Item 6

Item 7

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

Item 7A

Item 8

Item 9

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

Item 9A

Item 9B

PART III

Item 10

Item 11

Item 12

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

Item 13

Item 14

PART IV

Item 15

PART I

GENERAL

State Street Corporation is a financial holding company organized in 1969 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Through our subsidiaries, including our principal banking subsidiary, State Street Bank and Trust Company, or State Street Bank, we provide a broad range of financial products and services to institutional investors worldwide. At December 31, 2011, we had consolidated total assets of $216.83 billion, consolidated total deposits of $157.29 billion, consolidated total shareholders’ equity of $19.40 billion and 29,740 employees. Our executive offices are located at One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (telephone (617) 786-3000).

For purposes of this Form 10-K, unless the context requires otherwise, references to “State Street,” “we,” “us,” “our” or similar terms mean State Street Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis; references to “parent company” mean State Street Corporation; and references to “State Street Bank” mean State Street Bank and Trust Company. The parent company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries, assisting those subsidiaries by providing financial resources and management.

We make available through our website atwww.statestreet.com, free of charge, all reports we electronically file with, or furnish to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, including our Annual Reports 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, as soon as reasonably practicable after those documents have been filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. These documents are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We have included the website addresses of State Street and the SEC in this report as inactive textual references only. Information on those websites is not part of this Form 10-K.

We have Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as written charters for the Executive Committee, the Examining & Audit Committee, the Executive Compensation Committee, the Risk and Capital Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors, and a Code of Ethics for senior financial officers, a Standard of Conduct for Directors and a Standard of Conduct for our employees. Each of these documents is posted on our website.

BUSINESS DESCRIPTION

Overview

We are a leader in providing financial services and products to meet the needs of institutional investors worldwide, with $21.81 trillion of assets under custody and administration and $1.86 trillion of assets under management as of December 31, 2011. Our clients include mutual funds, collective investment funds and other investment pools, corporate and public retirement plans, insurance companies, foundations, endowments and investment managers. We operate in 29 countries and in more than 100 geographic markets worldwide. We conduct our business primarily through State Street Bank, which traces its beginnings to the founding of the Union Bank in 1792. State Street Bank’s current charter was authorized by a special Act of the Massachusetts Legislature in 1891, and its present name was adopted in 1960.

Significant Developments

In 2011, we purchased approximately 16.3 million shares of our common stock, at an aggregate cost of $675 million, under the program approved by the Board of Directors and publicly announced in March 2011. In addition, we declared an aggregate of $0.72 per share, or approximately $358 million, of dividends on our common stock in 2011; this amount represented the first increase in our common stock dividend since early 2009. Additional information with respect to our common stock purchase and dividend actions is provided under “Financial Condition—Capital” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, we completed our acquisitions of Complementa Investment—Controlling AG, an investment performance measurement and analytics firm based in Switzerland, and Pulse Trading, Inc., a

full-service agency brokerage firm based in Boston, Massachusetts. We acquired Complementa, a provider of investment performance measurement analytics to institutional and large private investors, to augment the expansion of our investment analytics capabilities and our overall presence in key markets in Europe. We acquired Pulse Trading, which provides a range of electronic trading capabilities, to enhance the electronic trading technology we provide to our institutional clients. Additional information about these acquisitions is provided in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8.

In November 2010, we announced a business operations and information technology transformation program. This multi-year program incorporates operational, information technology and targeted cost initiatives, including reductions in force and a plan to reduce our occupancy costs. In connection with our implementation of this program, we recorded aggregate restructuring charges of approximately $133 million in 2011, following $156 million of such charges in 2010. The 2011 charges consisted mainly of costs related to employee severance and information technology. In connection with our implementation of this program, we achieved approximately $86 million of annual pre-tax, run-rate expense savings in 2011 compared to 2010 run-rate expenses. These annual pre-tax, run-rate savings relate only to the business operations and information technology transformation program. Our actual operating expenses may increase or decrease as a result of other factors.

