self-report inappropriate or non-compliant conduct to regulatory authorities, and our failure to do so may represent an independent regulatory violation. Even when we promptly bring matters to the attention of appropriate authorities, we may nonetheless experience regulatory fines, liabilities to clients, harm to our reputation or other adverse effects in connection with self-reported matters.

We are required to comply with anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism and other laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate. These laws and regulations require us, among other things, to adopt and enforce “know-your-customer” policies and procedures and to report suspicious and large transactions to applicable regulatory authorities. These laws and regulations have become increasingly complex and detailed, require improved systems and sophisticated monitoring and compliance personnel, and have become the subject of enhanced government supervision.

While we have adopted policies and procedures aimed at detecting and preventing the use of our banking network for money laundering and related activities, those policies and procedures may not completely eliminate instances in which we may be used by other parties to engage in money laundering and other illegal or improper activities. Emerging technologies, such as cryptocurrencies and blockchain, could limit our ability to track the movement of funds. Our ability to comply with legal requirements depends on our ability to improve detection and reporting capabilities and reduce variation in control processes and oversight accountability.

These require implementing and embedding effective controls and monitoring within our business and on-going changes to systems and operations. Financial crime is continually evolving and subject to increasingly stringent regulatory oversight and focus. Even known threats can never be fully eliminated, and there will be instances in which we may be used by other parties to engage in money laundering or other illegal or improper activities. To the extent we fail to fully comply with applicable laws and regulations, the relevant government agencies to which we report have the authority to impose fines and other penalties on us. In addition, our business and reputation could suffer if customers use our banking network for money laundering or other illegal or improper purposes.

While we review our relevant counterparties’ internal policies and procedures with respect to such matters, to a large degree we rely on our counterparties to maintain and properly apply their own appropriate anti-money laundering procedures. Such measures, procedures and compliance may not be completely effective in preventing third parties from using our and our counterparties’ services as conduits for money laundering (including illegal cash operations) or other illegal activities without our and our counterparties’ knowledge. If we are associated with, or even accused of being associated with, or become a party to, money laundering or other illegal activities, our reputation could suffer and/or we could become subject to fines, sanctions and/or legal enforcement (including being added to any “blacklists” that would prohibit certain parties from engaging in transactions with us), any one of which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and prospects.

The preparation of our tax returns requires the use of estimates and interpretations of complex tax laws and regulations, and is subject to review by taxing authorities. We are subject to the income tax laws of the United States and certain foreign countries. These tax laws are complex and subject to different interpretations by the taxpayer and relevant governmental taxing authorities, which are sometimes subject to prolonged evaluation periods until a final resolution is reached. In establishing a provision for income tax expense and filing returns, we must make judgments and interpretations about the application of these inherently complex tax laws. If the judgments, estimates, and assumptions we use in preparing our tax returns are subsequently found to be incorrect, there could be a material effect on our results of operations.

The legislatures and tax authorities in the jurisdictions in which we operate regularly enact reforms to the tax and other assessment regimes to which we and our customers are subject. Such reforms include changes in the rate of assessments and, occasionally, enactment of temporary taxes, the proceeds of which are earmarked for designated governmental purposes. The effects of these changes and any other changes that result from enactment of additional tax reforms cannot be quantified and there can be no assurance that such reforms would not have an adverse effect upon our business. Aspects of recent U.S. federal income tax reform such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 limit or eliminate certain income tax deductions, including the home mortgage interest deduction, the deduction of interest on home equity loans and a limitation on the deductibility of property taxes. These limitations and eliminations could affect demand for some of our retail banking products and the valuation of assets securing certain of our loans adversely, increasing our provision for loan losses and reducing profitability.

Risks arising from changes in credit quality and the recoverability of loans and amounts due from counterparties are inherent in a wide range of our businesses. Non-performing or low credit quality loans have in the past negatively impacted and can continue to

negatively impact our results of operations. In particular, the amount of our reported NPLs may increase in the future as a result of growth in our total loan portfolio, including as a result of loan portfolios we may acquire in the future, or factors beyond our control, such as adverse changes in the credit quality of our borrowers and counterparties or a general deterioration in economic conditions in the United States, the impact of political events, events affecting certain industries or events affecting financial markets. There can be no assurance that we will be able to effectively control the level of the NPLs in our loan portfolio.

Our loan and lease loss reserves are based on our current assessment of and expectations concerning various factors affecting the quality of our loan portfolio. These factors include, among other things, our borrowers’ financial condition, repayment abilities and repayment intentions, the realizable value of any collateral, the prospects for support from any guarantor, government macroeconomic policies, interest rates and the legal and regulatory environment. As the last global financial crisis demonstrated, many of these factors are beyond our control. As a result, there is no precise method for predicting loan and credit losses, and there can be no assurance that our current or future loan and lease loss reserves will be sufficient to cover actual losses. If our assessment of and expectations concerning the above-mentioned factors differ from actual developments, if the quality of our total loan portfolio deteriorates for any reason, including an increase in lending to individuals and small and medium enterprises, a volume increase in our credit card portfolio or the introduction of new products, or if future actual losses exceed our estimates of incurred losses, we may be required to increase our loan and lease loss reserves, which may adversely affect us. If we were unable to control or reduce the level of our non-performing or poor credit quality loans, this also could have a material adverse effect on us.

In addition, the FASB’s ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments was adopted by the Company on January 1, 2020 and increased our ACL by approximately $2.5 billion. This standard replaces existing incurred loss impairment guidance and establishes a single allowance framework for financial assets carried at amortized cost. Upon adoption of this standard, companies must recognize credit losses on these assets equal to management’s estimate of credit losses over the assets’ remaining expected lives. It is possible that our ongoing reported earnings and lending activity will be impacted negatively in periods following adoption of this ASU. See “Changes in accounting standards could impact reported earnings” below.

Our fixed rate loan and investment portfolios are subject to prepayment risk, which results from the ability of a borrower or issuer to pay a debt obligation prior to maturity. Generally, in a low interest rate environment, prepayment activity increases, and this reduces the weighted average life of our earning assets and could have a material adverse effect on us. We would also be required to amortize net premiums into income over a shorter period of time, thereby reducing the corresponding asset yield and net interest income. Prepayment risk also has a significant adverse impact on credit card and collateralized mortgage loans, since prepayments could shorten the weighted average life of these assets, which may result in a mismatch in our funding obligations and reinvestment at lower yields. Prepayment risk is inherent in our commercial activity, and an increase in prepayments could have a material adverse effect on us.

The value of the collateral securing our loan portfolio may fluctuate or decline due to factors beyond our control, including macroeconomic factors affecting the United States. The value of the collateral securing our loan portfolio may be adversely affected by force majeure events such as natural disasters, particularly in locations in which a significant portion of our loan portfolio is composed of real estate loans. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods may cause widespread damage, which could impair the asset quality of our loan portfolio and have an adverse impact on the economy of the affected region. We also may not have sufficiently recent information on the value of collateral, which may result in an inaccurate assessment of impairment losses of our loans secured by such collateral. If any of the above were to occur, we may need to make additional provisions to cover actual impairment losses on our loans, which may materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, auto industry technology changes, accelerated by environmental rules, could affect our auto consumer business, particularly the residual values of leased vehicles, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and prospects.

We are exposed to counterparty risk in addition to credit risks associated with lending activities. Counterparty risk may arise from, for example, investing in securities of third parties, entering into derivatives contracts under which counterparties have obligations to make payments to us or executing securities, futures, currency or commodity trades that fail to settle at the required time due to non-delivery by the counterparty or systems failure by clearing agents, clearinghouses or other financial intermediaries.

We routinely transact with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, mutual funds, hedge funds and other institutional clients. We rely on information provided by or on behalf of counterparties, such as financial statements, and we may rely on representations of our counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Defaults by, and even rumors or questions about the solvency of, certain financial institutions and the financial services industry generally have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by other institutions. Many routine transactions we enter into expose us to significant credit risk in the event of default by one of our significant counterparties.

Liquidity risk is the risk that we either do not have available sufficient financial resources to meet our obligations as they become due or can secure them only at excessive cost. This risk is inherent in any retail and commercial banking business and can be heightened by a number of enterprise-specific factors, including over-reliance on a particular source of funding, changes in credit ratings or market-wide phenomena such as market dislocation. While we implement liquidity management processes to seek to mitigate and control these risks, unforeseen systemic market factors in particular make it difficult to eliminate these risks completely. Adverse and continued constraints in the supply of liquidity, including inter-bank lending, may materially and adversely affect the cost of funding our business, and extreme liquidity constraints may affect our current operations and our ability to fulfill regulatory liquidity requirements as well as limit growth possibilities.

Our cost of obtaining funding is directly related to prevailing market interest rates and our credit spreads. Increases in interest rates and our credit spreads can significantly increase the cost of our funding. Changes in our credit spreads are market-driven, and may be influenced by market perceptions of our creditworthiness. Changes to interest rates and our credit spreads occur continuously and may be unpredictable and highly volatile.

If wholesale markets financing ceases to be available, or becomes excessively expensive, we may be forced to raise the rates we pay on deposits, with a view to attracting more customers, and/or to sell assets, potentially at depressed prices. The persistence or worsening of these adverse market conditions or an increase in base interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our ability to access liquidity and cost of funding.

We rely, and will continue to rely, primarily on deposits to fund lending activities. The ongoing availability of this type of funding is sensitive to a variety of factors outside our control, such as general economic conditions and the confidence of depositors in the economy in general, and the financial services industry in particular, as well as competition among banks for deposits. Any of these factors could significantly increase the amount of deposit withdrawals in a short period of time, thereby reducing our ability to access deposit funding in the future on appropriate terms, or at all. If these circumstances were to arise, they could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and prospects.

We anticipate that our customers will continue to make deposits (particularly demand deposits and short-term time deposits) in the near future, and we intend to maintain our emphasis on the use of banking deposits as a source of funds. The short-term nature of some deposits could cause liquidity problems for us in the future if deposits are not made in the volumes we expect or are not renewed. If a substantial number of our depositors withdraw their demand deposits, or do not roll over their time deposits upon maturity, we may be materially and adversely affected.

There can be no assurance that, in the event of a sudden or unexpected shortage of funds in the banking system, we will be able to maintain levels of funding without incurring high funding costs, a reduction in the term of funding instruments, or the liquidation of certain assets. If this were to happen, we could be materially adversely affected.

Credit ratings affect the cost and other terms upon which we are able to obtain funding. Rating agencies regularly evaluate us, and their ratings of our debt are based on a number of factors, including our financial strength and conditions affecting the financial services industry generally.

Any downgrade in our or Santander's debt credit ratings would likely increase our borrowing costs and require us to post additional collateral or take other actions under some of our derivatives contracts, and could limit our access to capital markets and adversely affect our commercial business. For example, a ratings downgrade could adversely affect our ability to sell or market certain of our products, engage in certain longer-term and derivatives transactions and retain customers, particularly customers who need a minimum rating threshold in order to invest. In addition, under the terms of certain of our derivatives contracts, we may be required to maintain a minimum credit rating or terminate the contracts. Any of these results of a ratings downgrade, in turn, could reduce our liquidity and have an adverse effect on us, including our operating results and financial condition.

We conduct a significant number of our material derivatives activities through Santander and Santander UK. We estimate that, as of December 31, 2018, if all of the rating agencies were to downgrade Santander’s or Santander UK’s long-term senior debt ratings, we would be required to post additional collateral pursuant to derivatives and other financial contracts. Refer to further discussion in Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

While certain potential impacts of these downgrades are contractual and quantifiable, the full consequences of a credit rating downgrade are inherently uncertain, as they depend on numerous dynamic, complex and inter-related factors and assumptions, including market conditions at the time of any downgrade, whether any downgrade of a company's long-term credit rating precipitates downgrades to its short-term credit rating, and assumptions about the potential behaviors of various customers, investors and counterparties. Actual outflows could be higher or lower than this hypothetical example depending on certain factors, including which credit rating agency downgrades our credit rating, any management or restructuring actions that could be taken to reduce cash outflows and the potential liquidity impact from loss of unsecured funding (such as from money market funds) or loss of secured funding capacity. Although unsecured and secured funding stresses are included in our stress testing scenarios and a portion of our total liquid assets is held against these risks, it is still the case that a credit rating downgrade could have a material adverse effect on the Company, the Bank, and SC.

In addition, if we were required to cancel our derivatives contracts with certain counterparties and were unable to replace those contracts, our market risk profile could be altered.

There can be no assurance that the rating agencies will maintain their current ratings or outlooks. Failure to maintain favorable ratings and outlooks could increase the cost of funding and adversely affect interest margins, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Market risk refers to the probability of variations in our net interest income or in the market value of our assets and liabilities due to volatility of interest rates, exchange rates or equity prices. Changes in interest rates affect the following areas, of our business, among others:

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors beyond our control, including increased regulation of the financial sector, monetary policies, domestic and international economic and political conditions, and other factors. Variations in interest rates could affect our net interest income, which comprises the majority of our revenue, reducing our growth rate and potentially resulting in losses. This is a result of the different effect a change in interest rates may have on the interest earned on our assets and the interest paid on our borrowings. In addition, we may incur costs (which, in turn, will impact our results) as we implement strategies to reduce future interest rate exposure.

Increases in interest rates may reduce the volume of loans we originate. Sustained high interest rates have historically discouraged customers from borrowing and have resulted in increased delinquencies in outstanding loans and deterioration in the quality of assets. Increases in interest rates may also reduce the propensity of our customers to prepay or refinance fixed-rate loans. Increases in interest rates may reduce the value of our financial assets and the collateral used to secure our loans, and may reduce gains or require us to record losses on sales of our loans or securities.

In addition, we may experience increased delinquencies in a low interest rate environment when such an environment is accompanied by high unemployment and recessionary conditions.

We are exposed to foreign exchange rate risk as a result of mismatches between assets and liabilities denominated in different currencies. Fluctuations in the exchange rate between currencies may negatively affect our earnings and value of our assets and securities.

Some of our investment management services fees are based on financial market valuations of assets certain of our subsidiaries manage or hold in custody for clients. Changes in these valuations can affect noninterest income positively or negatively, and ultimately affect our financial results. Significant changes in the volume of activity in the capital markets, and in the number of assignments we are awarded, could also affect our financial results.

We are also exposed to equity price risk in our investments in equity securities. The performance of financial markets may cause changes in the value of our investment and trading portfolios. The volatility of world equity markets due to economic uncertainty and sovereign debt concerns has had a particularly strong impact on the financial sector. Continued volatility may affect the value of our investments in equity securities and, depending on their fair value and future recovery expectations, could become a permanent impairment which would be subject to write-offs against our results. To the extent any of these risks materialize, our net interest income and the market value of our assets and liabilities could be materially adversely affected.

In recent years, financial markets have been subject to volatility and the resulting widening of credit spreads. We have material exposures to securities and other investments that are recorded at fair value and are therefore exposed to potential negative fair value adjustments. Asset valuations in future periods, reflecting then-prevailing market conditions, may result in negative changes in the fair values of our financial assets, and also may translate into increased impairments. In addition, the value we ultimately realize on

disposal of the asset may be lower than its current fair value. Any of these factors could require us to record negative fair value adjustments, which may have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and prospects.

In addition, to the extent fair values are determined using financial valuation models, such values may be inaccurate or subject to change, as the data used by such models may not be available or may become unavailable due to changes in market conditions, particularly for illiquid assets and in times of economic instability. In such circumstances, our valuation methodologies require us to make assumptions, judgments and estimates in order to establish fair value, and reliable assumptions are difficult to make and are inherently uncertain. In addition, valuation models are complex, making them inherently imperfect predictors of actual results. Any resulting impairments or write-downs could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and prospects.

We enter into derivatives transactions for trading purposes as well as for hedging purposes. We are subject to market, credit and operational risks associated with these transactions, including basis risk (the risk of loss associated with variations in the spread between the asset yield and the funding and/or hedge cost) and credit or default risk (the risk of insolvency or other inability of the counterparty to a particular transaction to perform its obligations thereunder, including providing sufficient collateral).

The execution and performance of derivatives transactions depend on our ability to maintain adequate control and administration systems and to hire and retain qualified personnel. Moreover, our ability to adequately monitor, analyze and report derivatives transactions continues to depend, to a great extent, on our IT systems. These factors further increase the risks associated with these transactions and could have a material adverse effect on us.

In addition, disputes with counterparties may arise regarding the terms or the settlement procedures of derivatives contracts, including with respect to the value of underlying collateral, which could cause us to incur unexpected costs, including transaction, operational, legal and litigation costs, or result in credit losses, all of which may impair our ability to manage our risk exposure from these products.

The management of risk is an integral part of our activities. We seek to monitor and manage our risk exposure through a variety of separate but complementary financial, credit, market, operational, compliance and legal reporting systems. Although we employ a broad and diversified set of risk monitoring and risk mitigation techniques, such techniques and strategies may not be fully effective in mitigating our risk exposure in all economic market environments or against all types of risk, including risks that we fail to identify or anticipate.

We rely on quantitative models to measure risks and estimate certain financial values. Models may be used in such processes as determining the pricing of various products, grading loans and extending credit, measuring interest rate and other market risks, predicting losses, assessing capital adequacy, and calculating economic and regulatory capital levels, as well as estimating the value of financial instruments and balance sheet items. Poorly designed or implemented models present the risk that our business decisions based on information incorporating models will be adversely affected due to the inadequacy of that information. Also, information we provide to the public or our regulators based on poorly designed or implemented models could be inaccurate or misleading.

Some of our qualitative tools and metrics for managing risk are based on our use of observed historical market behavior. We apply statistical and other tools to these observations to arrive at quantifications of our risk exposures. These qualitative tools and metrics may fail to predict future risk exposures. These risk exposures could, for example, arise from factors we did not anticipate or correctly evaluate in our statistical models. This would limit our ability to manage our risks. Our losses therefore could be significantly greater than the historical measures indicate. In addition, our quantified modeling does not take all risks into account. Our more qualitative approach to managing those risks could prove insufficient, exposing us to material unanticipated losses. We could face adverse consequences as a result of decisions based on models that are poorly developed, implemented, or used, or as a result of a modeled outcome being misunderstood or used of for purposes for which it was not designed. In addition, if existing or potential customers believe our risk management is inadequate, they could take their business elsewhere or seek to limit transactions with us. This could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, operating results, financial condition, and prospects.

As a commercial bank, one of the main types of risks inherent in our business is credit risk. For example, an important feature of our credit risk management is to employ an internal credit rating system to assess the particular risk profile of a customer. Since this process involves detailed analyses of the customer, taking into account both quantitative and qualitative factors, it is subject to human and IT systems errors. In exercising their judgment on the current and future credit risk of our customers, our employees may not always assign an accurate credit rating, which may result in our exposure to higher credit risks than indicated by our risk rating system.

We have been refining our credit policies and guidelines to address potential risks associated with particular industries or types of customers. However, we may not be able to timely detect all possible risks before they occur or, due to limited tools available to us, our employees may not be able to implement them effectively, which may increase our credit risk. Failure to effectively implement,

consistently follow or continuously refine our credit risk management system may result in an increase in the level of NPLs and a higher risk exposure for us, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Market turmoil and economic recession could materially and adversely affect the liquidity, businesses and/or financial condition of our borrowers, which could in turn increase our NPL ratios, impair our loan and other financial assets and result in decreased demand for borrowings in general. In addition, our customers may further decrease their risk tolerance to non-deposit investments such as stocks, bonds and mutual funds significantly, which would adversely affect our fee and commission income. Any of the conditions described above could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Most of our operations are conducted through our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to pay dividends, to the extent we decide to do so, depends in part on the ability of our subsidiaries to generate earnings and pay dividends to us. Payment of dividends, distributions and advances by our subsidiaries will be contingent on our subsidiaries’ earnings and business considerations, and are limited by legal and regulatory restrictions. Additionally, our right to receive any assets of our subsidiaries as an equity holder of such subsidiaries upon their liquidation or reorganization will be effectively subordinated to the claims of our subsidiaries’ creditors, including trade creditors.

We face substantial competition in all parts of our business from numerous banks and non-bank providers of financial services, including in originating loans and attracting deposits, providing customer service, the quality and range of products and services, technology, interest rates and overall reputation, and we expect competitive conditions to continue to intensify. Our competition comes principally from other domestic and foreign banks, mortgage banking companies, consumer finance companies, insurance companies and other lenders and purchasers of loans.

There has been a trend towards consolidation in the banking industry, which has created larger and stronger banks with which we must now compete. Some of our competitors are substantially larger than we are, which may give those competitors advantages such as a more diversified product and customer base, the ability to reach more customers and potential customers, operational efficiencies, lower-cost funding and larger branch networks. Many competitors are also focused on cross-selling their products, which could affect our ability to maintain or grow existing customer relationships or require us to offer lower interest rates or fees on our lending products or higher interest rates on deposits. There can be no assurance that increased competition will not adversely affect our growth prospects and therefore our operations. We also face competition from non-bank competitors such as brokerage companies, department stores (for some credit products), leasing and factoring companies, mutual fund and pension fund management companies and insurance companies.

Non-traditional providers of banking services, such as internet based e-commerce providers, mobile telephone companies and internet search engines, may offer and/or increase their offerings of financial products and services directly to customers. These non-traditional providers of banking services currently have an advantage over traditional providers because they are not subject to the same regulatory or legislative requirements to which we are subject. Several of these competitors may have long operating histories, large customer bases, strong brand recognition and significant financial, marketing and other resources. They may adopt more aggressive pricing and rates and devote more resources to technology, infrastructure and marketing.

New competitors may enter the market or existing competitors may adjust their services with unique product or service offerings or approaches to providing banking services. If we are unable to compete successfully with current and new competitors, or if we are unable to anticipate and adapt our offerings to changing banking industry trends, including technological changes, our business may be adversely affected. In addition, our failure to anticipate or adapt to emerging technologies or changes in customer behavior effectively, including among younger customers, could delay or prevent our access to new digital-based markets, which would in turn have an adverse effect on our competitive position and business. Furthermore, the widespread adoption of new technologies, including cryptocurrencies and payment systems, could require substantial expenditures to modify or adapt our existing products and services as we continue to grow our internet and mobile banking capabilities. Our customers may choose to conduct business or offer products in areas that may be considered speculative or risky. Such new technologies and the rise in customer use of internet and mobile banking platforms in recent years could negatively impact our investments in bank premises, equipment and personnel for our branch network. The persistence or acceleration of this shift in demand towards internet and mobile banking may necessitate changes to our retail distribution strategy, which may include closing and/or selling certain branches and restructuring our remaining branches and workforce. These actions could lead to losses on these assets and increased expenditures to renovate, reconfigure or close a number of our remaining branches or otherwise reform our retail distribution channel. Furthermore, our failure to keep pace with innovation or to swiftly and effectively implement such changes to our distribution strategy could have an adverse effect on our competitive position.

If our customer service levels were perceived by the market to be materially below those of our competitors, we could lose existing and potential business. If we are not successful in retaining and strengthening customer relationships, we may lose market share, incur losses on some or all of our activities or fail to attract new deposits or retain existing deposits, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and prospects.

The success of our operations and our profitability depend, in part, on the success of new products and services we offer our clients and our ability to continue offering products and services from third parties. However, we cannot guarantee that our new products and services will be responsive to client demands or successful once they are offered to our clients, or that they will be successful in the future. In addition, our clients’ needs or desires may change over time, and such changes may render our products and services obsolete, outdated or unattractive, and we may not be able to develop new products that meet our clients’ changing needs. Our success is also dependent on our ability to anticipate and leverage new and existing technologies that may have an impact on products and services in the banking industry. Technological changes may further intensify and complicate the competitive landscape and influence client behavior. If we cannot respond in a timely fashion to the changing needs of our clients, we may lose clients, which could in turn materially and adversely affect us.

The introduction of new products and services can entail significant time and resources, including regulatory approvals. Substantial risks and uncertainties are associated with the introduction of new products and services, including technical and control requirements that may need to be developed and implemented, rapid technological change in the industry, our ability to access technical and other information from our clients and the significant and ongoing investments required to bring new products and services to market in

a timely manner at competitive prices. Our failure to manage these risks and uncertainties also exposes us to the enhanced risk of operational lapses, which may result in the recognition of financial statement liabilities. Regulatory and internal control requirements, capital requirements, competitive alternatives, vendor relationships and shifting market preferences may also determine whether initiatives can be brought to market in a manner that is timely and attractive to our clients. Failure to manage these risks in the development and implementation of new products or services successfully could have a material adverse effect on our business and reputation, as well as on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the cost of developing products that are not launched is likely to affect our results of operations. Any or all of these factors, individually or collectively, could have a material adverse effect on us.

We have made business acquisitions for which it is possible that the goodwill which has been attributed to those businesses may have to be written down if our valuation assumptions are required to be reassessed as a result of any deterioration in the business’ underlying profitability, asset quality or other relevant matters. Impairment testing with respect to goodwill is performed annually, more frequently if impairment indicators are present, and includes a comparison of the carrying amount of the reporting unit with its fair value. If the carrying value of the reporting unit is higher than the fair value, the impairment is measured as this excess of carrying value over fair value. We recognized a $10.5 million impairment of goodwill in 2017 primarily due to the unfavorable economic environment in Puerto Rico and the additional adverse effect of Hurricane Maria. We did not recognize any impairments of goodwill in 2018 or 2019. It is reasonably possible we may be required to record impairment of $4.5 billion of goodwill attributable to SC and SBNA in the future. There can be no assurance that we will not have to write down the value attributed to goodwill further in the future, which would not impact risk-based capital ratios adversely, but would adversely affect our results of operations and stockholder's equity.

Our continued success depends in part on the continued service of key members of our management team. The ability to continue to attract, train, motivate and retain highly qualified professionals is a key element of our strategy. The successful implementation of our growth strategy depends on the availability of skilled management, both at our head office and at each of our business units. If we or one of our business units or other functions fails to staff its operations appropriately or loses one or more of its key senior executives and fails to replace them in a satisfactory and timely manner, our business, financial condition and results of operations, including control and operational risks, may be adversely affected.

The financial industry in the United States has experienced and may continue to experience more stringent regulation of employee compensation, which could have an adverse effect on our ability to hire or retain the most qualified employees. In addition, due to our relationship with Santander, we are subject to indirect regulation by the European Central Bank, which has recently imposed compensation restrictions that may apply to certain of our executive officers and other employees under the CRD IV prudential rules. These restrictions may impact our ability to retain our experienced management team and key employees and our ability to attract appropriately qualified personnel, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Third-party vendors provide key components of our business infrastructure such as loan and deposit servicing systems, internet connections and network access. Third parties can be sources of operational risk to us, including with respect to security breaches affecting those parties. We may be required to take steps to protect the integrity of our operational systems, thereby increasing our operational costs and potentially decreasing customer satisfaction. In addition, any problems caused by these third parties, including as a result of their not providing us their services for any reason, their performing their services poorly, or employee misconduct could adversely affect our ability to deliver products and services to customers and otherwise to conduct business, which could lead to reputational damage and regulatory investigations and intervention. Replacing these third-party vendors could also entail significant delays and expense. Further, the operational and regulatory risk we face as a result of these arrangements may be increased to the extent that we restructure them. Any restructuring could involve significant expense to us and entail significant delivery and execution risk, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operations.

If a third party obtains access to our customer information and that third party experiences a cyberattack or breach of its systems, this could result in several negative outcomes for us, including losses from fraudulent transactions, potential legal and regulatory liability and associated damages, penalties and restitution, increased operational costs to remediate the consequences of the third party’s security breach, and harm to our reputation from the perception that our systems or third-party systems or services that we rely on may not be secure.

Maintaining a positive reputation is critical to our attracting and maintaining customers, investors and employees and conducting business transactions with our counterparties. Damage to our reputation can therefore cause significant harm to our business and prospects. Harm to our reputation can arise from numerous sources including, among others, employee misconduct, litigation or regulatory outcomes, failure to deliver minimum standards of service and quality, dealing with sectors that are not well perceived by the public (e.g., weapons industries), dealing with customers on sanctions lists, ratings downgrades, compliance failures, unethical

behavior, and the activities of customers and counterparties, including activities that affect the environment negatively. Further, adverse publicity, regulatory actions or fines, litigation, operational failures or the failure to meet client expectations or other obligations could materially and adversely affect our reputation, our ability to attract and retain clients or our sources of funding for the same or other businesses.

Actions by the financial services industry generally or by certain members of, or individuals in, the industry can also affect our reputation. For example, the role played by financial services firms in the financial crisis and the seeming shift toward increasing regulatory supervision and enforcement have caused public perception of us and others in the financial services industry to decline. Activists increasingly target financial services firms with criticism for relationships with clients engaged in businesses whose products are perceived to be harmful to the health of customers, or whose activities are perceived to affect public safety affect the environment, climate or workers’ rights negatively. Such criticism could increase dissatisfaction among customers, investors and employees of the Company and damage the Company’s reputation. Alternatively, yielding to such activism could damage the Company’s reputation with groups whose views are not aligned with those of the activists. In either case, certain clients and customers may cease to do business with the Company, and the Company’s ability to attract new clients and customers may be diminished.

Preserving and enhancing our reputation also depends on maintaining systems, procedures and controls that address known risks and regulatory requirements, as well as our ability to timely identify, understand and mitigate additional risks that arise due to changes in our businesses and the markets in which we operate, the regulatory environment and customer expectations.

We could suffer significant reputational harm if we fail to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest properly. The failure to adequately address, or the perceived failure to adequately address, conflicts of interest could affect the willingness of clients to deal with us, or give rise to litigation or enforcement actions against us. Therefore, there can be no assurance that conflicts of interest will not arise in the future that could cause material harm to us.

We may be the subject of misinformation and misrepresentations propagated deliberately to harm our reputation or for other deceitful purposes, including by others seeking to gain an illegal market advantage by spreading false information about us. There can be no assurance that we will be able to neutralize or contain false information that may be propagated regarding the Company, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results, financial condition and prospects effectively.

Fraudulent activity associated with our products or networks could cause us to suffer reputational damage, the use of our products to decrease and our fraud losses to be materially adversely affected. We are subject to the risk of fraudulent activity associated with merchants, customers and other third parties handling customer information. The risk of fraud continues to increase for the financial services industry in general. Credit and debit card fraud, identity theft and related crimes are prevalent, and perpetrators are growing more sophisticated. Our resources, customer authentication methods and fraud prevention tools may not be sufficient to accurately predict or prevent fraud. Additionally, our fraud risk continues to increase as third parties that handle confidential consumer information suffer security breaches and we expand our direct banking business and introduce new products and features. Our financial condition, the level of our fraud charge-offs and other results of operations could be materially adversely affected if fraudulent activity were to increase significantly. High-profile fraudulent activity could negatively impact our brand and reputation. In addition, significant increases in fraudulent activity could lead to regulatory intervention and reputational and financial damage to our brands, which could negatively impact the use of our products and services and have a material adverse effect on our business.

The Bank and its subsidiaries have entered into a number of services agreements pursuant to which we render services, such as administrative, accounting, finance, treasury, legal services and others.

United States law applicable to certain financial institutions, including the Bank and other Santander entities and offices in the U.S., establish several procedures designed to ensure that the transactions entered into with or among our subsidiaries and/or affiliates do not deviate from prevailing market conditions for those types of transactions.

The Bank and its affiliates are likely to continue to engage in transactions with their respective affiliates. Future conflicts of interests among our affiliates may arise, which conflicts are not required to be and may not be resolved in SHUSA's favor.

Neither the occurrence nor potential impact of disasters (such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and other severe weather conditions, pandemics, and other significant public health emergencies, dislocations, fires, explosions, or other catastrophic accidents or events), terrorist activities or international hostilities can be predicted. However, these occurrences could impact us directly (for example, by causing significant damage to our facilities, preventing a subset of our employees from working for a prolonged period and otherwise preventing us from conducting our business in the ordinary course), or indirectly as a result of their impact on our borrowers, depositors, other customers, suppliers or other counterparties. We could also suffer adverse consequences to the extent that disasters, terrorist activities or international hostilities affect the financial markets or the economy in general or in any particular region. These types of impacts could lead, for example, to an increase in delinquencies, bankruptcies and defaults that could result in our experiencing higher levels of nonperforming assets, net charge-offs and provisions for credit losses.

Our ability to mitigate the adverse consequences of such occurrences is in part dependent on the quality of our resiliency planning and our ability to anticipate the nature of any such event that may occur. The adverse impact of disasters, terrorist activities or international hostilities also could be increased to the extent that there is a lack of preparedness on the part of national or regional emergency responders or on the part of other organizations and businesses with which we deal.

Our ability to remain competitive depends in part on our ability to maintain, protect and upgrade our IT on a timely and cost-effective basis. We must continually make significant investments and improvements in our IT infrastructure in order to remain competitive. There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain the level of capital expenditures necessary to support the improvement or upgrading of our IT infrastructure in the future. Any failure to improve or upgrade our IT infrastructure and management information systems effectively and in a timely manner could have a material adverse effect on us.

Like other financial institutions with a large customer base, we have been subject to and are likely to continue to be the subject of attempted cyberattacks in light of the fact that we manage and hold confidential personal information of customers in the conduct of our banking operations, as well as a large number of assets. Our business depends on the ability to process a large number of transactions efficiently and accurately, and on our ability to rely on our digital technologies, computer and e-mail services, spreadsheets, software and networks, as well as on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. The proper functioning of financial controls, accounting and other data collection and processing systems is critical to our businesses and our ability to compete effectively. Losses can result from inadequate personnel, inadequate or failed internal control processes and systems, or external events that interrupt normal business operations. We also face the risk that the design of our controls and procedures proves to be inadequate or is circumvented. Although we work with our clients, vendors, service providers, counterparties and other third parties to develop secure transmission capabilities and prevent information security risk, we routinely exchange personal, confidential and proprietary information by electronic means, which may be a target for attempted cyberattacks.

Many companies across the country and in the financial services industry have reported significant breaches in the security of their websites or other systems. Cybersecurity risks have increased significantly in recent years due to the development and proliferation of new technologies, increased use of the internet and telecommunications technology to conduct financial transactions, and increased sophistication and activities of organized crime groups, state-sponsored and individual hackers, terrorist organizations, disgruntled employees and vendors, activists and other third parties. Financial institutions, the government and retailers have in recent years reported cyber incidents that compromised data, resulted in the theft of funds or the theft or destruction of corporate information and other assets.

We take protective measures and continuously monitor and develop our systems to protect our technology infrastructure and data from misappropriation or corruption. We have policies, practices and controls designed to prevent or limit disruptions to our systems and enhance the security of our infrastructure. These include performing risk management for information systems that store, transmit or process information assets identifying and managing risks to information assets managed by third-party service providers through

on-going oversight and auditing of the service providers’ operations and controls. We develop controls regarding user access to software on the principle that access is forbidden to a system unless expressly permitted, limited to the minimum amount necessary for business purposes, and terminated promptly when access is no longer required. We seek to educate and make our employees aware of information security and privacy controls and their specific responsibilities on an ongoing basis.

Nevertheless, while we have not experienced material losses or other material consequences relating to cyberattacks or other information or security breaches, whether directed at us or third parties, our systems, software and networks, as well as those of our clients, vendors, service providers, counterparties and other third parties, may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, misuse, computer viruses or other malicious code, cyberattacks such as denial of service, malware, ransomware, phishing, and other events that could result in security breaches or give rise to the manipulation or loss of significant amounts of personal, proprietary or confidential information of our customers, employees, suppliers, counterparties and other third parties, disrupt, sabotage or degrade service on our systems, or result in the theft or loss of significant levels of liquid assets, including cash. As cybersecurity threats continue to evolve and increase in sophistication, we cannot guarantee the effectiveness of our policies, practices and controls to protect against all such circumstances that could result in disruptions to our systems. This is because, among other reasons, the techniques used in cyberattacks change frequently, cyberattacks can originate from a wide variety of sources, and third parties may seek to gain access to our systems either directly or by using equipment or passwords belonging to employees, customers, third-party service providers or other authorized users of our systems. In the event of a cyberattack or security breach affecting a vendor or other third party entity on whom we rely, our ability to conduct business, and the security of our customer information, could be impaired in a manner to that of a cyberattack or security breach affecting us directly. We also may not receive information or notice of the breach in a timely manner, or we may have limited options to influence how and when the cyberattack or security breach is addressed.

As financial institutions are becoming increasingly interconnected with central agents, exchanges and clearinghouses, they may be increasingly susceptible to negative consequences of cyberattacks and security breaches affecting the systems of such third parties. It could take a significant amount of time for a cyberattack to be investigated, during which time we may not be in a position to fully understand and remediate the attack, and certain errors or actions could be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and remediated, any or all of which could further increase the costs and consequences associated with a particular cyberattack. The perception of a security breach affecting us or any part of the financial services industry, whether correct or not, could result in a loss of confidence in our cybersecurity measures or otherwise damage our reputation with customers and third parties with whom we do business. Should such adverse events occur, we may not have indemnification or other protection from the third party sufficient to compensate or protect us from the consequences.

As attempted cyberattacks continue to evolve in scope and sophistication, we may incur significant costs in our attempts to modify or enhance our protective measures against such attacks to investigate or remediate any vulnerability or resulting breach, or in communicating cyberattacks to our customers. An interception, misuse or mishandling of personal, confidential or proprietary information sent to or received from a client, vendor, service provider, counterparty or third party or a cyberattack could result in our inability to recover or restore data that has been stolen, manipulated or destroyed, damage to our systems and those of our clients, customers and counterparties, violations of applicable privacy and other laws, or other significant disruption of operations, including disruptions in our ability to use our accounting, deposit, loan and other systems and our ability to communicate with and perform transactions with customers, vendors and other parties. These effects could be exacerbated if we would need to shut down portions of our technology infrastructure temporarily to address a cyberattack, if our technology infrastructure is not sufficiently redundant to meet our business needs while an aspect of our technology is compromised, or if a technological or other solution to a cyberattack is slow to be developed. Even if we timely resolve the technological issues in a cyberattack, a temporary disruption in our operations could adversely affect customer satisfaction and behavior, expose us to reputational damage, contractual claims, regulatory, supervisory or enforcement actions, or litigation.