Additional information with respect to the program is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations—Expenses” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7.

Additional Information

Additional information about our business activities is provided in the sections that follow. For information about our management of capital, liquidity, market risk, including interest-rate risk, and other risks inherent in our businesses, refer to Risk Factors included under Item 1A, Management’s Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included under Item 8.

LINES OF BUSINESS

We have two lines of business: Investment Servicing and Investment Management.

Investment Servicing provides products and services including custody, product- and participant-level accounting; daily pricing and administration; master trust and master custody; record-keeping; foreign exchange, brokerage and other trading services; securities finance; deposit and short-term investment facilities; loan and lease financing; investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing; and performance, risk and compliance analytics.

We are the largest provider of mutual fund custody and accounting services in the U.S. We distinguish ourselves from other mutual fund service providers by offering clients a broad array of integrated products and services, including accounting, daily pricing and fund administration. At December 31, 2011, we calculated approximately 40.6% of the U.S. mutual fund prices provided to NASDAQ that appeared daily in The Wall Street Journal and other publications with an accuracy rate of 99.87%. We serviced U.S. tax-exempt assets for corporate and public pension funds, and we provided trust and valuation services for more than 5,500 daily-priced portfolios at December 31, 2011.

We are a service provider outside of the U.S. as well. In Germany, Italy and France, we provide depotbank services for retail and institutional fund assets, as well as custody and other services to pension plans and other institutional clients. In the U.K., we provide custody services for pension fund assets and administration services for mutual fund assets. At December 31, 2011, we serviced approximately $711 billion of offshore assets, primarily domiciled in Ireland, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. At December 31, 2011, we had $1.04 trillion in assets under administration in the Asia/Pacific region, and in Japan, we held approximately 93% of the trust assets held by non-domestic trust banks in that region.

We are an alternative asset servicing provider worldwide, servicing hedge, private equity and real estate funds. At December 31, 2011, we had approximately $816 billion of alternative assets under administration.

Our Investment Management services are provided through State Street Global Advisors, or SSgA. SSgA provides a broad array of investment management, investment research and other related services, such as securities finance. SSgA offers strategies for managing financial assets, including passive and active, such as enhanced indexing and hedge fund strategies, using quantitative and fundamental methods for both U.S. and global equities and fixed-income securities. SSgA also offers exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, such as the SPDR^® ETF brand.

SSgA provides this array of investment management strategies, specialized investment management advisory services and other financial services for corporations, public funds, and other sophisticated investors. Based on assets under management at December 31, 2011, SSgA was the largest manager of institutional assets worldwide, the largest manager of assets for tax-exempt organizations (primarily pension plans) in the U.S., and the third largest investment manager overall in the world.

Additional information about our lines of business is provided under “Line of Business Information” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7 and in note 24 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8.

COMPETITION

We operate in a highly competitive environment in all areas of our business worldwide. We face competition from other custodial banks, financial services institutions, deposit-taking institutions, investment management firms, insurance companies, mutual funds, broker/dealers, investment banking firms, benefits consultants, leasing companies, and business service and software companies. As we expand globally, we encounter additional sources of competition.

We believe that these markets have key competitive considerations. These considerations include, for investment servicing, quality of service, economies of scale, technological expertise, quality and scope of sales and marketing, required levels of capital and price; and for investment management, expertise, experience, availability of related service offerings, quality of service and performance, and price.