U.S. banking agencies and other federal and state government agencies have increased their attention on cybersecurity and data privacy risks, and have proposed enhanced risk management standards that would apply to us. Such legislation and regulations relating to cybersecurity and data privacy may require that we modify systems, change service providers, or alter business practices or policies regarding information security, handling of data and privacy. Changes such as these could subject us to heightened operational costs. To the extent we do not successfully meet supervisory standards pertaining to cybersecurity, we could be subject to supervisory actions, litigation and reputational damage.

The accounting standard setters and other regulatory bodies periodically change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our Consolidated Financial Statements. These changes can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations, as well as affect the calculation of our capital ratios. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in the restatement of prior period financial statements.

For example, as noted in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K, in June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. The adoption of this standard resulted in the increase in the ACL of approximately $2.5 billion and a decrease to opening retained earnings, net of income taxes, at January 1, 2020. The estimated increase is based on forecasts of expected future economic conditions and is primarily driven by the fact that the allowance will cover expected credit losses over the full expected life of the loan portfolios. The standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s other financial instruments. Additionally, we elected to utilize regulatory relief which will permit us to phase in 25 percent of the capital impact of CECL in our calculation of regulatory capital amounts and ratios in 2020, and an additional 25 percent each subsequent year until fully phased-in by the first quarter of 2023.

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make judgments, estimates and assumptions that affect our Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying notes. Due to the inherent uncertainty in making estimates, actual results reported in future periods may be based upon amounts which differ from those estimates. Estimates, judgments and assumptions are continually evaluated and are based on historical experience and other factors, including expectations of future events that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Revisions to accounting estimates are recognized in the period in which the estimate is revised and in any future periods affected. The accounting policies deemed critical to our results and financial position, based upon materiality and significant judgments and estimates, include impairment of loans and advances, goodwill impairment, valuation of financial instruments, impairment of available-for-sale financial assets, deferred tax assets and provisions for liabilities.

The ACL is a significant critical estimate. Due to the inherent nature of this estimate, we cannot provide assurance that the Company will not significantly increase the ACL or sustain credit losses that are significantly higher than the provided allowance.

The valuation of financial instruments measured at fair value can be subjective, in particular when models are used which include unobservable inputs. Given the uncertainty and subjectivity associated with valuing such instruments it is possible that the results of our operations and financial position could be materially misstated if the estimates and assumptions used prove inaccurate.

If the judgments, estimates and assumptions we use in preparing our Consolidated Financial Statements are subsequently found to be incorrect, there could be a material effect on our results of operations and a corresponding effect on our funding requirements and capital ratios.

Disclosure controls and procedures over financial reporting are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, and recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. We also maintain a system of internal controls over financial reporting. However, these controls may not achieve their intended objectives. Control processes that involve human diligence and compliance, such as our disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting, are subject to lapses in judgement and breakdowns resulting from human failures. Controls can be circumvented by collusion or improper management override. Because of these limitations, there are risks that material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected, and that information may not be reported on a timely basis.

Further, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer from material weaknesses in disclosure controls and processes over financial reporting in the future. If we fail to remediate any future material weaknesses or fail to otherwise maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting in the future, such failure could result in a material misstatement of our annual or quarterly financial statements that would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis and which could cause investors and other users to lose confidence in our financial statements and limit our ability to raise capital. Additionally, failure to remediate the material weaknesses or otherwise failing to maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting may negatively impact our operating results and financial condition, impair our ability to timely file our periodic reports with the SEC, subject us to additional litigation and regulatory actions and cause us to incur substantial additional costs in future periods relating to the implementation of remedial measures.

We filed our Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2015 and certain Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q in 2016 after the time periods prescribed by the SEC’s regulations. Those failures to file our periodic reports within the time periods prescribed by the SEC, among other consequences, resulted in the suspension of our eligibility to use Form S-3 registration statements until we timely filed our SEC periodic reports for a period of 12 months. We timely filed our SEC periodic reports for 12 consecutive months as of November 13, 2017. If in the future we are not able to file our periodic reports within the time periods prescribed by the SEC, among other consequences, we would be unable to use Form S-3 registration statements until we have timely filed our SEC periodic reports for a period of 12 consecutive months. Our inability to use Form S-3 registration statements would increase the time and resources we need to spend if we choose to access the public capital markets.

SC historically has provided a significant source of funding to the Company through earnings. Our investment in SC involves risk, including the possibility that poor operating results of SC could negatively affect the operating results of SHUSA.

Factors that affect the financial results of SC in addition to those which have been previously addressed include, but are not limited to:

In February 2013, SC entered into the Chrysler Agreement with FCA through which SC launched the Chrysler Capital brand on May 1, 2013. Through the Chrysler Capital brand, SC originates private-label loans and leases to facilitate the purchase of FCA vehicles by consumers and FCA-franchised automotive dealers. The financing services SC provides under the Chrysler Agreement include providing (1) credit lines to finance FCA-franchised dealers’ acquisitions of vehicles and other products FCA sells or distributes, (2) automotive loans and leases to finance consumer acquisitions of new and used vehicles at FCA-franchised dealerships, (3) financing for commercial and fleet customers, and (4) ancillary services. In addition, SC may facilitate, for an affiliate, offerings to dealers for dealer loan financing, construction loans, real estate loans, working capital loans, and revolving lines of credit. On June 28, 2019, the Company entered into an amendment of the Chrysler Agreement which modified the Chrysler Agreement to, among other things, adjust certain performance metrics, exclusivity commitments and payment provisions. This amendment also terminated a previously disclosed tolling agreement, dated July 11, 2018, between SC and FCA.

In May 2013, in accordance with the terms of the Chrysler Agreement, SC paid FCA a $150 million upfront, nonrefundable payment, to be amortized over ten years. In addition, in June 2019, in connection with the execution of the amendment to the Chrysler Agreement, SC paid a $60 million upfront fee to FCA. The unamortized portion would be recognized as expense immediately if the Chrysler Agreement were terminated in accordance with its term.

As part of the Chrysler Agreement, SC received limited exclusivity rights to participate in specified minimum percentages of certain of FCA's financing incentive programs, which include loan rate subvention and automotive lease residual support subvention. Among other covenants, SC has committed to certain revenue sharing arrangements. SC bears the risk of loss on loans originated pursuant to the Chrysler Agreement, while FCA shares in any residual gains and losses in respect of automotive leases, subject to specific provisions in the Chrysler Agreement, including limitations on SC’s participation in such gains and losses.

The Chrysler Agreement is subject to early termination in certain circumstances, including SC's failure to meet certain key performance metrics, provided FCA treats SC in a manner consistent with other comparable OEMs. FCA may also terminate the agreement if, among other circumstances, (i) a person other than Santander and its affiliates or SC's other stockholders owns 20% or more of SC’s common stock and Santander and its affiliates own fewer shares of common stock than such person, (ii) SC controls, or becomes controlled by, an OEM that competes with FCA or (iii) certain of SC’s credit facilities become impaired. In addition, under the Chrysler Agreement, FCA has the option to acquire, for fair market value, an equity participation in the business offering and providing the financial services contemplated by the Chrysler Agreement. There is no maximum limit on the size of FCA’s potential equity participation. Although the Chrysler Agreement contains provisions that are designed to address a situation in which the parties disagree on the fair market value of the equity participation interest, there is a risk that SC ultimately receives less than what it believes to be the fair market value for such interest, and the loss of its associated revenue and profits may not be offset fully by the immediate proceeds for such interest. There can be no assurance that SC would be able to re-deploy the immediate proceeds for such interest in other businesses or investments that would provide comparable returns, thereby reducing SC’s profitability.

SC’s ability to realize the full strategic and financial benefits of its relationship with FCA depends in part on the successful development of its Chrysler Capital business, which requires a significant amount of management's time and effort as well as the success of FCA's business. If FCA exercises its equity option, if the Chrysler Agreement (or FCA's limited exclusivity obligations thereunder) were to terminate, or if SC otherwise is unable to realize the expected benefits of its relationship with FCA, including as a result of FCA's bankruptcy or loss of business, there could be a materially adverse impact to SHUSA's and SC’s business, financial condition, results of operations, profitability, loan and lease volume, the credit quality of SHUSA's and SC’s portfolio, liquidity, reputation, funding costs and growth, and SHUSA's and SC's ability to obtain or find other OEM relationships or to otherwise implement our business strategy could be materially adversely affected.

None.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company utilized 760 buildings that occupy a total of 6.7 million square feet, including 184 owned properties with 1.4 million square feet, 453 leased properties with 3.8 million square feet, and 123 sale-and-leaseback properties with 1.5 million square feet. The executive and primary administrative offices for SHUSA and the Bank are located at 75 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts. The Company leases this location. SC's corporate headquarters are located at 1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas. SC leases this location.

Eleven major buildings serve as the headquarters or house significant operational and administrative functions, and are : Operations Center - 2 Morrissey Boulevard, Dorchester, Massachusetts-Leased; Call Center and Operations and Loan Processing Center-Santander Way; 95 Amaral Street, Riverside, Rhode Island-Leased; SHUSA/SBNA Administrative Offices-75 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts-Leased; Call Center and Operations and Loan Processing Center-450 Penn Street, Reading; Pennsylvania-Leased; Loan Processing Center-601 Penn Street; Reading, Pennsylvania-Owned; Operations and Administrative Offices-1130 Berkshire Boulevard, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania-Owned; Operations and Administrative Offices-1401 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida-Owned; Operations and Administrative Offices - San Juan, Puerto Rico-Leased; Computer Data Center - Hato Rey, Puerto Rico-Leased; SAM Administrative Offices-Guaynabo Puerto Rico-leased; and SC Administrative Offices-1601 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas-Leased.

The majority of these eleven Company properties identified above are utilized for general corporate purposes. The remaining 749 properties consist primarily of bank branches and lending offices. Of the total number of buildings, the Bank has 588 retail branches, and BSPR has 27 retail branches.

For additional information regarding the Company's properties refer to Note 6 - "Premises and Equipment" and Note 9 - "Other Assets" in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Report.

Refer to Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for disclosure regarding the lawsuit filed by SHUSA against the IRS and Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for SHUSA’s litigation disclosures, which are incorporated herein by reference.

The Company has one class of common stock. The Company’s common stock was traded on the NYSE under the symbol “SOV” through January 29, 2009. On January 30, 2009, all shares of the Company's common stock were acquired by Santander and de-listed from the NYSE. Following this de-listing, there has not been, nor is there currently, an established public trading market in shares of the Company’s common stock. As of the date of this filing, Santander was the sole holder of the Company’s common stock.

At February 28, 2019, 530,391,043 shares of common stock were outstanding. There were no issuances of common stock during 2019, 2018, or 2017.

During the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 the Company declared and paid cash dividends of $400.0 million, $410.0 million, and $10.0 million respectively, to its shareholder.

Refer to the "Liquidity and Capital Resources" section in Item 7 of the MD&A for the two most recent fiscal years' activity on the Company's common stock.



	SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
(Dollars in thousands)	2019 ⁽¹⁾			2018 ⁽¹⁾			2017⁽¹⁾			2016⁽¹⁾			2015
Balance Sheet Data
Total assets	$	149,499,477		$	135,634,285		$	128,274,525		$	138,360,290		$	141,106,832
Loans HFI, net of allowance	89,059,251			83,148,738			76,795,794			82,005,321			83,779,641
Loans held-for-sale	1,420,223			1,283,278			2,522,486			2,586,308			3,190,067
Total investments ⁽²⁾	19,274,235			15,189,024			16,871,855			19,415,330			22,768,783
Total deposits and other customer accounts	67,326,706			61,511,380			60,831,103			67,240,690			65,583,428
Borrowings and other debt obligations ⁽²⁾⁽³⁾	50,654,406			44,953,784			39,003,313			43,524,445			49,828,582
Total liabilities	125,100,647			111,787,053			104,583,693			115,981,532			119,259,732
Total stockholder's equity	24,398,830			23,847,232			23,690,832			22,378,758			21,847,100
Summary Statement of Operations
Total interest income	$	8,650,195		$	8,069,053		$	7,876,079		$	7,989,751		$	8,137,616
Total interest expense	2,207,427			1,724,203			1,452,129			1,425,059			1,236,210
Net interest income	6,442,768			6,344,850			6,423,950			6,564,692			6,901,406
Provision for credit losses ⁽⁴⁾	2,292,017			2,339,898			2,759,944			2,979,725			4,079,743
Net interest income after provision for credit losses	4,150,751			4,004,952			3,664,006			3,584,967			2,821,663
Total non-interest income ⁽⁵⁾	3,729,117			3,244,308			2,901,253			2,755,705			2,905,035
Total general, administrative and other expenses⁽⁶⁾	6,365,852			5,832,325			5,764,324			5,386,194			9,381,892
Income/(loss) before income taxes	1,514,016			1,416,935			800,935			954,478			(3,655,194		)
Income tax provision/(benefit) ⁽⁷⁾	472,199			425,900			(157,040		)	313,715			(599,758		)
Net income / (loss) ⁽⁹⁾	$	1,041,817		$	991,035		$	957,975		$	640,763		$	(3,055,436	)
Selected Financial Ratios ⁽⁸⁾
Return on average assets	0.73		%	0.76		%	0.71		%	0.45		%	(2.18		)%
Return on average equity	4.23		%	4.11		%	4.10		%	2.88		%	(11.98		)%
Average equity to average assets	17.31		%	18.37		%	17.39		%	15.67		%	18.15		%
Efficiency ratio	62.58		%	60.82		%	61.81		%	57.79		%	95.67		%

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SHUSA is the parent holding company of SBNA, a national banking association, and owns approximately 72.4% (as of December 31, 2019) of SC, a specialized consumer finance company. SHUSA is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts and the Bank's main office is in Wilmington, Delaware. SC is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. SHUSA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Santander. SHUSA is also the parent company of Santander BanCorp , a holding company headquartered in Puerto Rico that offers a full range of financial services through its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, BSPR; SSLLC, a registered broker-dealer headquartered in Boston; BSI, a financial services company headquartered in Miami that offers a full range of banking services to foreign individuals and corporations based primarily in Latin America; SIS, a registered broker-dealer headquartered in New York providing services in investment banking, institutional sales, trading and offering research reports of Latin American and European equity and fixed-income securities; and several other subsidiaries. SSLLC, SIS and another SHUSA subsidiary, Santander Asset Management, LLC, are registered investment advisers with the SEC.

The Bank's principal markets are in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. The Bank uses its deposits, as well as other financing sources, to fund its loan and investment portfolios. The Bank earns interest income on its loan and investment portfolios. In addition, the Bank generates non-interest income from a number of sources, including deposit and loan services, sales of loans and investment securities, capital markets products and BOLI. The principal non-interest expenses include employee compensation and benefits, occupancy and facility-related costs, technology and other administrative expenses. The financial results of the Bank are affected by the economic environment, including interest rates and consumer and business confidence and spending, as well as the competitive conditions within the Bank's geographic footprint.

SC is a specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. SC's primary business is the indirect origination and securitization of RICs, principally through manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to subprime retail consumers. Further information about SC’s business is provided below in the “Chrysler Capital” section.

SC is managed through a single reporting segment which included vehicle financial products and services, including RICs, vehicle leases, and dealer loans, as well as financial products and services related to recreational and marine vehicles and other consumer finance products.

SC also originates vehicle loans through a web-based direct lending program, purchases vehicle RICs from other lenders, and services automobile and recreational and marine vehicle portfolios for other lenders. Additionally, SC has other relationships through which it holds other consumer finance products. However, in 2015, SC announced its exit from personal lending and, accordingly, all of its personal lending assets are classified as HFS at December 31, 2019.

Since May 2013, under the ten-year private label financing agreement with FCA that became effective May 1, 2013 (the "Chrysler Agreement"), SC has operated as FCA’s preferred provider for consumer loans, leases and dealer loans and provides services to FCA customers and dealers under the Chrysler Capital brand. These products and services include consumer RICs and leases, as well as dealer loans for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital and revolving lines of credit.

Chrysler Capital continues to be a focal point of the Company's strategy. On June 28, 2019, SC entered into an amendment to the Chrysler Agreement with FCA, which modified the Chrysler Agreement to, among other things, adjust certain performance metrics, exclusivity commitments and payment provisions under the Chrysler Agreement. The amendment also established an operating framework that is mutually beneficial for both parties for the remainder of the contract. The Company's average penetration rate for the third quarter of 2019 was 34%, an increase from 30% for the same period in 2018.

SC has dedicated financing facilities in place for its Chrysler Capital business and has worked strategically and collaboratively with FCA to continue to strengthen its relationship and create value within the Chrysler Capital program. During the year ended December 31, 2019, SC originated $12.8 billion in Chrysler Capital loans, which represented 56% of the UPB of its total RIC originations, with an approximately even share between prime and non-prime, as well as $8.5 billion in Chrysler Capital leases. Additionally, substantially all of the leases originated by SC during the year ended December 31, 2019 were under the Chrysler Agreement. Since its May 2013 launch, Chrysler Capital has originated more than $65.9 billion in retail loans (excluding the SBNA RIC origination program) and purchased $41.9 billion in leases.

During the fourth quarter of 2019, unemployment remained low and year-to-date market results were positive, recovering from a volatile fourth quarter of 2018.

The unemployment rate at December 31, 2019 was 3.5% compared to 3.5% at September 30, 2019, and was lower compared to 3.9% one year ago. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment rose in the retail trade, and healthcare, while mining employment decreased.

The BEA advance estimate indicates that real gross domestic product grew at an annualized rate of 2.1% for the fourth quarter of 2019, consistent with the advance estimated growth of 2.1% for the third quarter of 2019. Growth continued to be driven by increases in personal consumption expenditures, federal government spending, and state and local government spending. In addition, imports, which are a subtraction to in the calculation of the gross domestic product, decreased. These positive contributions were offset by decreases to private inventory investment and non-residential fixed investments.

Market year-to-date returns for the following indices based on closing prices at December 31, 2019 were:

At its December 2019 meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee decided to maintain the federal funds rate target at 1.50%, to continue to support economic expansion, current strength in labor market conditions, and inflation near its targeted objective. Overall inflation remains below the targeted rate of 2.0%.

The ten-year Treasury bond rate at December 31, 2019 was 1.90%, down from 2.69% at December 31, 2018. Within the industry, changes in this metric are often considered to correspond to changes in 15-year and 30-year mortgage rates.

Current mortgage origination and refinancing information is not yet available. Based on the most current information released based on September 2019 statistics, mortgage originations increased 29.74% year-over-year, which included an increased 6.21% in mortgage originations for home purchases and an increased 103.1% in mortgage originations from refinancing activity from the same period in 2018. These rates are representative of U.S. national average mortgage origination activity.

The ratio of NPLs to total gross loans for U.S. banks declined for six consecutive years, to just under 1.5% in 2015. NPL trends have remained relatively low since that time. NPLs for U.S. commercial banks were approximately 0.87% of loans using the latest available data, which was as of the third quarter of 2019, compared to 0.95% for the prior year.