Our competitive success may depend on our ability to develop and market new and innovative services, to adopt or develop new technologies, to bring new services to market in a timely fashion at competitive prices, to continue and expand our relationships with existing clients and to attract new clients.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The parent company is registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or the Federal Reserve, as a bank holding company pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The Bank Holding Company Act, with certain exceptions, limits the activities in which we and our non-banking subsidiaries may engage to those that the Federal Reserve considers to be closely related to banking, or to managing or controlling banks. These limits also apply to non-banking entities of which we own or control more than 5% of a class of voting shares. The Federal Reserve may order a bank holding company to terminate any activity or its ownership or control of a non-banking subsidiary if the Federal Reserve finds that the activity, ownership or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of a banking subsidiary or is inconsistent with sound banking principles or statutory purposes. The Bank Holding Company Act also requires a bank holding company to obtain prior approval of the Federal Reserve before it may acquire substantially all the assets of any bank or ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank.

The parent company qualifies as a financial holding company, which increases to some extent the scope of activities in which it may engage. A financial holding company and the companies under its control are permitted to engage in activities considered “financial in nature” as defined by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Federal Reserve interpretations, and therefore the parent company may engage in a broader range of activities than permitted for bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Financial holding companies may engage directly or indirectly in activities considered financial in nature, eitherde novo or by acquisition, provided the financial holding company gives the Federal Reserve after-the-fact notice of the new activities. Activities defined to be

financial in nature include, but are not limited to, the following: providing financial or investment advice; underwriting; dealing in or making markets in securities; merchant banking, subject to significant limitations; and any activities previously found by the Federal Reserve to be closely related to banking. In order to maintain our status as a financial holding company, each of our depository subsidiaries must be well capitalized and well managed, as judged by regulators, and must comply with Community Reinvestment Act obligations. Failure to maintain these standards may ultimately permit the Federal Reserve to take enforcement actions against us.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd-Frank Act, which became law in July 2010, will have a significant effect on the regulatory structure of the financial markets. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, establishes a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to monitor systemic risk posed by financial institutions, restricts proprietary trading and private fund investment activities by banking institutions, creates a new framework for the regulation of derivative instruments, alters the regulatory capital treatment of trust preferred and other hybrid capital securities, and revises the FDIC’s assessment base for deposit insurance assessment. In addition, rapid regulatory change is occurring internationally with respect to financial institutions, including, but not limited to, the implementation of Basel III and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, and the potential adoption of European Union derivatives initiatives and revisions to the European collective investment fund, or UCITS, directive.

Additional information about the Dodd-Frank Act and other new or modified laws and regulations applicable to our business is provided in Risk Factors included under Item 1A, in particular the risk factor titled “We face extensive and changing government regulation, including changes to capital requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, Basel II and Basel III, which may increase our costs and expose us to risks related to compliance.”

Many aspects of our business are subject to regulation by other U.S. federal and state governmental and regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations (including securities exchanges), and by non-U.S. governmental and regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations. Some aspects of our public disclosure, corporate governance principles and internal control systems are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations and rules of the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange.

Regulatory Capital Adequacy

Like other bank holding companies, we are subject to Federal Reserve minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratio guidelines. As noted above, our status as a financial holding company also requires that we maintain specified regulatory capital ratio levels. State Street Bank is subject to similar risk-based capital and leverage ratio guidelines. As of December 31, 2011, our regulatory capital levels on a consolidated basis, and the regulatory capital levels of State Street Bank, exceeded the applicable minimum capital requirements and the requirements to qualify as a financial holding company.

We are currently in the qualification period that is required to be completed prior to our full implementation of the Basel II final rules. During the qualification period, we must demonstrate that we comply with the Basel II requirements to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve. During or subsequent to this qualification period, the Federal Reserve may determine that we are not in compliance with certain aspects of the final rules and may require us to take certain actions to achieve compliance that could adversely affect our business operations, our capital structure, our regulatory capital ratios or our financial performance.

Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulatory rules to be adopted for the implementation of Basel III and the Dodd- Frank Act are expected to result in an increase in the minimum regulatory capital that we will be required to maintain and changes in the manner in which our regulatory capital ratios are calculated. In addition, we are currently designated as a large bank holding company subject to enhanced supervision and prudential standards, commonly referred to as a “systemically important financial institution,” or SIFI, and we are one among an initial group of 29 institutions worldwide that have been identified by the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision as “global systemically important banks,” or G-SIBs. Both of these designations will require us to hold incrementally higher regulatory capital compared to financial institutions without such designations.

Banking regulators have not yet issued final rules and guidance with respect to the regulatory capital rules under Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act.

Failure to meet regulatory capital requirements could subject us to a variety of enforcement actions, including the termination of deposit insurance of State Street Bank by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, and to certain restrictions on our business that are described further in this “Supervision and Regulation” section.

For additional information about our regulatory capital position and regulatory capital adequacy, refer to Risk Factors included under Item 1A, “Financial Condition—Capital” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7, and note 15 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8.

Subsidiaries

The Federal Reserve is the primary federal banking agency responsible for regulating us and our subsidiaries, including State Street Bank, for both our U.S. and non-U.S. operations.

Our bank subsidiaries are subject to supervision and examination by various regulatory authorities. State Street Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC and is subject to applicable federal and state banking laws and to supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve, as well as by the Massachusetts Commissioner of Banks, the FDIC, and the regulatory authorities of those states and countries in which a branch of State Street Bank is located. Other subsidiary trust companies are subject to supervision and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, other offices of the Federal Reserve System or by the appropriate state banking regulatory authorities of the states in which they are located. Our non-U.S. banking subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the regulatory authorities of the countries in which they are located. As of December 31, 2011, the capital of each of these banking subsidiaries exceeded the minimum legal capital requirements set by those regulatory authorities.

The parent company and its non-banking subsidiaries are affiliates of State Street Bank under federal banking laws, which impose restrictions on transactions involving loans, extensions of credit, investments or asset purchases from State Street Bank to the parent company and its non-banking subsidiaries. Transactions of this kind to affiliates by State Street Bank are limited with respect to each affiliate to 10% of State Street Bank’s capital and surplus, as defined, and to 20% in the aggregate for all affiliates, and, in addition, are subject to collateral requirements.

Federal law also provides that certain transactions with affiliates must be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that are substantially the same or at least as favorable to the institution as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions involving other non-affiliated companies. Alternatively, in the absence of comparable transactions, the transactions must be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that in good faith would be offered to, or would apply to, non-affiliated companies. State Street Bank is also prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit or lease or sale of property or furnishing of services. Federal law provides as well for a depositor preference on amounts realized from the liquidation or other resolution of any depository institution insured by the FDIC.

SSgA, which acts as an investment advisor to investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, is registered as an investment advisor with the SEC. However, a major portion of our investment management activities are conducted by State Street Bank, which is subject to supervision primarily by the Federal Reserve with respect to these activities. Our U.S. broker/dealer subsidiary is registered as a broker/dealer with the SEC, is subject to regulation by the SEC (including the SEC’s net capital rule) and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a self-regulatory organization. Many aspects of our investment management activities are subject to federal and state laws and regulations primarily intended to benefit the investment holder, rather than our shareholders. Our activities as a futures commission merchant are subject to regulation by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in the U.S. and various regulatory authorities internationally, as well as the membership requirements of the applicable clearinghouses. These laws and regulations generally grant supervisory agencies and bodies broad administrative powers, including the

power to limit or restrict us from conducting our investment management activities in the event that we fail to comply with such laws and regulations, and examination authority. Our business related to investment management and trusteeship of collective trust funds and separate accounts offered to employee benefit plans is subject to ERISA and is regulated by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Our businesses, including our investment management and securities and futures businesses, are also regulated extensively by non-U.S. governments, securities exchanges, self-regulatory organizations, central banks and regulatory bodies, especially in those jurisdictions in which we maintain an office. For instance, the Financial Services Authority, the London Stock Exchange, and the Euronext.Liffe regulate our activities in the United Kingdom; the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority and the Deutsche Borse AG regulate our activities in Germany; and the Financial Services Agency, the Bank of Japan, the Japanese Securities Dealers Association and several Japanese securities and futures exchanges, including the Tokyo Stock Exchange, regulate our activities in Japan. We have established policies, procedures, and systems designed to comply with the requirements of these organizations. However, as a global financial services institution, we face complexity and costs in our worldwide compliance efforts.