Changing market conditions are considered a significant risk factor to the Company. The interest rate environment can present challenges in the growth of net interest income for the banking industry, which continues to rely on non-interest activities to support revenue growth. Changing market conditions and political uncertainty could have an overall impact on the Company's results of operations and financial condition. Such conditions could also impact the Company's credit risk and the associated provision for credit losses and legal expense.

The following table presents Moody’s, S&P and Fitch credit ratings for the Bank, BSPR, SHUSA, Santander, and the Kingdom of Spain, as of December 31, 2019:

Moody's announced completion of its periodic reviews and affirmed its ratings over SHUSA, SBNA and BSPR in March 2019. Spain in August 2019 and Santander in June 2019. Fitch affirmed its ratings and outlook for Spain in December 2019 and BSPR in October 2019.

SHUSA funds its operations independently of the other entities owned by Santander, and believes its business is not necessarily closely related to the business or outlook of other entities owned by Santander. Future changes in the credit ratings of its parent, Santander, or the Kingdom of Spain, however, could impact SHUSA's or its subsidiaries' credit ratings, and any other change in the condition of Santander could affect SHUSA.

At this time, SC is not rated by the major credit rating agencies.

REGULATORY MATTERS

The activities of the Company and its subsidiaries, including the Bank and SC, are subject to regulation under various U.S. federal laws and regulatory agencies which impose regulations, supervise and conduct examinations, and may affect the operations and management of the Company and its ability to take certain actions, including making distributions to our parent. The Company is regulated on a consolidated basis by the Federal Reserve, including the FRB of Boston, and the CFPB. The Company's banking and bank holding company subsidiaries are further supervised by the FDIC and the OCC. As a subsidiary of the Company, SC is also subject to regulatory oversight by the Federal Reserve as well as the CFPB. Santander BanCorp and BSPR also are supervised by the Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions.

SHUSA is the parent holding company of SBNA and other consolidated subsidiaries, and is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries. SHUSA and SBNA are subject to various regulatory restrictions relating to the payment of dividends, including regulatory capital minimums and the requirement to remain "well-capitalized" under prompt corrective action regulations. As a consolidated subsidiary of the Company, SC is included in various regulatory restrictions relating to the payment of dividends as described in the “Stress Tests and Capital Adequacy” discussion in this section. Refer to the Liquidity and Capital Resources section of this MD&A for detail of the capital actions of the Company and its subsidiaries during the period.

In February 2014, the Federal Reserve issued the final rule implementing certain ~~enhanced prudential standards (“EPS”)~~EPS mandated by ~~section 165 of~~ the ~~Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “DFA") (“Final Rule”).~~DFA. Under the Final Rule, FBOs with over $50 billion of U.S. non-branch assets, including Santander, were required to consolidate U.S. subsidiary activities under an IHC. In addition, the Final Rule required U.S. BHCs and FBOs with at least $50 billion in total U.S. consolidated non-branch assets to be subject to EPS and heightened capital, liquidity, risk management, and stress testing requirements. Due to both its global and U.S. non-branch total consolidated asset size, Santander was subject to both of the above provisions of the Final Rule. As a result of this rule, Santander has transferred substantially all of its U.S. bank and non-bank subsidiaries previously outside the Company to the Company, which became an IHC effective July 1, 2016. ~~A phased-in~~

In May 2018, the Economic Growth Act was signed into law. The Economic Growth Act scales back certain requirements of the DFA. In October 2019, the Federal Reserve finalized a rulemaking implementing the changes required by the Economic Growth Act. The rulemaking provides a tailored approach ~~is being used for the standards and requirements at both the FBO and the IHC. As a U.S. BHC with more than $50 billion in total consolidated assets, the Company became subject~~ to the EPS ~~on January 1, 2015. Other standards~~mandated by Section 165 of the ~~FBO Final Rule will be phased in through January 1, 2019.~~

~~In July 2013, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC released final~~ U.S. Basel III regulatory capital rules ~~implementing the global regulatory capital reforms of Basel III that~~ are applicable to both SHUSA and the ~~Bank. The final rules established~~Bank and establish a comprehensive capital framework that includes both the advanced approaches for the largest internationally active U.S. banks, formerly known as Basel II, and a standardized approach that applies to all banking organizations with over $500 million in assets. ~~Subject to various transition periods, this rule became effective for SHUSA on January 1, 2015.~~

~~The~~These rules narrow the definition of regulatory capital and establish higher minimum risk-based capital ratios and prompt corrective action thresholds that, when fully phased in, require banking organizations, including the Company and the Bank, to maintain a minimum ~~common equity tier 1 ("CET1")~~CET1 capital ratio of 4.5%, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.0%, a total capital ratio of 8.0% and a minimum leverage ratio, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets for the quarter, of 4.0%.

~~The~~These U.S. Basel III regulatory capital rules include deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that ~~mortgage servicing rights ("MSRs"),~~MSRs, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities are deducted from CET1 to the extent any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1. Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 for the Company and the Bank began on January 1, 2015 and was initially planned over three years, with a fully phased-in requirement of January 1, 2018. However, during 2017, the regulatory agencies ~~proposed~~ finalized changes to the capital rules that became effective on January 1, 2018. These changes extended the current treatment and ~~will defer~~deferred the final transition provision phase-in at non-advanced approach institutions for certain capital elements, and ~~suspend~~suspended the ~~risk-weighting~~risk-weight to 100 percent for certain deferred taxes and mortgage servicing assets not disallowed from capital, in lieu of advancing to 250 percent. ~~In addition,~~During 2019, the regulatory agencies ~~issued~~approved a ~~secondary proposal in 2017~~final rule which includes simplifications for non-advanced approaches to ~~further revise~~ the generally applicable capital ~~rule by introducing new~~rules, specifically with regard to the treatment of ~~high volatility acquisition, development and construction loans, and by~~minority interest, as well as modifying the ~~calculation~~risk-weight to 250 percent for ~~minority interest includible within capital, for which the regulators have~~certain deferred taxes and mortgage servicing assets not ~~released a~~disallowed from capital. This final ~~decision.~~rule will become effective on April 1, 2020.

See the Bank Regulatory Capital section of ~~the~~this MD&A ~~of this Form 10-K~~ for the Company's capital ratios under Basel III standards. The implementation of certain regulations and standards relating to regulatory capital could disproportionately affect the Company's regulatory capital position relative to that of its competitors, including those that may not be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the Company.

If capital has reached the significantly or critically undercapitalized levels, further material restrictions can be imposed, including restrictions on interest payable on accounts, dismissal of management and, in critically undercapitalized situations, appointment of a receiver or conservator. Critically undercapitalized institutions generally may not, beginning 60 days after becoming critically undercapitalized, make any payment of principal or interest on their subordinated debt. All but well-capitalized institutions are prohibited from accepting brokered deposits without prior regulatory approval. Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ~~Improvement~~Improvements Act ~~(the “FDIA”)~~ and OCC regulations, institutions which are not categorized as well-capitalized or adequately-capitalized are restricted from making capital distributions, which include cash dividends, stock redemptions or repurchases, cash-out mergers, interest payments on certain convertible debt and other transactions charged to the capital account of the institution.

The Company reported pre-tax income of ~~$820.4 million~~$1.5 billion for the year ended December 31, ~~2017,~~2019, compared to pre-tax income of ~~$954.5 million~~$1.4 billion for the ~~year ended December 31, 2016.~~corresponding period in 2018. Factors contributing to this ~~decline were as follows:~~

Net interest income increased $97.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018.

Interest income on investment securities and interest-earning deposits increased $29.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. The average balances of investment securities and interest-earning deposits for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $22.2 billion with an average yield of 2.49%, compared to an average balance of $21.3 billion with an average yield of 2.45% for the corresponding period in 2018. The increase in interest income on investment securities and interest-earning deposits for the year ended December 31, 2019 was primarily due to an increase in the average yield on interest-earning deposits resulting from 2018 increases to the federal funds rate. During 2019, the federal funds rate was lowered three times; this has had an effect of partially offsetting increases in interest income on deposits and investments.

Interest income on loans increased $552.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to 2018. This increase was primarily due to the growth of total loans. The average balance of total loans increased $6.9 billion for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This overall increase in loans was primarily driven by the continued growth of the commercial portfolio, auto loans and RICs; however, the average rate has decreased on the RIC portfolio due to more prime loan originations as a result of the SBNA origination program.

Interest expense on deposits and related customer accounts increased $185.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This increase was primarily due to overall higher interest rates and increased deposits. Higher rates were offered to customers on various deposit products in order to attract and grow the customer base. The average balance of total interest-bearing deposits was $49.8 billion with an average cost of 1.15% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to an average balance of $46.3 billion with an average cost of 0.84% for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Interest expense on borrowed funds increased $297.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This increase was due to higher interest rates being paid and increased balances during the year ended December 31, 2019. The average balance of total borrowings was $47.2 billion with an average cost of 3.46% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to an average balance of $40.2 billion with an average cost of 3.32% for 2018. The average balance of borrowed funds increased for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the year ended December 31, 2018, primarily due to increases in FHLB advances, credit facilities and secured structured financings.

PROVISION FOR CREDIT LOSSES

The provision for credit losses is based on credit loss experience, growth or contraction of specific segments of the loan portfolio, and the estimate of losses inherent in the portfolio. The provision for credit losses was primarily comprised of the provision for loan and lease losses for the years ended December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 of $2.3 billion and $2.4 billion, respectively.

The Company's net charge-offs increased $91.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018.

Consumer charge-offs increased $390.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. The increase was primarily comprised of a $391.2 million increase in RIC and consumer auto loan charge-offs.

Consumer recoveries increased $381.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. The increase was primarily comprised of a $345.6 million increase in RIC and consumer auto loan recoveries, and a $21.1 million increase in indirect purchased loan recoveries.

Consumer net charge-offs as a percentage of average consumer loans were 4.8% for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 5.2% in 2018.

Commercial charge-offs increased $76.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. The increase was primarily comprised of an $89.1 million increase in Corporate Banking charge-offs.

Commercial recoveries decreased $6.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018.

Total non-interest income increased $484.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This increase was primarily due to an increase in lease income. The increase was partially offset by decreases in consumer fees due to the reduction of loans serviced by the Company.

Consumer fees decreased $22.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This decrease was primarily related to a decrease in loan fees income, which was attributable to a reduction in loans serviced by the Company.

Commercial fees consists of deposit overdraft fees, deposit automated teller machine fees, cash management fees, letter of credit fees, and loan syndication fees for commercial accounts. Commercial fees remained relatively stable for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018.

Lease income increased $497.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This increase was the result of the growth in the Company's lease portfolio, with an average balance of $15.3 billion for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $12.3 billion for 2018.

Miscellaneous income decreased $5.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease in net gain on sale of operating leases and an increase in loss on sale of non-mortgage loans, partially offset by an increase in capital market revenue and an increase in Other miscellaneous income due to lower losses on securitization transactions.

Total general, administrative and other expenses increased $533.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. The most significant factors contributing to these increases were as follows:

INCOME TAX PROVISION

An income tax provision of $472.2 million was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to an income tax provision of $425.9 million for 2018. This resulted in an ETR of 31.2% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to 30.1% for 2018.

The Company's ETR in future periods will be affected by the results of operations allocated to the various tax jurisdictions in which the Company operates, any change in income tax laws or regulations within those jurisdictions, and interpretations of income tax regulations that differ from the Company's interpretations by tax authorities that examine tax returns filed by the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

Refer to Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for the year-to-year comparison of the ETR.

LINE OF BUSINESS RESULTS

The Company's segments at December 31, 2019 consisted of Consumer and Business Banking, C&I, CRE & VF, CIB and SC. For additional information with respect to the Company's reporting segments and changes to the segments beginning in the first quarter of 2019, see Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Consumer and Business Banking reported income before income taxes of $51.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to losses before income taxes of $66.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. Factors contributing to this change were:

C&I reported income before income taxes of $32.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to income before income taxes of $120.5 million for 2018. Contributing to these changes were:

CRE & VF reported income before income taxes of $280.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to income before income taxes of $288.1 million for 2018. The results of this reportable segment were relatively consistent period-over-period.

CIB reported income before income taxes of $84.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to income before income taxes of $87.3 million for 2018. Factors contributing to this change were:

The Other category reported losses before income taxes of $274.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to losses before income taxes of $168.7 million for 2018. Factors contributing to this change were:

The CODM manages SC on a historical basis by reviewing the results of SC prior to the first quarter 2014 change in control and consolidation of SC (the "Change in Control") basis. The line of business results table discloses SC's operating information on the same basis that it is reviewed by the CODM.

SC reported income before income taxes of $1.4 billion for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to income before income taxes of $1.2 billion for 2018. Contributing to this change were:

LOAN PORTFOLIO

The Company's LHFI portfolioconsisted of the following at the dates indicated:

Commercial loans increased approximately $653.0 million, or 1.6%, from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2019. This increase was comprised of increases in C&I loans of $796.5 million and multifamily loans of $332.1 million, offset by decreases in other commercial loans of $239.2 million, and CRE loans of $236.5 million. The increase is reflective of continued investment of resources to grow the commercial business.

Consumer loans secured by real estate decreased $1.7 billion, or 11.4%, from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2019. This decrease was comprised of a decrease in the residential mortgage portfolio of $1.0 billion, primarily due to the sale of residential mortgage loans to the FNMA in 2019, and a decrease in the home equity loans and lines of credit portfolio of $695.3 million.

RICs and auto loans increased $7.1 billion, or 24.3%, from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2019. The increase in the RIC and auto loan portfolio was primarily due to an increase of purchased financial receivables from third-party lenders and originations, net of securitizations. RICs are collateralized by vehicle titles, and the lender has the right to repossess the vehicle in the event the consumer defaults on the payment terms of the contract. Most of the Company's RICs held for investment are pledged against warehouse lines or securitization bonds. Refer to further discussion of these in Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

As of December 31, 2019, 66.2% (includes loans with no FICO score equivalent to 8.7% of the total portfolio) of the Company's RIC and auto loan portfolio was comprised of nonprime loans (defined by the Company as customers with a FICO score of below 640) with customers who did not qualify for conventional consumer finance products as a result of, among other things, a lack of or adverse credit history, low income levels and/or the inability to provide adequate down payments. While underwriting guidelines are designed to establish that the customer would be a reasonable credit risk, nonprime loans will nonetheless experience higher default rates than a portfolio of obligations of prime customers. Additionally, higher unemployment rates, higher gasoline prices, unstable real estate values, re-sets of adjustable rate mortgages to higher interest rates, the general availability of consumer credit, and other factors that impact consumer confidence or disposable income could lead to an increase in delinquencies, defaults, and repossessions, as well as decreased consumer demand for used automobiles and other consumer products, weaken collateral values and increase losses in the event of default. Because SC's historical focus for such credit has been predominantly on nonprime consumers, the actual rates of delinquencies, defaults, repossessions, and losses on these loans could be more dramatically affected by a general economic downturn.

The Company's automated originations process for these credits reflects a disciplined approach to credit risk management to mitigate the risks of nonprime customers. The Company's robust historical data on both organically originated and acquired loans provides it with the ability to perform advanced loss forecasting. Each applicant is automatically assigned a proprietary custom score using information such as FICO scores, DTI ratios, LTV ratios, and over 30 other predictive factors, placing the applicant in one of 100 pricing tiers. The pricing in each tier is continuously monitored and adjusted to reflect market and risk trends. In addition to the Company's automated process, it maintains a team of underwriters for manual review, consideration of exceptions, and review of deal structures with dealers.

At December 31, 2019, a typical RIC was originated with an average annual percentage rate of 16.3% and was purchased from the dealer at a premium of 0.5%. All of the Company's RICs and auto loans are fixed-rate loans.

The Company records an ALLL to cover its estimate of inherent losses on its RICs incurred as of the balance sheet date.

Personal unsecured and other consumer loans decreased from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2019 by $370.8 million.

As a result of the strategic evaluation of SC's personal lending portfolio, in the third quarter of 2015, SC began reviewing strategic alternatives for exiting its personal loan portfolios. SC's other significant personal lending relationship is with Bluestem. SC continues to perform in accordance with the terms and operative provisions of the agreements under which it is obligated to purchase personal revolving loans originated by Bluestem for a term ending in 2020, or 2022 if extended at Bluestem's option. The Bluestem loan portfolio is carried as held-for-sale in our Consolidated Financial Statements. Accordingly, the Company has recorded lower-of-cost-or-market adjustments on this portfolio, and there may be further such adjustments required in future period financial statements. Management is currently evaluating alternatives for the Bluestem portfolio. As of December 31, 2019, SC's personal unsecured portfolio was held-for-sale and thus does not have a related allowance.

CREDIT RISK MANAGEMENT

Extending credit to customers exposes the Company to credit risk, which is the risk that contractual principal and interest due on loans will not be collected due to the inability or unwillingness of the borrower to repay the loan. The Company manages credit risk in its loan portfolio through adherence to consistent standards, guidelines, and limitations established by the Company’s Board of Directors as set forth in its Board-approved Risk Appetite Statement. Written loan policies further implement these underwriting standards, lending limits, and other standards or limits deemed necessary and prudent. Various approval levels based on the amount of the loan and other key credit attributes have also been created. To ensure credit quality, loans are originated in accordance with the Company’s credit and governance standards consistent with its Enterprise Risk Management Framework. Loans over certain dollar thresholds require approval by the Company's credit committees, with higher balance loans requiring approval by more senior level committees.

The Credit Risk Review group conducts ongoing independent reviews of the credit quality of the Company’s loan portfolios and credit management processes to ensure the accuracy of the risk ratings and adherence to established policies and procedures, verify compliance with applicable laws and regulations, provide objective measurement of the risk inherent in the loan portfolio, and ensure that proper documentation exists. The results of these periodic reviews are reported to business line management, Risk and the Audit Committees of both the Company and the Bank. The Company maintains a classification system for loans that identifies those requiring a higher level of monitoring by management because of one or more factors, including borrower performance, business conditions, industry trends, the liquidity and value of the collateral, economic conditions, or other factors. Loan credit quality is subject to scrutiny by business unit management, credit risk professionals, and Internal Audit.

The following discussion summarizes the underwriting policies and procedures for the major categories within the loan portfolio and addresses SHUSA’s strategies for managing the related credit risk. Additional credit risk management related considerations are discussed further in the "ALLL" section of this MD&A.

Commercial loans principally represent commercial real estate loans (including multifamily loans), loans to C&I customers, and automotive dealer floor plan loans. Credit risk associated with commercial loans is primarily influenced by prevailing and expected economic conditions and the level of underwriting risk SHUSA is willing to assume. To manage credit risk when extending commercial credit, the Company focuses on assessing the borrower’s capacity and willingness to repay and obtaining sufficient collateral. C&I loans are generally secured by the borrower’s assets and by guarantees. CRE loans are originated primarily within the Mid-Atlantic, New York, and New England market areas and are secured by real estate at specified LTV ratios and often by a guarantee.

Credit risk in the direct and indirect consumer loan portfolio is controlled by strict adherence to underwriting standards that consider DTI levels, the creditworthiness of the borrower, and collateral values. In the home equity loan portfolio, CLTV ratios are generally limited to 90% for both first and second liens. SHUSA originates and purchases fixed-rate and adjustable rate residential mortgage loans that are secured by the underlying 1-4 family residential properties. Credit risk exposure in this area of lending is minimized by the evaluation of the creditworthiness of the borrower, credit scores, and adherence to underwriting policies that emphasize conservative LTV ratios of generally no more than 80%. Residential mortgage loans originated or purchased in excess of an 80% LTV ratio are generally insured by private mortgage insurance, unless otherwise guaranteed or insured by the Federal, state, or local government. SHUSA also utilizes underwriting standards which comply with those of the FHLMC or the FNMA. Credit risk is further reduced, since a portion of the Company’s mortgage loan production is sold to investors in the secondary market without recourse.

The Company’s consumer loans not secured by real estate include RICs acquired from manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of used and new automobiles and trucks, as well as acquired consumer marine, RV and credit card loans. Credit risk is mitigated to the extent possible through early and robust collection practices, which includes the repossession of vehicles.

The Company closely monitors delinquencies as another means of maintaining high asset quality. Collection efforts generally begin within 15 days after a loan payment is missed by attempting to contact all borrowers and offer a variety of loss mitigation alternatives. If these attempts fail, the Company will attempt to gain control of collateral in a timely manner in order to minimize losses. While liquidation and recovery efforts continue, officers continue to work with the borrowers, if appropriate, to recover all money owed to the Company. The Company monitors delinquency trends at 30, 60, and 90 DPD. These trends are discussed at monthly management Credit Risk Review Committee meetings and at the Company's and the Bank's Board of Directors' meetings.

NON-PERFORMING ASSETS

Potential problem loans are loans not currently classified as NPLs for which management has doubts about the borrowers’ ability to comply with the present repayment terms. These assets are principally loans delinquent for more than 30 days but less than 90 days. Potential problem commercial loans totaled approximately $179.9 million and $98.8 million at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. This increase was primarily due to loans to one large borrower within the CRE portfolio.

Potential problem consumer loans amounted to $4.7 billion at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018. Management has included these loans in its evaluation of the Company's ACL and reserved for them during the respective periods.

Non-performing assets decreased to $2.5 billion, or 1.6% of total assets, at December 31, 2019, compared to $2.6 billion, or 1.9% of total assets, at December 31, 2018, primarily attributable to a decrease in NPLs in consumer RICs.

Commercial NPLs decreased $91.1 million from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2019. Commercial NPLs accounted for 0.7% and 0.9% of commercial LHFI at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. The decrease in commercial NPLs was comprised of decreases of $36.4 million in C&I and $40.9 million in the Other commercial portfolio.

RICs and amortizing personal loans are classified as non-performing when they are more than 60 DPD (i.e., 61 or more DPD) with respect to principal or interest. Except for loans accounted for using the FVO, at the time a loan is placed on non-performing status, previously accrued and uncollected interest is reversed against interest income. When an account is 60 days or less past due, it is returned to performing status and the Company returns to accruing interest on the loan. The accrual of interest on revolving personal loans continues until the loan is charged off.

RIC TDRs are placed on non-accrual status when the account becomes past due more than 60 days. For loans in non-accrual status, interest income is recognized on a cash basis; however, the Company continues to assess the recognition of cash received on those loans in order to identify whether certain of the loans should also be placed on a cost recovery basis. For loans on non-accrual status, the accrual of interest is resumed if a delinquent account subsequently becomes 60 days or less past due. However, for TDR loans placed on a cost recovery basis, the Company returns to accrual status when a sustained period of repayment performance has been achieved. NPLs in the RIC and auto loan portfolio increased by $98.1 million from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2019. Non-performing RICs and auto loans accounted for 4.5% and 5.3% of total RICs and auto loans at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively.

The following table shows NPLs compared to total loans outstanding for the residential mortgage and home equity portfolios as of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively:

The NPL ratio is usually higher for the Company's residential mortgage loan portfolio compared to its consumer loans secured by real estate portfolio due to a number of factors, including the prolonged workout and foreclosure resolution processes for residential mortgage loans, differences in risk profiles, and mortgage loans located outside the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States. As of December 31, 2019, the consumer loans secured by real estate portfolio has a higher NPL ratio compared to the residential mortgage portfolio, primarily due to the NPL loan sale in 2019.

The Company generally considers an account delinquent when an obligor fails to pay substantially all (defined as 90%) of the scheduled payment by the due date.

Overall, total delinquencies increased by $5.7 million, or 0.1%, from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2019, primarily driven by commercial loans, which increased $107.6 million, offset by consumer loans secured by real estate, which decreased $90.9 million. The increase in the commercial portfolio was due to loans to two customers that became delinquent in the fourth quarter of 2019, partially offset by the mortgage decrease due to the NPL and FNMA sales.

TDRs are loans that have been modified as the Company has agreed to make certain concessions to both meet the needs of customers and maximize its ultimate recovery on the loans. TDRs occur when a borrower is experiencing, or is expected to experience, financial difficulties and the loan is modified with terms that would otherwise not be granted to the borrower. The types of concessions granted are generally interest rate reductions, limitations on accrued interest charged, term extensions, and deferments of principal.

TDRs are generally placed in nonaccrual status upon modification, unless the loan was performing immediately prior to modification. For most portfolios, TDRs may return to accrual status after a sustained period of repayment performance, as long as the Company believes the principal and interest of the restructured loan will be paid in full. RIC TDRs are placed on nonaccrual status when the Company believes repayment under the revised terms is not reasonably assured, and considered for return to accrual when a sustained period of repayment performance has been achieved. To the extent the TDR is determined to be collateral-dependent and the source of repayment depends on the operation of the collateral, the loan may be returned to accrual status based on the foregoing parameters. To the extent the TDR is determined to be collateral-dependent and the source of repayment depends on disposal of the collateral, the loan may not be returned to accrual status.

The following table summarizes TDRs at the dates indicated:

The following table provides a summary of TDR activity:

In accordance with its policies and guidelines, the Company at times offers payment deferrals to borrowers on its RICs, under which the consumer is allowed to move up to three delinquent payments to the end of the loan. More than 90% of deferrals granted are for two months. The policies and guidelines limit the number and frequency of deferrals that may be granted to one deferral every six months and eight months over the life of a loan, while some marine and RV contracts have a maximum of twelve months in extensions to reflect their longer term. Additionally, the Company generally limits the granting of deferrals on new accounts until a requisite number of payments has been received. During the deferral period, the Company continues to accrue and collect interest on the loan in accordance with the terms of the deferral agreement.

At the time a deferral is granted, all delinquent amounts may be deferred or paid, which may result in the classification of the loan as current and therefore not considered delinquent. However, there are instances when a deferral is granted but the loan is not brought completely current, such as when the account's DPD is greater than the deferment period granted. Such accounts are aged based on the timely payment of future installments in the same manner as any other account. Historically, the majority of deferrals are approved for borrowers who are either 31-60 or 61-90 days delinquent, and these borrowers are typically reported as current after deferral. A customer is limited to one deferral each six months, and if a customer receives two or more deferrals over the life of the loan, the loan will advance to a TDR designation.

The Company evaluates the results of its deferral strategies based upon the amount of cash installments that are collected on accounts after they have been deferred compared to the extent to which the collateral underlying the deferred accounts has depreciated over the same period of time. Based on this evaluation, the Company believes that payment deferrals granted according to its policies and guidelines are an effective portfolio management technique and result in higher ultimate cash collections from the portfolio.

Changes in deferral levels do not have a direct impact on the ultimate amount of consumer finance receivables charged off. However, the timing of a charge-off may be affected if the previously deferred account ultimately results in a charge-off. To the extent deferrals impact the ultimate timing of when an account is charged off, historical charge-off ratios, loss confirmation periods, and cash flow forecasts used in the determination of the adequacy of the ALLL for loans classified as TDRs are also impacted. Increased use of deferrals may result in a lengthening of the loss confirmation period, which would increase expectations of credit losses inherent in the portfolio and therefore increase the ALLL and related provision for loan and lease losses. Changes in these ratios and periods are considered in determining the appropriate level of the ALLL and related provision for loan and lease losses. For loans that are classified as TDRs, the Company generally compares the present value of expected cash flows to the outstanding recorded investment of TDRs to determine the amount of allowance and related provision for credit losses that should be recorded. For loans that are considered collateral-dependent, such as certain bankruptcy modifications, impairment is measured based on the fair value of the collateral, less its estimated costs to sell.

The ACL is maintained at levels management considers adequate to provide for losses based upon an evaluation of known and inherent risks in the loan portfolio. Management's evaluation takes into consideration the risks inherent in the portfolio, past loan and lease loss experience, specific loans with loss potential, geographic and industry concentrations, delinquency trends, the level of originations, credit quality metrics such as FICOscores and CLTV, internal risk ratings, economic conditions and other relevant factors. While management uses the best information available to make such evaluations, future adjustments to the ACL may be necessary if conditions differ substantially from the assumptions used in making the evaluations.

The following table presents the allocation of the ALLL and the percentage of each loan type to total LHFI at the dates indicated:

The ACL decreased by $254.6 million from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2019. This change in the overall ACL was primarily attributable to the decreased amount of TDRs within SC's RIC and auto loan portfolio.

Management regularly monitors the condition of the Company's portfolio, considering factors such as historical loss experience, trends in delinquencies and NPLs, changes in risk composition and underwriting standards, the experience and ability of staff, and regional and national economic conditions and trends.

The risk factors inherent in the ACL are continuously reviewed and revised by management when conditions indicate that the estimates initially applied are different from actual results. The Company also performs a comprehensive analysis of the ACL on a quarterly basis. In addition, the Company performs a review each quarter of allowance levels and trends by major portfolio against the levels of peer banking institutions to benchmark our allowance and industry norms.

For the commercial loan portfolio excluding small business loans (businesses with annual sales of up to $3 million), the Company has specialized credit officers, a monitoring unit, and workout units that identify and manage potential problem loans. Changes in management factors, financial and operating performance, company behavior, industry factors and external events and circumstances are evaluated on an ongoing basis to determine whether potential impairment is evident and/or additional analysis is needed. For the commercial loan portfolios, risk ratings are assigned to each loan to differentiate risk within the portfolio, reviewed on an ongoing basis by credit risk management and revised, if needed, to reflect the borrower’s current risk profile and the related collateral position.

The risk ratings consider factors such as financial condition, debt capacity and coverage ratios, market presence and quality of management. Generally, credit officers reassess a borrower’s risk rating on at least an annual basis, and more frequently if warranted. This reassessment process is managed by credit officers and is overseen by the credit monitoring group to ensure consistency and accuracy in risk ratings, as well as the appropriate frequency of risk rating reviews by the Company’s credit officers. The Company’s Credit Risk Review Committee assesses whether the Company’s Credit Risk Review Framework and risk management guidelines established by the Company’s Board and applicable laws and regulations are being followed, and reports key findings and relevant information to the Board. The Company’s Credit Risk Review group regularly performs loan reviews and assesses the appropriateness of assigned risk ratings. When credits are downgraded below a certain level, the Company’s Workout Department becomes responsible for managing the credit risk. Risk rating actions are generally reviewed formally by one or more credit committees depending on the size of the loan and the type of risk rating action being taken. Detailed analyses are completed that support the risk rating and management’s strategies for the customer relationship going forward.

A loan is considered to be impaired when, based upon current information and events, it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan. If a loan is identified as impaired and is collateral-dependent, an initial appraisal is obtained to provide a baseline to determine the property’s fair market value. The frequency of appraisals depends on the type of collateral being appraised. If the collateral value is subject to significant volatility (due to location of the asset, obsolescence, etc.), an appraisal is obtained more frequently. At a minimum, updated appraisals for impaired loans are obtained within a 12-month period if the loan remains outstanding for that period of time.

If a loan is identified as impaired and is not collateral-dependent, impairment is measured based on a DCF methodology.

The portion of the ALLL related to the commercial portfolio was $399.8 million at December 31, 2019 (1.0% of commercial LHFI) and $441.1 million at December 31, 2018 (1.1% of commercial LHFI). The primary factor resulting in the decreased ACL allocated to the commercial portfolio was in part due to the charge-off to three large commercial borrowers.

The consumer loan and small business loan portfolios are monitored for credit risk and deterioration with statistical tools considering factors such as delinquency, LTV ratios, and internal and external credit scores. Management evaluates the consumer portfolios throughout their lifecycles on a portfolio basis. When problem loans are identified that are secured with collateral, management examines the loan files to evaluate the nature and type of collateral. Management documents the collateral type, the date of the most recent valuation, and whether any liens exist to determine the value to compare against the committed loan amount.

Residential mortgages not adequately secured by collateral are generally charged off to fair value less cost to sell when deemed to be uncollectible or are delinquent 180 days or more, whichever comes first, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that repayment will occur regardless of the delinquency status. Examples that would demonstrate repayment likelihood include a loan that is secured by collateral and is in the process of collection, a loan supported by a valid guarantee or insurance, or a loan supported by a valid claim against a solvent estate.

For residential mortgage loans, loss severity assumptions are incorporated into the loan and lease loss reserve models to estimate loan balances that will ultimately charge-off. These assumptions are based on recent loss experience within various CLTV bands in these portfolios. CLTVs are refreshed quarterly by applying Federal Housing Finance Agency Home Price Index changes at a state-by-state level to the last known appraised value of the property to estimate the current CLTV. The Company's ALLL incorporates the refreshed CLTV information to update the distribution of defaulted loans by CLTV as well as the associated loss given default for each CLTV band. Reappraisals at the individual property level are not considered cost-effective or necessary on a recurring basis; however, reappraisals are performed on certain higher risk accounts to support line management activities and default servicing decisions, or when other situations arise for which the Company believes the additional expense is warranted.

A home equity loan or line of credit not adequately secured by collateral is treated similarly to the way residential mortgages are treated. The Company incorporates home equity loan or line of credit loss severity assumptions into the loan and lease loss reserve model following the same methodology as for residential mortgage loans. To ensure the Company has captured losses inherent in its home equity portfolios, the Company estimates its ALLL for home equity loans and lines of credit by segmenting its portfolio into sub-segments based on the nature of the portfolio and certain risk characteristics such as product type, lien positions, and origination channels. Projected future defaulted loan balances are estimated within each portfolio sub-segment by incorporating risk parameters, including the current payment status as well as historical trends in delinquency rates. Other assumptions, including prepayment and attrition rates, are also calculated at the portfolio sub-segment level and incorporated into the estimation of the likely volume of defaulted loan balances. The projected default volume is stratified across CLTV ratio bands, and a loss severity rate for each CLTV band is applied based on the Company's historical net credit loss experience. This amount is then adjusted, as necessary, for qualitative considerations to reflect changes in underwriting, market, or industry conditions, or changes in trends in the composition of the portfolio, including risk composition, seasoning, and underlying collateral.

The Company considers the delinquency status of its senior liens in cases in which the Company services the lien. The Company currently services the senior lien on 23.5% of its junior lien home equity principal balances. Of the junior lien home equity loan and line of credit balances that are current, 1.1% have a senior lien that is one or more payments past due. When the senior lien is delinquent but the junior lien is current, allowance levels are adjusted to reflect loss estimates consistent with the delinquency status of the senior lien. The Company also extrapolates these impacts to the junior lien portfolio when the senior lien is serviced by another investor and the delinquency status of that senior lien is unknown.

Depository and lending institutions in the U.S. generally are expected to experience a significant volume of home equity lines of credit that will be approaching the end of their draw periods over the next several years, following the growth in home equity lending experienced during 2003 through 2007. As a result, many of these home equity lines of credit will either convert to amortizing loans or have principal due as balloon payments. The Company's home equity lines of credit generated after 2007 are generally open-ended, revolving loans with fixed-rate lock options and draw periods of up to 10 years, along with amortizing repayment periods of up to 20 years. The Company currently monitors delinquency rates for amortizing and non-amortizing lines, as well as other credit quality metrics, including FICO credit scoring model scores and LTV ratios. The Company's home equity lines of credit are generally underwritten considering fully drawn and fully amortizing levels. As a result, the Company currently does not anticipate a significant deterioration in credit quality when these home equity lines of credit begin to amortize.

For RICs, including RICs acquired from a third-party lender that are considered to have no credit deterioration at acquisition, and personal unsecured loans at SC, the Company maintains an ALLL for the Company's HFI portfolio not classified as TDRs at a level estimated to be adequate to absorb credit losses of the recorded investment inherent in the portfolio, based on a holistic assessment, including both quantitative and qualitative considerations. For TDR loans, the allowance is comprised of impairment measured using a DCF model. RICs and personal unsecured loans are considered separately in assessing the required ALLL using product-specific allowance methodologies applied on a pooled basis.

The quantitative framework is supported by credit models that consider several credit quality indicators including, but not limited to, historical loss experience and current portfolio trends. The transition-based Markov model provides data on a granular and disaggregated/segment basis as it utilizes recently observed loan transition rates from various loan statuses to forecast future losses. Transition matrices in the Markov model are categorized based on account characteristics such as delinquency status, TDR type (e.g., deferment, modification, etc.), internal credit risk, origination channel, seasoning, thin/thick file and time since TDR event. The credit models utilized differ among the Company's RIC and personal loan portfolios. The credit models are adjusted by management through qualitative reserves to incorporate information reflective of the current business environment.

The allowance for consumer loans was $3.2 billion and $3.4 billion at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. The allowance as a percentage of HFI consumer loans was 6.2% at December 31, 2019 and 7.3% at December 31, 2018. The decrease in the allowance for consumer loans was primarily attributable to lower TDR volume and rate improvement in SC's RIC and auto loan portfolio.

The Company's allowance models and reserve levels are back-tested on a quarterly basis to ensure that both remain within appropriate ranges. As a result, management believes that the current ALLL is maintained at a level sufficient to absorb inherent losses in the consumer portfolios.

Unallocated

The Company reserves for certain inherent but undetected losses that are probable within the loan and lease portfolios. This is considered to be reasonably sufficient to absorb imprecisions of models and to otherwise provide for coverage of inherent losses in the Company's entire loan and lease portfolios. These imprecisions may include loss factors inherent in the loan portfolio that may not have been discreetly contemplated in the general and specific components of the allowance, as well as potential variability in estimates. Period-to-period changes in the Company's historical unallocated ALLL positions are considered in light of these factors. The unallocated ALLL was $46.7 million and $47.0 million at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively.

The reserve for unfunded lending commitments decreased $3.7 million from $95.5 million at December 31, 2018 to $91.8 million at December 31, 2019. The decrease of the unfunded reserve is primarily related to the Company strategically reducing its exposure to certain business relationships and industries. The net impact of the change in the reserve for unfunded lending commitments to the overall ACL was immaterial.

INVESTMENT SECURITIES

Investment securities consist primarily of U.S. Treasuries, MBS, ABS and FHLB and FRB stock. MBS consist of pass-through, CMOs and adjustable rate mortgages issued by federal agencies. The Company’s MBS are either guaranteed as to principal and interest by the issuer or have ratings of “AAA” by S&P and Moody’s at the date of issuance. The Company’s AFS investment strategy is to purchase liquid fixed-rate and floating-rate investments to manage the Company's liquidity position and interest rate risk adequately.