The majority of our non-U.S. asset servicing operations are conducted pursuant to Federal Reserve Regulation K through State Street Bank’s Edge Act subsidiary or through international branches of State Street Bank. An Edge Act corporation is a corporation organized under federal law that conducts foreign business activities. In general, banks may not make investments that exceed 20% of their capital and surplus in their Edge Act corporations (and similar state law corporations), and the investment of any amount in excess of 10% of capital and surplus requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve.

In addition to our non-U.S. operations conducted pursuant to Regulation K, we also make new investments abroad directly (through the parent company or through non-banking subsidiaries of the parent company) pursuant to Federal Reserve Regulation Y, or through international bank branch expansion, which are not subject to the 20% investment limitation for Edge Act subsidiaries.

We are subject to the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which contains anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and requires implementation of regulations applicable to financial services companies, including standards for verifying client identification and monitoring client transactions and detecting and reporting suspicious activities. Anti-money laundering laws outside the U.S. contain similar requirements.

We are also subject to the Massachusetts bank holding company statute. The statute requires prior approval by the Massachusetts Board of Bank Incorporation for our acquisition of more than 5% of the voting shares of any additional bank and for other forms of bank acquisitions.

Support of Subsidiary Banks

Under Federal Reserve guidelines, a bank holding company is required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to its banking subsidiaries. Under these guidelines, the parent company is expected to commit resources to State Street Bank and any other banking subsidiary in circumstances in which it otherwise might not do so absent such guidelines. In the event of bankruptcy, any commitment by the parent company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a banking subsidiary will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and will be entitled to a priority payment.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Economic policies of the U.S. government and its agencies influence our operating environment. Monetary policy conducted by the Federal Reserve directly affects the level of interest rates, which may impact overall credit conditions of the economy. Monetary policy is applied by the Federal Reserve through open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in reserve requirements for depository institutions, and changes in the discount rate and availability of borrowing from the Federal Reserve. Government regulation of banks and bank holding companies is intended primarily for the protection of depositors of the banks, rather than for the shareholders of the institutions. We are also affected by the economic policies of non-U.S. government agencies, such as the European Central Bank.

STATISTICAL DISCLOSURE BY BANK HOLDING COMPANIES

The following information, included under Items 6, 7 and 8, is incorporated by reference herein:

“Selected Financial Data” table (Item 6)—presents return on average common equity, return on average assets, common dividend payout and equity-to-assets ratios.

“Distribution of Average Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity; Interest Rates and Interest Differential” table (Item 8)—presents consolidated average balance sheet amounts, related fully taxable-equivalent interest earned or paid, related average yields and rates paid and changes in fully taxable-equivalent interest revenue and expense for each major category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.

“Investment Securities” section included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis and note 3, “Investment Securities,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8)—disclose information regarding book values, market values, maturities and weighted-average yields of securities (by category).

Note 1, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies—Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8)—discloses our policy for placing loans and leases on non-accrual status.

Note 4, “Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8) and “Loans and Leases” section included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis—disclose distribution of loans, loan maturities and sensitivities of loans to changes in interest rates.

“Loans and Leases” and “Cross-Border Outstandings” sections of Management’s Discussion and Analysis—disclose information regarding cross-border outstandings and other loan concentrations of State Street.

“Credit Risk” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis and note 4, “Loans and Leases,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8)—present the allocation of the allowance for loan losses, and a description of factors which influenced management’s judgment in determining amounts of additions or reductions to the allowance, if any, charged or credited to results of operations.

“Distribution of Average Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity; Interest Rates and Interest Differential” table (Item 8)—discloses deposit information.