Total investment securities AFS increased $2.7 billion to $14.3 billion at December 31, 2019, compared to $11.6 billion at December 31, 2018. During the year ended December 31, 2019, the composition of the Company's investment portfolio changed due to an increase in U.S. Treasury securities and MBS, partially offset by a decrease in ABS. U.S. Treasuries increased by $2.3 billionprimarily due to investment purchases of $3.8 billion as offset by $1.5 billion of sales. MBS increased by $739.4 million primarily due to investment purchases and a decrease in unrealized losses, partially offset by sales, maturities and principal paydowns. For additional information with respect to the Company’s investment securities, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Debt securities for which the Company has the positive intent and ability to hold the securities until maturity are classified as HTM securities. HTM securities are reported at cost and adjusted for amortization of premium and accretion of discount. Total investment securities HTM were $3.9 billion at December 31, 2019. The Company had 99 investment securities classified as HTM as of December 31, 2019.

Total gross unrealized losses on investment securities AFS decreased by $258.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2019. This decrease was primarily related to a decrease in unrealized losses of $246.1 million on MBS, primarily due to a decrease in interest rates.

The average life of the AFS investment portfolio (excluding certain ABS) at December 31, 2019 was approximately 3.86 years. The average effective duration of the investment portfolio (excluding certain ABS) at December 31, 2019 was approximately 2.85 years. The actual maturities of MBS AFS will differ from contractual maturities because borrowers have the right to prepay obligations without prepayment penalties.

The following table presents the fair value of investment securities by obligor at the dates indicated:

The following table presents the securities of single issuers (other than obligations of the United States and its political subdivisions, agencies, and corporations) having an aggregate book value in excess of 10% of the Company's stockholder's equity that were held by the Company at December 31, 2019:

GOODWILL

The Company records the excess of the cost of acquired entities over the fair value of identifiable tangible and intangible assets acquired less the fair value of liabilities assumed as goodwill. Consistent with ASC 350, the Company does not amortize goodwill, and reviews the goodwill recorded for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently when events or changes in circumstances indicate the potential for goodwill impairment. At December 31, 2019, goodwill totaled $4.4 billion and represented 3.0% of total assets and 18.2% of total stockholder's equity. The following table shows goodwill by reporting units at December 31, 2019:

The Company made a change in its reportable segments beginning January 1, 2019 and, accordingly, has re-allocated goodwill to the related reporting units based on the estimated fair value of each reporting unit. Upon re-allocation, management tested the new reporting units for impairment, using the same methodology and assumptions as used in the October 1, 2018 goodwill impairment test, and noted that there was no impairment. See Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional details on the change in reportable segments.

The Company conducted its annual goodwill impairment tests as of October 1, 2019 using generally accepted valuation methods. The Company completes a quarterly review for impairment indicators over each of its reporting units, which includes consideration of economic and organizational factors that could impact the fair value of the Company's reporting units. At the completion of the 2019 fourth quarter review, the Company did not identify any indicators which resulted in the Company's conclusion that an interim impairment test would be required to be completed.

For the Consumer and Business Banking reporting unit's fair valuation analysis, an equal weighting of the market approach ("market approach") and income approach was applied. For the market approach, the Company selected a 25.0% control premium based on the Company's review of transactions observable in the market place that were determined to be comparable. The projected TBV of 1.4x was selected based on publicly traded peers of the reporting unit. For the income approach, the Company selected a discount rate of 9.1%, which was most representative of the reporting unit's cost of equity at the time of the analysis. Long-term growth rates of 4.0% were applied in determining the terminal value. The results of the equally weighted fair value analyses exceeded the carrying value for the Consumer and Business Banking reporting unit by 10.3%, indicating the reporting unit was not considered to be impaired.

For the C&I reporting unit's fair valuation analysis, an equal weighting of the market and income approach was applied. For the market approach, the Company selected a 25.0% control premium based on the Company's review of transactions observable in the marketplace that were determined to be comparable. The projected TBV of 1.4x was selected based on the selected publicly traded peers of the reporting unit. For the income approach, the Company selected a discount rate 12.7%, which was most representative of the business' cost of equity at the time of the analysis. Long-term growth rates of 4.0% were applied in determining the terminal value. The results of the equally weighted fair value analyses exceeded the carrying value for the Commercial Banking reporting unit by 18.0%, indicating the C&I reporting unit was not considered to be impaired.

For the CRE&VF reporting unit's fair valuation analysis, an equal weighting of the market and income approach was applied. For the market approach, the Company selected a 25.0% control premium based on the Company's review of transactions observable in the marketplace that were determined to be comparable. The projected TBV of 1.5x was selected based on the selected publicly traded peers of the reporting unit. For the income approach, the Company selected a discount rate 9.4%, which was most representative of the business' cost of equity at the time of the analysis. Long-term growth rates of 3.0% were applied in determining the terminal value. The results of the equally weighted fair value analyses exceeded the carrying value for the Commercial Banking reporting unit by 20.5%, indicating the CRE&VF reporting unit was not considered to be impaired or at risk for impairment.

For the CIB reporting unit's fair valuation analysis, an equal weighting of the market and income approach was applied. For the market approach, the Company selected a 25.0% control premium based on the Company's review of transactions observable in the market place that were determined to be comparable. The projected TBV of 1.3x was selected based on the selected publicly traded peers of the reporting unit and was equally considered with the projected earnings multiples of 8.0x and 7.5x and 7.0x, which were

applied to the reporting unit's 2019, 2020, and 2021 projected earnings, respectively, due to the nature of the business, which operates outside of the traditional savings and loan bank model. For the income approach, the Company selected a discount rate of 10.3%, which is most representative of the reporting unit's cost of equity at the time of the analysis. Long-term growth rates of 3.0% were applied in determining the terminal value. The results of the equally weighted fair value analyses exceeded the carrying value for the CIB reporting unit by 25.2%, indicating that the CIB reporting unit was not considered to be impaired or at risk for impairment.

For the SC reporting unit's fair valuation analysis, the Company used only the market capitalization approach. For the market capitalization approach, SC's stock price from October 1, 2019 of $25.53 was used and a 25.0% control premium was used based on the Company's review of transactions observable in the market-place that were determined to be comparable. The results of the fair value analyses exceeded the carrying value of the SC reporting unit by 67.9%, indicating that the SC reporting unit was not considered to be impaired. Management continues to monitor SC's stock price, along with changes in the financial position and results of operations that would impact the reporting unit's carrying value on a regular basis. Through the date of this filing, there have been no indicators which would change management's assessment as of October 1, 2019.

Management continues to monitor changes in financial position and results of operations that would impact each of the reporting units estimated fair value or carrying value on a regular basis. Through the date of this filing, there have been no indicators which would change management's assessment as of October 1, 2019.

DEFERRED TAXES AND OTHER TAX ACTIVITY

The Company had a net deferred tax liability balance of $1.0 billion at December 31, 2019 (consisting of a deferred tax asset balance of $503.7 million and a deferred tax liability balance of $1.5 billion), compared to a net deferred tax liability balance of $587.5 million at December 31, 2018 (consisting of a deferred tax asset balance of $625.1 million and a deferred tax liability balance of $1.2 billion). The $429.9 million increase in net deferred liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2019 was primarily due to an increase in deferred tax liabilities related to accelerated depreciation from leasing transactions and changes in depreciation on company owned assets.

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

See further discussion of the Company's off-balance sheet arrangements in Note 7 and Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, and the Liquidity and Capital Resources section of this MD&A.

For a discussion of the status of litigation with which the Company is involved with the IRS, please refer to Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

BANK REGULATORY CAPITAL

The Company's capital priorities are to support client growth and business investment while maintaining appropriate capital in light of economic uncertainty and the Basel III framework.

The Company is subject to the regulations of certain federal, state, and foreign agencies and undergoes periodic examinations by those regulatory authorities. At December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, based on the Bank’s capital calculations, the Bank was considered well-capitalized under the applicable capital framework. In addition, the Company's capital levels as of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, based on the Company’s capital calculations, exceeded the required capital ratios for BHCs.

For a discussion of Basel III, which became effective for SHUSA and the Bank on January 1, 2015, including the standardized approach and related future changes to the minimum U.S. regulatory capital ratios, see the section captioned "Regulatory Matters" in this MD&A.

Federal banking laws, regulations and policies also limit the Bank's ability to pay dividends and make other distributions to the Company. The Bank must obtain prior OCC approval to declare a dividend or make any other capital distribution if, after such dividend or distribution: (1) the Bank's total distributions to SHUSA within that calendar year would exceed 100% of its net income during the year plus retained net income for the prior two years, (2) the Bank would not meet capital levels imposed by the OCC in connection with any order, or (3) the Bank is not adequately capitalized at the time. The OCC's prior approval would also be required if the Bank were notified by the OCC that it is a problem institution or in troubled condition.

Any dividend declared and paid or return of capital has the effect of reducing capital ratios. During the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company paid cash dividends of $400.0 million, and $410.0 million, respectively, to its common stock shareholder and cash dividends to preferred shareholders of zero and $10.95 million, respectively. On August 15, 2018, SHUSA redeemed all of its outstanding preferred stock.

The following schedule summarizes the actual capital balances of SHUSA and the Bank at December 31, 2019:

In June 2019, the Company announced its planned capital actions for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. These planned capital actions are: (1) common stock dividends of $125 million per quarter from SHUSA to Santander, (2) common stock dividends paid by SC, and (3) an authorization to repurchase up to $1.1 billion of SC’s outstanding common stock. Refer to the Liquidity and Capital Resources section below for discussion of the capital actions taken, including SC’s share repurchase plans and activities.

Refer to the Liquidity and Capital Resources section below for discussion of the capital actions taken, including SC's share repurchase plans and activities.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

The Company continues to maintain strong liquidity. Liquidity represents the ability of the Company to obtain cost-effective funding to meet the needs of customers as well as the Company's financial obligations. Factors that impact the liquidity position of the Company include loan origination volumes, loan prepayment rates, the maturity structure of existing loans, core deposit growth levels, CD maturity structure and retention, the Company's credit ratings, investment portfolio cash flows, the maturity structure of the Company's wholesale funding, and other factors. These risks are monitored and managed centrally. The Company's Asset/Liability Committee reviews and approves the Company's liquidity policy and guidelines on a regular basis. This process includes reviewing all available wholesale liquidity sources. The Company also forecasts future liquidity needs and develops strategies to ensure adequate liquidity is available at all times. SHUSA conducts monthly liquidity stress test analyses to manage its liquidity under a variety of scenarios, all of which demonstrate that the Company has ample liquidity to meet its short-term and long-term cash requirements.

Further changes to the credit ratings of SHUSA, Santander and its affiliates or the Kingdom of Spain could have a material adverse effect on SHUSA's business, including its liquidity and capital resources. The credit ratings of SHUSA have changed in the past and may change in the future, which could impact its cost of and access to sources of financing and liquidity. Any reductions in the long-term or short-term credit ratings of SHUSA would increase its borrowing costs and require it to replace funding lost due to the downgrade, which may include the loss of customer deposits, limit its access to capital and money markets and trigger additional collateral requirements in derivatives contracts and other secured funding arrangements. See further discussion on the impacts of credit ratings actions in the "Economic and Business Environment" section of this MD&A.

The Company and the Bank have several sources of funding to meet liquidity requirements, including the Bank's core deposit base, liquid investment securities portfolio, ability to acquire large deposits, FHLB borrowings, wholesale deposit purchases, and federal funds purchased, as well as through securitizations in the ABS market and committed credit lines from third-party banks and Santander. The Company has the following major sources of funding to meet its liquidity requirements: dividends and returns of investments from its subsidiaries, short-term investments held by non-bank affiliates, and access to the capital markets.

SC requires a significant amount of liquidity to originate and acquire loans and leases and to service debt. SC funds its operations through its lending relationships with 13 third-party banks, SHUSA, and through securitizations in the ABS market and flow agreements. SC seeks to issue debt that appropriately matches the cash flows of the assets that it originates. SC has more than $7.3 billion of stockholders’ equity that supports its access to the securitization markets, credit facilities, and flow agreements.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, SC completed on-balance sheet funding transactions totaling approximately $18.2 billion, including:

For information regarding SC's debt, see Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

On June 6, 2017, SIS entered into a revolving subordinated loan agreement with SHUSA not to exceed $290.0 million for a two-year term to mature in 2019. On October 16, 2018, the revolving loan agreement was increased to $895.0 million.

As needed, SIS will draw down from another subordinated loan with Santander in order to enable SIS to underwrite certain large transactions in excess of the subordinated loan described above. At December 31, 2019, there was no outstanding balance on the subordinated loan.

BSI's primary sources of liquidity are from customer deposits and deposits from affiliated banks.

BSPR's primary sources of liquidity include core deposits, FHLB borrowings, wholesale and/or brokered deposits, and liquid investment securities.

The Company regularly projects its funding needs under various stress scenarios, and maintains contingency plans consistent with the Company’s access to diversified sources of contingent funding. The Company maintains a substantial level of total available liquidity in the form of on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet funding sources. These include cash, unencumbered liquid assets, and capacity to borrow at the FHLB and the FRB’s discount window.

As of December 31, 2019, the Bank had approximately $20.3 billion in committed liquidity from the FHLB and the FRB. Of this amount, $12.4 billion was unused and therefore provides additional borrowing capacity and liquidity for the Company. At December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, liquid assets (cash and cash equivalents and LHFS) and securities AFS exclusive of securities pledged as collateral) totaled approximately $15.0 billion and $15.9 billion, respectively. These amounts represented 24.3% and 25.8% of total deposits at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, the Bank, BSI and BSPR had $1.1 billion, $1.3 billion, and $838.4 million, respectively, in cash held at the FRB. Management believes that the Company has ample liquidity to fund its operations.

BSPR has $647.6 million in committed liquidity from the FHLB, all of which was unused as of December 31, 2019, as well as $2.2 billion in liquid assets aside from cash unused as of December 31, 2019.

As of January 1, 2018, the classification of restricted cash within the Company's SCF changed. Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional details.

Net cash flow from operating activities was $6.8 billion for the year ended December 31, 2019, which was primarily comprised of net income of $1.0 billion, $1.6 billion in proceeds from sales of LHFS, $2.4 billion in depreciation, amortization and accretion, and $2.3 billion of provisions for credit losses, partially offset by $1.5 billion of originations of LHFS, net of repayments.

Net cash flow from operating activities was $7.0 billion for the year ended December 31, 2018, which was primarily comprised of net income of $991.0 million, $4.3 billion in proceeds from sales of LHFS, $1.9 billion in depreciation, amortization and accretion, and $2.3 billion of provision for credit losses, partially offset by $3.0 billion of originations of LHFS, net of repayments.

Net cash flow from operating activities was $5.0 billion for the year ended December 31, 2017, which was primarily comprised of net income of $958.0 million, $4.6 billion in proceeds from sales of LHFS, $1.6 billion in depreciation, amortization and accretion, and $2.8 billion of provision for credit losses, partially offset by $4.9 billion of originations of LHFS, net of repayments.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, net cash flow from investing activities was $(17.2) billion, primarily due to $10.2 billion in normal loan activity, $10.5 billion of purchases of investment securities AFS, $8.6 billion in operating lease purchases and originations, and $1.6 billion of purchases of HTM investment securities, partially offset by $8.1 billion of AFS investment securities sales, maturities and prepayments, $2.6 billion in proceeds from sales of LHFI, and $3.5 billion in proceeds from sales and terminations of operating leases.

For the year ended December 31, 2018, net cash flow from investing activities was $(12.5) billion, primarily due to $8.5 billion in normal loan activity, $2.4 billion of purchases of investment securities AFS, and $9.9 billion in operating lease purchases and originations, partially offset by $3.9 billion of AFS investment securities sales, maturities and prepayments, $1.0 billion in proceeds from sales of LHFI, and $3.6 billion in proceeds from sales and terminations of operating leases.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, net cash flow from investing activities was $3.3 billion, primarily due to $8.4 billion of AFS investment securities sales, maturities and prepayments, $2.7 billion in normal loan activity, $3.1 billion in proceeds from sales and terminations of operating leases, and $1.2 billion in proceeds from sales of LHFI, partially offset by $6.2 billion of purchases of investment securities AFS and $6.0 billion in operating lease purchases and originations.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, net cash flow from financing activities was $11.2 billion, which was primarily due to an increase in net borrowing activity of $5.6 billion and a $6.3 billion increase in deposits, partially offset by $400.0 million in dividends paid on common stock and $338.0 million in stock repurchases attributable to NCI.

Net cash flow from financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $5.8 billion, which was primarily due to an increase in net borrowing activity of $5.9 billion, partially offset by $410.0 million in dividends paid on common stock and $200.0 million in redemption of preferred stock.

Net cash flow from financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2017 was $(11.0) billion, which was primarily due to a decrease in net borrowing activity of $4.7 billion and a $6.2 billion decrease in deposits.

See the SCF for further details on the Company's sources and uses of cash.

SC uses warehouse facilities to fund its originations. Each facility specifies the required collateral characteristics, collateral concentrations, credit enhancement, and advance rates. SC's warehouse facilities generally are backed by auto RICs or auto leases. These facilities generally have one- or two-year commitments, staggered maturities and floating interest rates. SC maintains daily and long-term funding forecasts for originations, acquisitions, and other large outflows such as tax payments to balance the desire to minimize funding costs with its liquidity needs.

SC's warehouse facilities generally have net spread, delinquency, and net loss ratio limits. Generally, these limits are calculated based on the portfolio collateralizing the respective line; however, for certain of SC's warehouse facilities, delinquency and net loss ratios are calculated with respect to its serviced portfolio as a whole. Failure to meet any of these covenants could trigger increased overcollateralization requirements or, in the case of limits calculated with respect to the specific portfolio underlying certain credit lines, result in an event of default under these agreements. If an event of default occurred under one of these agreements, the lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the impacted agreement to be immediately due and payable, enforce their interests against collateral pledged under the agreement, restrict SC's ability to obtain additional borrowings under the agreement, and/or remove SC as servicer. SC has never had a warehouse facility terminated due to failure to comply with any ratio or a failure to meet any covenant. A default under one of these agreements can be enforced only with respect to the impacted warehouse facility.

SC has one credit facility with eight banks providing an aggregate commitment of $5.0 billion for the exclusive use of providing short-term liquidity needs to support Chrysler Finance lease financing. As of December 31, 2019, there was an outstanding balance of approximately $1.1 billion on this facility in the aggregate. The facility requires reduced advance rates in the event of delinquency, credit loss, or residual loss ratios, as well as other metrics exceeding specified thresholds.

SC has seven credit facilities with eleven banks providing an aggregate commitment of $6.5 billion for the exclusive use of providing short-term liquidity needs to support core and Chrysler Capital loan financing. As of December 31, 2019, there was an outstanding balance of approximately $3.9 billion on these facilities in the aggregate. These facilities reduced advance rates in the event of delinquency, credit loss, as well as various other metrics exceeding specific thresholds.

Repurchase Agreements

SC also obtains financing through investment management or repurchase agreements under which it pledges retained subordinate bonds on its own securitizations as collateral for repurchase agreements with various borrowers and at renewable terms ranging up to 365 days. As of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, there were outstanding balances of $422.3 million and $298.9 million, respectively, under these repurchase agreements.

The Company provides SC with $3.5 billion of committed revolving credit that can be drawn on an unsecured basis. The Company also provides SC with $5.7 billion of term promissory notes with maturities ranging from May 2020 to July 2024. These loans eliminate in the consolidation of SHUSA.

SC's secured structured financings primarily consist of both public, SEC-registered securitizations, as well as private securitizations under Rule 144A of the Securities Act, and privately issues amortizing notes. SC has on-balance sheet securitizations outstanding in the market with a cumulative ABS balance of approximately $28.0 billion.

In addition to SC's credit facilities and secured structured financings, SC has a flow agreement in place with a third party for charged-off assets. Loans and leases sold under these flow agreements are not on SC's balance sheet, but provide a stable stream of servicing fee income and may also provide a gain or loss on sale. SC continues to actively seek additional flow agreements.

Beginning in 2017, SC had the option to sell a contractually determined amount of eligible prime loans to Santander through securitization platforms. As all of the notes and residual interests in the securitizations are acquired by Santander, SC recorded these transactions as true sales of the RICs securitized, and removed the sold assets from its consolidated balance sheets. Beginning in 2018, this program was replaced with a new program with SBNA, whereby SC has agreed to provide SBNA with origination support services in connection with the processing, underwriting, and purchasing of retail loans, primarily from FCA dealers, all of which are serviced by SC.

The Company uses liquidity for debt service and repayment of borrowings, as well as for funding loan commitments and satisfying deposit withdrawal requests.

SIS uses liquidity primarily to support underwriting transactions.

The primary use of liquidity for BSI is to meet customer liquidity requirements, such as maturing deposits, investment activities, funds transfers, and payment of its operating expenses.

BSPR uses liquidity for funding loan commitments and satisfying deposit withdrawal requests.

At December 31, 2019, the Company's liquidity to meet debt payments, debt service and debt maturities was in excess of 12 months.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company had 530,391,043 shares of common stock outstanding. During the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company paid dividends of $400.0 million to its sole shareholder, Santander. During the first quarter of 2020, the Company declared a cash dividend of $125.0 million on its common stock, which was paid on March 2, 2020.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, Santander made cash contributions of $88.9 million to the Company.

SC paid a dividend of $0.20 per share in February and May 2019, and a dividend of $0.22 per share in August and November 2019. Further, SC declared a cash dividend of $0.22 per share, which was paid on February 20, 2020, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on February 10, 2020. SC has paid a total of $291.5 million in dividends through December 31, 2019, of which $85.2 million has been paid to NCI and $206.3 million has been paid to the Company, which eliminates in the consolidated results of the Company.

The following table presents information regarding the shares of SC Common Stock repurchased during the year ended December 31, 2019 ($ in thousands, except per share amounts):

In June 2018, the SC Board of Directors announced purchases of up to $200 million, excluding commissions, of outstanding SC Common Stock through June 2019.

In May 2019, the Company announced an amendment to its 2018 capital plan, which authorized SC to repurchase up to $400 million of outstanding SC Common Stock through June 30, 2019, which concluded with the repurchase of $86.8 million of SC Common Stock.

In June 2019, SC announced its planned capital actions for the third quarter of 2019 through the second quarter of 2020, which includes an authorization to repurchase up to $1.1 billion of outstanding SC Common Stock through the end of the second quarter of 2020.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, SC purchased 13.9 million shares of SC Common Stock under its share repurchase program at a cost of approximately $338 million, excluding commissions.

On January 30, 2020, SC commenced a tender offer to purchase for cash up to $1 billion of shares of SC Common Stock, at a range of between $23 and $26 per share. The tender offer expired on February 27, 2020 and was closed on March 4, 2020. In connection with the completion of the tender offer, SC acquired approximately 17.5 million shares of SC Common Stock for approximately $455.4 million. After the completion of the tender offer, SHUSA's ownership in SC increased to approximately 76.3%.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, SHUSA's subsidiaries had the following capital activity which eliminated in consolidation:

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER COMMITMENTS

The Company enters into contractual obligations in the normal course of business as a source of funds for its asset growth and asset/liability management and to meet required capital needs. These obligations require the Company to make cash payments over time as detailed in the table below.

Excluded from the above table are deposits of $58.0 billion that are due on demand by customers.

The Company is a party to financial instruments and other arrangements with off-balance sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers and manage its exposure to fluctuations in interest rates. See further discussion on these risks in Note 14 and Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

ASSET AND LIABILITY MANAGEMENT

Interest rate risk arises primarily through the Company’s traditional business activities of extending loans and accepting deposits. Many factors, including economic and financial conditions, movements in market interest rates, and consumer preferences, affect the spread between interest earned on assets and interest paid on liabilities. Interest rate risk is managed by the Company's Treasury group and measured by its Market Risk Department, with oversight by the Asset/Liability Committee. In managing interest rate risk, the Company seeks to minimize the variability of net interest income across various likely scenarios, while at the same time maximizing

net interest income and the net interest margin. To achieve these objectives, the Treasury group works closely with each business line in the Company. The Treasury group also uses various other tools to manage interest rate risk, including wholesale funding maturity targeting, investment portfolio purchase strategies, asset securitizations/sales, and financial derivatives.

Interest rate risk focuses on managing four elements of risk associated with interest rates: basis risk, repricing risk, yield curve risk and option risk. Basis risk stems from rate index timing differences with rate changes, such as differences in the extent of changes in Federal funds rates compared with the three-month LIBOR. Repricing risk stems from the different timing of contractual repricing, such as one-month versus three-month reset dates, as well as the related maturities. Yield curve risk stems from the impact on earnings and market value resulting from different shapes and levels of yield curves. Option risk stems from prepayment or early withdrawal risk embedded in various products. These four elements of risk are analyzed through a combination of net interest income and balance sheet valuation simulations, shocks to those simulations, and scenario and market value analyses, and the subsequent results are reviewed by management. Numerous assumptions are made to produce these analyses, including assumptions about new business volumes, loan and investment prepayment rates, deposit flows, interest rate curves, economic conditions and competitor pricing.

The Company utilizes a variety of measurement techniques to evaluate the impact of interest rate risk, including simulating the impact of changing interest rates on expected future interest income and interest expense, to estimate the Company's net interest income sensitivity. This simulation is run monthly and includes various scenarios that help management understand the potential risks in the Company's net interest income sensitivity. These scenarios include both parallel and non-parallel rate shocks as well as other scenarios that are consistent with quantifying the four elements of risk described above. This information is used to develop proactive strategies to ensure that the Company’s risk position remains within SHUSA Board of Directors-approved limits so that future earnings are not significantly adversely affected by future interest rates.

The table below reflects the estimated sensitivity to the Company’s net interest income based on interest rate changes at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018:

The Company also evaluates the impact of interest rate risk by utilizing MVE modeling. This analysis measures the present value of all estimated future cash flows of the Company over the estimated remaining life of the balance sheet. MVE is calculated as the difference between the market value of assets and liabilities. The MVE calculation utilizes only the current balance sheet, and therefore does not factor in any future changes in balance sheet size, balance sheet mix, yield curve relationships or product spreads, which may mitigate the impact of any interest rate changes.

Management examines the effect of interest rate changes on MVE. The sensitivity of MVE to changes in interest rates is a measure of longer-term interest rate risk, and highlights the potential capital at risk due to adverse changes in market interest rates. The following table discloses the estimated sensitivity to the Company’s MVE at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company’s profile reflected a decrease of MVE of 3.01% for downward parallel interest rate shocks of 100 basis points and an increase of 0.49% for upward parallel interest rate shocks of 100 basis points. The asymmetrical sensitivity between up 100 and down 100 shock is due to the negative convexity as a result of the prepayment option embedded in mortgage-related products, the impact of which is not fully offset by the behavior of the funding base (largely NMDs).

In downward parallel interest rate shocks, mortgage-related products’ prepayments increase, their duration decreases and their market value appreciation is therefore limited. At the same time, with deposit rates remaining at comparatively low levels, the Company cannot effectively transfer interest rate declines to its NMD customers. For upward parallel interest rate shocks, extension risk weighs on a sizable portion of the Company’s mortgage-related products, which are predominantly long-term and fixed-rate; and for larger shocks, the loss in market value is not offset by the change in NMD.

Since the assumptions used are inherently uncertain, the Company cannot predict precisely the effect of higher or lower interest rates on net interest income or MVE. Actual results will differ from simulated results due to the timing, magnitude and frequency of interest rate changes, the difference between actual experience and the assumed volume, characteristics of new business, behavior of existing positions, and changes in market conditions and management strategies, among other factors.

To mitigate interest rate risk and, to a lesser extent, foreign exchange, equity and credit risks, the Company uses derivative financial instruments to reduce the effects that changes in interest rates may have on net income, the fair value of assets and liabilities, and cash flows.

Through the Company’s capital markets and mortgage banking activities, it is subject to price risk. The Company employs various tools to measure and manage price risk in its portfolios. In addition, SHUSA's Board of Directors has established certain limits relative to positions and activities. The level of price risk exposure at any point in time depends on the market environment and expectations of future price and market movements, and will vary from period to period.

Management uses derivative instruments to mitigate the impact of interest rate movements on the fair value of certain liabilities, assets and highly probable forecasted cash flows. These instruments primarily include interest rate swaps that have underlying interest rates based on key benchmark indices and forward sale or purchase commitments. The nature and volume of the derivative instruments used to manage interest rate risk depend on the level and type of assets and liabilities on the balance sheet and the risk management strategies for the current and anticipated interest rate environments.

The Company's derivatives portfolio includes mortgage banking interest rate lock commitments, forward sale commitments and interest rate swaps. As part of its overall business strategy, the Bank originates residential mortgages. It sells a portion of this production to the FHLMC, the FNMA, and private investors. The Company uses forward sales as a means of hedging against the economic impact of changes in interest rates on the mortgages that are originated for sale and on interest rate lock commitments.

The Company typically retains the servicing rights related to residential mortgage loans that are sold. The majority of the Company's residential MSRs are accounted for at fair value. As deemed appropriate, the Company economically hedges MSRs, using interest rate swaps and forward contracts to purchase MBS. For additional information on MSRs, see Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company uses foreign exchange contracts to manage the foreign exchange risk associated with certain foreign currency-denominated assets and liabilities. Foreign exchange contracts, which include spot and forward contracts, represent agreements to exchange the currency of one country for the currency of another country at an agreed-upon price on an agreed-upon settlement date. Exposure to gains and losses on these contracts increase or decrease over their respective lives as currency exchange and interest rates fluctuate.

The Company also utilizes forward contracts to manage market risk associated with certain expected investment securities sales and equity options, which manage its market risk associated with certain customer deposit products.

For additional information on foreign exchange contracts, derivatives and hedging activities, see Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

BORROWINGS AND OTHER DEBT OBLIGATIONS

The Company has term loans and lines of credit with Santander and other lenders. The Bank utilizes borrowings and other debt obligations as a source of funds for its asset growth and asset/liability management. The Bank also utilizes repurchase agreements, which are short-term obligations collateralized by securities. In addition, SC has warehouse lines of credit and securitizes some of its RICs and operating leases, which are structured secured financings. Total borrowings and other debt obligations at December 31, 2019 were $50.7 billion, compared to $45.0 billion at December 31, 2018. Total borrowings increased $5.7 billion, primarily due to new debt issuances of $3.8 billion, an increase in FHLB advances at the Bank of $2.2 billion and an overall increase of $2.2 billion in SC debt, partially offset by $2.3 billion of debt maturities and calls. See further detail on borrowings activity in Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES

The Company's ~~non-generally accepted accounting principle ("non-GAAP")~~non-GAAP information has limitations as an analytical tool and, therefore, should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of our results or any performance measures under ~~generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP")~~GAAP as set forth in the Company's financial statements. These limitations should be compensated for by relying primarily on the Company's GAAP results and using this non-GAAP information only as a supplement to evaluate the Company's performance.

The Company considers various measures when evaluating capital utilization and adequacy. These calculations are intended to complement the capital ratios defined by banking regulators for both absolute and comparative purposes. Because GAAP does not include capital ratio measures, the Company believes that there are no comparable GAAP financial measures to these ratios. These ratios are not formally defined by GAAP and are considered to be non-GAAP financial measures. Since analysts and banking regulators may assess the Company's capital adequacy using these ratios, the Company believes they are useful to provide investors the ability to assess its capital adequacy on the same basis. The Company believes these non-GAAP measures are important because they reflect the level of capital available to withstand unexpected market conditions. Additionally, presentation of these measures may allow readers to compare certain aspects of the Company's capitalization to other organizations. However, because there are no standardized definitions for these ratios, the Company's calculations may not be directly comparable with those of other organizations, and the usefulness of these measures to investors may be limited. As a result, the Company encourages readers to consider its Consolidated Financial Statements in their entirety and not to rely on any single financial measure.

The following table includes the related GAAP measures included in our non-GAAP financial measures.

The following table presented selected quarterly consolidated financial data (unaudited):

SHUSA reported net income for the fourth quarter of 2019 of $125.5 million compared to net income of $270.4 million for the third quarter of 2019. The most significant period-over-period variances were:

SHUSA reported net income for the fourth quarter of 2019 of $125.5 million, compared to net income of $131.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2018. The most significant period over period variances were:

Incorporated by reference from Part II, Item 7, MD&A — "Asset and Liability Management" above.

Consumer ~~loan net charge-offs~~TDRs in the residential mortgage and home equity portfolios are generally placed on non-accrual status at the time of modification, and returned to accrual when they have made six consecutive on-time payments. In addition to those identified as TDRs above, loans discharged under Chapter 7 bankruptcy are considered TDRs and collateral-dependent, regardless of delinquency status. These loans are written down to fair market value and classified as non-accrual/non-performing for the remaining life of the loan.

The ALLL is established to recognize losses in funded loans that are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Prior to loans being placed in TDR status, the Company generally measures its allowance under a ~~percentage of average~~loss contingency methodology in which consumer loans ~~was 5.2%~~with similar risk characteristics are pooled and loss experience information is monitored for ~~the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 5.7% for the year ended December 31, 2015.~~credit risk and deterioration with statistical tools considering factors such as delinquency, LTV and credit scores.

~~Commercial charge-offs increased $70.2 million for~~Upon TDR modification, the ~~year ended December 31, 2016 compared~~Company generally measures impairment based on a present value of expected future cash flows methodology considering all available evidence using the effective interest rate or fair value of collateral (less costs to ~~2015. This increase was primarily due~~sell). The amount of the required valuation allowance is equal to ~~a $66.6 million increase in Corporate Banking charge-offs.~~the difference between the loan’s impaired value and the recorded investment.

~~Commercial recoveries increased $21.1 million for~~RIC TDRs that subsequently default continue to have impairment measured based on the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to 2015. This increase was primarily due to a $15.6 million increase in Commercial Real Estate recoveries, and a $7.6 million increase in Corporate Banking recoveries.

~~Consumer Fees~~Typically, commercial loans whose terms are modified in a TDR will have been identified as impaired prior to modification and accounted for generally using a present value of expected future cash flows methodology, unless the loan is considered collateral-dependent. Loans considered collateral-dependent are measured for impairment based on the fair values of their collateral less its estimated cost to sell. Accordingly, upon TDR modification or if a TDR modification subsequently defaults, the allowance methodology remains unchanged.

A loan is considered to be impaired when, based upon current information and events, it is probable that the ~~year ended December 31, 2016 compared~~Company will be unable to ~~2015. This increase was primarily~~collect all amounts due ~~to a $9.7 million increase in insurance and investment activities. This was partially offset by a $5.8 million decrease in loan fee income, which was attributable~~according to the ~~reduction~~contractual terms of ~~loans serviced by~~ the ~~Company due to~~loan. An insignificant delay (e.g., less than 61 days for RICs or less than 90 days for all of the Company's other loans) or insignificant shortfall in amount of payments does not necessarily result in the loan ~~sales and payoffs and lower reserve recourse releases in 2016.~~being identified as impaired.

~~Commercial Fees~~

NOTE 1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)

~~Item 7. Management’s Discussion~~The Company measures impairment on impaired loans based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan's original effective interest rate, except that, as a practical expedient, the Company may measure impairment based on a loan's observable market price, or the fair value of the collateral, less the costs to sell, if the loan is a collateral-dependent loan. Some impaired loans share common risk characteristics. Such loans are collectively assessed for impairment and ~~Analysis~~the Company utilizes historical loan loss experience information as part of ~~Financial Condition~~its evaluation. When the Company determines that the present value of the estimated cash flows of an impaired loan is less than its carrying amount, the Company recognizes impairment through a provision estimate or a charge-off to the allowance. Management performs these assessments on at least a quarterly basis.

LHFS are recorded at either estimated fair value (if the FVO is elected) or the lower of cost or fair value. The Company has elected to account for most of its residential real estate mortgages originated with the intent to sell at fair value. Generally, residential loans are valued on an aggregate portfolio basis, and ~~Results~~commercial loans are valued on an individual loan basis. Gains and losses on LHFS which are accounted for at fair value are recorded in Miscellaneous income, net. For residential mortgages for which the FVO is selected, direct loan origination fees are recorded in Miscellaneous income, net at origination.

All other LHFS which the Company does not have the intent and ability to hold for the foreseeable future or until maturity or payoff are carried at the lower of cost or fair value. When loans are transferred from HFI, the Company will recognize a charge-off to the ALLL, if warranted under the Company’s charge off policies. Any excess ALLL for the transferred loans is reversed through provision expense. Subsequent to the initial measurement of LHFS, market declines in the recorded investment, whether due to credit or market risk, are recorded through miscellaneous income, net as lower of cost or market adjustments.

The Company provides financing for various types of equipment, aircraft, energy and power systems, and automobiles through a variety of lease arrangements.

The Company’s investments in leases that are accounted for as direct financing leases are carried at the aggregate of lease payments plus estimated residual value of the leased property less unearned income, and are reported as part of LHFI in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. Leveraged leases, a form of financing lease, are carried net of non-recourse debt. The Company recognizes income over the term of the lease using the effective interest method, which provides a constant periodic rate of return on the outstanding investment on the lease.

Leased vehicles under operating leases are carried at amortized cost net of accumulated depreciation and any impairment charges and presented as Operating lease assets, net in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. Leased assets acquired in a business combination are initially recorded at their estimated fair value. Leased vehicles purchased in connection with newly originated operating leases are recorded at amortized cost. The depreciation expense of the vehicles is recognized on a straight-line basis over the contractual term of the leases to the expected residual value. The expected residual value and, accordingly, the monthly depreciation expense may change throughout the term of the lease. The Company estimates expected residual values using independent data sources and internal statistical models that take into consideration economic conditions, current auction results, the Company’s remarketing abilities, and manufacturer vehicle and marketing programs.

Lease payments due from customers are recorded as income within Lease income in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations, unless and until a customer becomes more than 60 days delinquent, at which time the accrual of revenue is discontinued. The accrual is resumed if a delinquent account subsequently becomes 60 days or less past due. Payments from the vehicle’s manufacturer under its subvention programs are recorded as reductions to the cost of the vehicle and are recognized as an adjustment to depreciation expense on a straight-line basis over the contractual term of the lease.

The Company periodically evaluates its investment in operating leases for impairment if circumstances such as a systemic and material decline in used vehicle values occurs. This would include, for example, a decline in the residual value of our lease portfolio due to an event caused by shocks to oil and gas prices that have a pronounced impact on certain models of vehicles, pervasive manufacturer defects, or other events that could systemically affect the value of a particular brand or model of leased asset, which indicates that impairment may exist.

~~Mortgage banking income consisted~~NOTE 1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)

Under the accounting for impairment or disposal of ~~fees associated with servicing loans not held by~~long-lived assets, residual values of leased assets under operating leases are evaluated individually for impairment. When aggregate future cash flows from the ~~Company, as well as originations, amortization, and changes in~~operating lease, including the expected realizable fair value of ~~MSRs~~the leased asset at the end of the lease, are less than the book value of the lease, an immediate impairment write-down is recognized if the difference is deemed not recoverable. Otherwise, reductions in the expected residual value result in additional depreciation of the leased asset over the remaining term of the lease. Upon disposition, a gain or loss is recorded for any difference between the net book value of the leased asset and ~~recourse reserves. Mortgage banking income also includes gains~~the proceeds from the disposition of the asset, including any insurance proceeds. Gains or losses on the sale of ~~mortgage loans, home equity loans and home equity lines of credit, and MBS. Lastly, gains or losses on mortgage banking derivative and hedging transactions~~leased assets are ~~also~~ included in ~~Mortgage banking income.~~

~~The following table details certain residential mortgage rates for the Bank as of the dates indicated:~~

Premises and ~~$6.8 million, respectively, related to~~Equipment

Premises and equipment are carried at cost, less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is calculated utilizing the ~~fair value~~straight-line method. Estimated useful lives are as follows:

~~Net gains/(losses) on hedging activities decreased $6.5 million~~Expenditures for ~~the year ended December 31, 2016, compared~~maintenance and repairs are charged to ~~2015. This variance for the year ended December 31, 2016 was primarily due to the decrease~~Occupancy and equipment expense in the ~~mortgage loan pipeline valuation and the Company's hedging strategy in the current mortgage rate environment.~~Consolidated Statements of Operations as incurred.

~~Equity method investments gains/(losses), net consists~~This MD&A is based on the Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying notes that have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The significant accounting policies of ~~income and losses on investments in unconsolidated entities and joint ventures in which~~ the Company ~~has an interest, but does not have a controlling interest. These include investments~~are described in community reinvestment projects and entities which own wind power generating projects. Equity method investments gains/(losses), net decreased $2.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 2015.

~~Total general~~The ALLL and ~~administrative expenses increased $397.8 million~~reserve for unfunded lending commitments represent management's best estimate of probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The adequacy of SHUSA's ALLL and reserve for unfunded lending commitments is regularly evaluated. This evaluation process is subject to several estimates and applications of judgment. Management's evaluation of the adequacy of the allowance to absorb loan and lease losses takes into consideration the risks in the loan portfolio, past loan and lease loss experience, specific loans that have loss potential, geographic and industry concentrations, delinquency trends, economic conditions, the level of originations and other relevant factors. Management also considers loan quality, changes in the size and character of the loan portfolio, the amount of NPLs, and industry trends. Changes in these estimates could have a direct material impact on the provision for credit losses recorded in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and/or could result in a change in the recorded allowance and reserve for unfunded lending commitments. The loan portfolio represents the largest asset on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements describes the methodology used to determine the ALLL and reserve for unfunded lending commitments in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. A discussion of the factors driving changes in the amount of the ALLL and reserve for unfunded lending commitments for the ~~year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 2015. Factors contributing to~~periods presented is included in the Credit Risk Management section of this ~~increase were as follows:~~MD&A.

~~Compensation~~The ALLL includes: (i) an allocated allowance, which is comprised of allowances established on loans specifically evaluated for impairment and ~~benefits expense increased $121.1 million~~loans collectively evaluated for impairment, based on historical loan and lease loss experience adjusted for current trends general economic conditions and other risk factors, and (ii) an unallocated allowance to account for a level of imprecision in management's estimation process. Generally, the ~~year ended December 31, 2016 compared~~Company’s loans held for investment are carried at amortized cost, net of the ALLL. The ALLL includes the estimate of credit losses to ~~2015.~~ be realized during the loss emergence period based on the recorded investment in the loan, including net discounts that are expected at the time of charge-off. In the case of loans purchased in a bulk purchase or business combination, the entire discount on the loan portfolio is considered as available to absorb the credit losses when determining the ALLL. For these loans, the Company records provisions for credit losses when incurred losses exceed the unaccreted purchase discount. Reserve levels are collectively reviewed for adequacy and approved quarterly.

The ~~primary driver of this increase was the~~ Company's ~~headcount, in particular within its consumer finance subsidiary.~~

The ~~increase was offset by a decrease in consulting service fees related to regulatory initiatives, including preparation for meeting the requirements~~Company's unallocated allowance is no more than 5% of the ~~IHC which became effective on July 1, 2016.~~

The Company has significant investments in vehicles in SC's operating lease portfolio. In accounting for operating leases, management must make a determination at the beginning of the lease contract of the estimated realizable value (i.e., residual value) of the vehicle at the end of the lease. Residual value represents an estimate of the market value of the vehicle at the end of the lease term, which typically ranges from two to four years. At contract inception, the Company determines the projected residual value based on an internal evaluation of the expected future value. This evaluation is based on a proprietary model using internally-generated data that is compared against third-party, independent data for reasonableness. The customer is obligated to make payments during the term of the lease for the difference between the purchase price and the contract residual value plus a finance charge. However, since the customer is not obligated to purchase the vehicle at the end of the contract, the Company is exposed to a risk of loss to the extent the value of the vehicle is below the residual value estimated at contract inception. Management periodically performs a detailed review of the estimated realizable value of leased vehicles to assess the appropriateness of the carrying value of leased assets.

To account for residual risk, the Company depreciates automobile operating lease assets to estimated realizable value on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The estimated realizable value is initially based on the residual value established at contract inception. Periodically, the Company revises the projected value of the leased vehicle at termination based on current market conditions and other relevant data points, and adjusts depreciation expense appropriately over the remaining term of the lease.

The Company periodically evaluates its investment in operating leases for impairment if circumstances, such as a systemic and material decline in used vehicle values occurs. These circumstances could include, for example, a decline in the residual value of our lease portfolio due to an event caused by shocks to oil and gas prices (which may have a pronounced impact on certain models of vehicles) or pervasive manufacturer defects (which may systemically affect the value of a particular brand or model). Impairment is determined to exist if the fair value of the leased asset is less than its carrying value and it is determined that the net carrying value is not recoverable. The net carrying value of a leased asset is not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted expected future cash flows expected to result from the lease payments and the estimated residual value upon eventual disposition. If our operating lease assets are considered to be impaired, the impairment is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds the fair value as estimated by DCF. No such impairment was recognized in 2019, 2018, or 2017.

The Company's depreciation methodology for operating lease assets considers management's expectation of the value of the vehicles upon lease termination, which is based on numerous assumptions and factors influencing used vehicle values. The critical assumptions underlying the estimated carrying value of automobile lease assets include: (1) estimated market value information obtained and used by management in estimating residual values, (2) proper identification and estimation of business conditions, (3) our remarketing abilities, and (4) automobile manufacturer vehicle and marketing programs. Changes in these assumptions could have a significant impact on the value of the lease residuals. Expected residual values include estimates of payments from automobile manufacturers

related to residual support and risk-sharing agreements, if any. To the extent an automotive manufacturer is not able to fully honor its obligation relative to these agreements, the Company's depreciation expense would be negatively impacted.

LHFI include the RIC portfolio which consists largely of nonprime automobile loans, and which are primarily acquired individually from dealers at a nonrefundable discount from the contractual principal amount. The Company also pays dealer participation on certain receivables. The amortization of discounts, subvention payments from manufacturers, and other origination costs are recognized as adjustments to the yield of the related contracts. The Company applies significant assumptions, including prepayment speeds, in estimating the accretion rates used to approximate effective yield.

The Company estimates future principal prepayments specific to pools of homogeneous loans which are based on the vintage, credit quality at origination and term of the loan. Prepayments in our portfolio are sensitive to credit quality, with higher credit quality loans experiencing higher voluntary prepayment rates than lower credit quality loans. The impact of defaults is not considered in the prepayment rate; the prepayment rate only considers voluntary prepayments. The resulting prepayment rate specific to each pool is based on historical experience and is used as an input in the calculation of the constant effective yield.

The acquisition method of accounting for business combinations requires the Company to make use of estimates and judgments to allocate the purchase price paid for acquisitions to the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The excess of the purchase price of an acquired business over the fair value of the identifiable assets and liabilities represents goodwill. Goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangible assets are not amortized on a recurring basis, but rather are subject to periodic impairment testing.

As more fully described in Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, a reporting unit is an operating segment or one level below. The Company conducts its evaluation of goodwill impairment at the reporting unit level on an annual basis on October 1, and more frequently if events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value. As of December 31, 2019, the reporting units with assigned goodwill were Consumer and Business Banking, C&I, CRE & VF, CIB, and SC.

An entity's quantitative goodwill impairment analysis must be completed unless the entity determines, based on certain qualitative factors, that it is more likely than not (that is, a likelihood of more than 50 percent) that the fair value of a reporting unit is greater than its carrying amount, including goodwill, and that no impairment exists. An entity has an unconditional option to bypass the preceding qualitative assessment for any reporting unit in any period and proceed directly to the quantitative analysis of the goodwill impairment test.

The quantitative analysis requires a comparison of the fair value of each reporting unit to its carrying amount, including its allocated goodwill. If the fair value of the reporting unit is in excess of the carrying value, the related goodwill is considered not to be impaired and no further analysis is necessary. If the carrying value of the reporting unit is higher than the fair value, impairment is measured as the excess of the carrying amount over the fair value. A recognized impairment charge cannot exceed the amount of goodwill allocated to a reporting unit, and cannot subsequently be reversed even if the fair value of the reporting unit recovers. The Company utilizes the market capitalization approach to determine the fair value of its SC reporting unit, as it is a publicly traded company that has a single reporting unit. Determining the fair value of the remaining reporting units requires significant valuation inputs, assumptions, and estimates.

The Company determines the carrying value of each reporting unit using a risk-based capital approach. Certain of the Company's assets are assigned to a Corporate/Other category. These assets are related to the Company's corporate-only programs, such as BOLI, and are not employed in or related to the operations of a reporting unit or considered in determining the fair value of a reporting unit.

Goodwill impairment testing involves management's judgment, requiring an assessment of whether the carrying value of the reporting unit can be supported by its fair value. This is performed using widely-accepted valuation techniques, such as the guideline public company market approach (earnings and price-to-tangible book value multiples of comparable public companies), the market capitalization approach (share price of the reporting unit and control premium of comparable public companies), and the income approach (the DCF method). The Company uses a combination of these accepted methodologies to determine the fair valuation of reporting units. Several factors are taken into account, including actual operating results, future business plans, economic projections, and market data.

The guideline public company market approach ("market approach") includes earnings and price-to-tangible book value multiples of comparable public companies which were applied to the earnings and equity for all of the Company's reporting units. The market capitalization plus control premium approach was applied to the Company's SC reporting unit, as the SC reporting unit is a publicly traded subsidiary whose securities are traded in an active market.

In connection with the market capitalization plus control premium approach applied to the Company's SC reporting unit, the Company used SC's stock price as of the date of the annual impairment analysis. The Company also considered historical auto loan industry transactions and control premiums over the last three years in determining the control premium.

The DCF method of the income approach incorporates the reporting units' forecasted cash flows, including a terminal value to estimate the fair value of cash flows beyond the final year of the forecasts. The discount rates utilized to obtain the net present value of the reporting units' cash flows were estimated using a capital asset pricing model. Significant inputs to this model include a risk-free rate of return, beta (which is a measure of the level of non-diversifiable risk associated with comparable companies for each specific reporting unit), market equity risk premium, and, in certain cases, additional premium for size and/or unsystematic company-specific risk factors. The Company utilized discount rates that it believes adequately reflect the risk and uncertainty in the financial markets. The Company estimated expected rates of equity returns based on historical market returns and risk/return rates for similar industries of the reporting unit. The Company uses its internal forecasts to estimate future cash flows, so actual results may differ from forecasted results.

All of the preceding fair value determinations require considerable judgment and are sensitive to changes in underlying assumptions and factors. As a result, there can be no assurance that the estimates and assumptions made for purposes of the annual goodwill impairment test will prove to be accurate predictions in the future. Examples of events or circumstances that could reasonably be expected to negatively affect the underlying key assumptions and ultimately impacts the estimated fair value of the aforementioned reporting units include such items as:

Refer to the Financial Condition, Goodwill section of this MD&A for further details on the Company's goodwill, including the results of management's goodwill impairment analyses.

The Company uses fair value measurements to estimate the fair value of certain assets and liabilities for both measurement and disclosure purposes. Refer to Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of valuation methodologies used to measure material assets and liabilities at fair value and details of the valuation models, key inputs to those models, and significant assumptions utilized. The Company follows the fair value hierarchy set forth in Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements to prioritize the inputs utilized to measure fair value. The Company reviews and modifies, as necessary, the fair value hierarchy classifications on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, there may be reclassifications between hierarchy levels due to changes in inputs to the valuation techniques used to measure fair value.

The Company has numerous internal controls in place to ensure the appropriateness of fair value measurements, including controls over the inputs into and the outputs from the fair value measurements. Certain valuations are benchmarked to market indices when appropriate and available.

Considerable judgment is used in forming conclusions from observable market data used to estimate the Company's Level 2 fair value measurements and in estimating inputs to the Company's internal valuation models used to estimate Level 3 fair value measurements. Level 3 inputs such as interest rate movements, prepayment speeds, credit losses, recovery rates and discount rates are inherently difficult to estimate. Changes to these inputs can have a significant effect on fair value measurements. Accordingly, the Company's estimates of fair value are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that could be realized or would be paid in a current market exchange.

The Company accounts for income taxes under the asset and liability method, which includes considerable judgment. Deferred taxes are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases, including investments in subsidiaries. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates that apply or will apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to reverse or be realized. The effect of a change in tax rates on deferred tax assets and liabilities is recognized as income or expense in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation allowance will be established if the Company determines that it is more likely than not that a deferred tax asset will not be realized. This requires periodic analysis of the carrying amount of deferred tax assets and when the deferred tax assets will be realized in future periods. Consideration is given to all positive and negative evidence related to the realization of deferred tax assets. The critical assumptions used in the Company's deferred tax asset valuation allowance analysis are as follows: (a) the expectation of future earnings; (b) estimates of the Company's long-term annual growth rate, based on the Company's long-term economic outlook in the U.S.; (c) estimates of the dividend income payout ratio from the Company's consolidated subsidiary, SC, based on current policies and practices of SC; (d) estimates of book income to tax income differences, based on the analysis of historical differences and the historical timing of the reversal of temporary differences; (e) the ability to carry back losses to recoup taxes previously paid; (f) estimates of tax credits to be earned on current investments, based on the Company's evaluation of the credits applicable to each investment; (g) experience with operating loss and tax credit carryforwards not expiring unused; (h) estimates of applicable state tax rates based on current/most recent enacted tax rates and state apportionment calculations; (i) tax planning strategies; and (j) current tax laws. Significant judgment is required to assess future earnings trends and the timing of reversals of temporary differences. The Company makes certain assertions in regards to its investment in subsidiaries, which impact whether a deferred tax liability is recorded for the book over tax basis difference in the investment in these subsidiaries. This requires the Company to make judgments with respect to its ability to permanently reinvest its earnings in foreign subsidiaries and its ability to recover its investment in domestic subsidiaries in a tax free manner.

The Company bases its expectations of future earnings, which are used to assess the realizability of its deferred tax assets, on financial performance forecasts of its operating subsidiaries and unconsolidated investees. The budgets and estimates used in these forecasts are approved by the Company's management, and the assumptions underlying the forecasts are reviewed at least annually and adjusted as necessary based on current developments or when new information becomes available. The updates made and the variances between the Company's forecasts and its actual performance have not been significant enough to alter the Company's conclusions with regard to the realizability of its deferred tax asset. The Company continues to forecast sufficient taxable income to fully realize its current deferred tax assets. Forecasted taxable income is subject to changes in overall market and global economic conditions.

In establishing a provision for income tax expense, the Company must make judgments and interpretations about the application of inherently complex tax laws in the U.S., its states and municipalities, and abroad. Actual income taxes paid may vary from estimates depending on changes in income tax laws, actual results of operations, and the final audit of tax returns by taxing authorities. Tax assessments may arise several years after tax returns have been filed. The Company reviews its tax balances quarterly and as new information becomes available. Interest and penalties on income tax payments are included within income tax expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The Company recognizes tax benefits in its financial statements when it is more likely than not the related tax position will be sustained upon examination by tax authorities. Such tax positions are initially and subsequently measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the taxing authority assuming full knowledge of the position and all relevant facts. See Note 15 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for details on the Company's income taxes.

The following MD&A compares and discusses operating results for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018. For a discussion of our results of operations for 2018 versus 2017, See Part II, Item 7: Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation" included in our 2018 Form 10-K, filed with the SEC on March 15, 2019.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2019 AND 2018

~~Total other expenses decreased $4.4~~The Company reported pre-tax income of $1.5 billion for the year ended December 31, ~~2016~~2019, compared to ~~2015. The primary factors~~pre-tax income of $1.4 billion for the corresponding period in 2018. Factors contributing to this ~~decrease were:~~change have been discussed further in the sections below.

Net interest income increased $97.9 million for the year ended December 31, ~~2016~~2019 compared to ~~2015. This decrease was primarily due to the Company's core deposit intangibles~~2018.

Interest income on investment securities and ~~before becoming fully amortized in the second quarter of 2016.~~

Interest income on loans increased $552.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to 2018. This increase was primarily due to the growth of total loans. The average balance of total loans increased $6.9 billion for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This overall increase in loans was primarily driven by the continued growth of the commercial portfolio, auto loans and RICs; however, the average rate has decreased on the RIC portfolio due to more prime loan originations as a result of the SBNA origination program.

Interest expense on deposits and related customer accounts increased $185.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This increase was primarily due to overall higher interest rates and increased deposits. Higher rates were offered to customers on various deposit products in order to attract and grow the customer base. The average balance of total interest-bearing deposits was $49.8 billion with an average cost of 1.15% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to an average balance of $46.3 billion with an average cost of 0.84% for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Interest expense on borrowed funds increased $297.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 2018. This increase ~~in FDIC insurance premiums~~was due to higher interest rates being paid and ~~an additional $13.9 million FDIC quarterly surcharge which commenced in the third quarter of 2016.~~