Note 8, “Short-Term Borrowings,” to the consolidated financial statements (Item 8)—discloses information regarding short-term borrowings of State Street.

This Form 10-K, as well as other reports filed by us under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, registration statements filed by us under the Securities Act of 1933, our annual report to shareholders and other public statements we may make, contain statements (including statements in Management’s Discussion and Analysis included under Item 7) that are considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of U.S. securities laws, including statements about industry, regulatory, economic and market trends, management’s expectations about our financial performance, market growth, acquisitions and divestitures, new technologies, services and opportunities and earnings, management’s confidence in our strategies and other matters that do not relate strictly to historical facts. Terminology such as “expect,” “look,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “seek,” “may,” “will,” “trend,” “target” and “goal,” or similar statements or variations of such terms are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such terms.

Forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, which change over time, are based on management’s expectations and assumptions at the time the statements are made, and are not guarantees of future results. Management’s expectations and assumptions, and the continued validity of the forward-looking statements, are subject to change due to a broad range of factors affecting the national and global economies, the equity, debt, currency and other financial markets, as well as factors specific to State Street

and its subsidiaries, including State Street Bank. Factors that could cause changes in the expectations or assumptions on which forward-looking statements are based cannot be foreseen with certainty and may include, but are not limited to:

Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed in our forward-looking statements and from our historical financial results due to the factors discussed in this section and elsewhere in this Form 10-K or disclosed in our other SEC filings. Forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing our expectations or beliefs as of any date subsequent to the time this Form 10-K is filed with the SEC. We undertake no obligation to revise our forward-looking statements after the time they are made. The factors discussed above are not intended to be a complete summary of all risks and uncertainties that may affect our businesses. We cannot anticipate all developments that may adversely affect our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

Forward-looking statements should not be viewed as predictions, and should not be the primary basis upon which investors evaluate State Street. Any investor in State Street should consider all risks and uncertainties disclosed in our SEC filings, including our filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in particular our reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K, or registration statements filed under the Securities Act of 1933, all of which are accessible on the SEC’s website atwww.sec.gov or on our website at www.statestreet.com.

The following is a discussion of risk factors applicable to State Street.

The failure or instability of any of our significant counterparties, many of which are major financial institutions and may have dependencies upon other financial institutions or sovereigns, and our assumption of significant credit and counterparty risk, could expose us to loss.

The financial markets are characterized by extensive interdependencies among banks, central banks, broker/dealers, collective investment funds, insurance companies and other financial institutions. Many financial institutions also hold sovereign debt securities that comprise material portions of their balance sheets, have exposures to other financial institutions that have significant sovereign debt exposures or have sought to mitigate exposures to financial counterparties by accepting collateral consisting of sovereign debt. As a result of these interdependencies, we and many of our clients have concentrated counterparty exposure to other financial institutions, particularly large and complex institutions, and sovereign issuers. Although we have procedures for monitoring both individual and aggregate counterparty risk, like other large financial institutions, the nature of our business is such that significant individual and aggregate counterparty exposure is inherent in our business as our focus is on large institutional investors and their businesses.

From time to time, we assume concentrated credit risk at the individual obligor, counterparty or guarantor level. Such concentrations may be material and can from time to time exceed 10% of our consolidated total shareholders’ equity. Our material counterparty exposures change daily, and the counterparties to which our risk exposure exceeds 10% of our consolidated total shareholders’ equity are also variable during any reported period; however, our largest exposures tend to be to other financial institutions. In some cases, our exposure to a counterparty is the result of our relationships with numerous affiliated entities. These affiliated entities and our risk exposures to them also vary. Under evolving regulatory restrictions on credit exposure, and a broadening of the measure of credit exposure under such regulations, we may be required to limit our exposures to financial institutions and sovereign issuers to levels that we may currently exceed. The credit exposure restrictions under such evolving regulations may adversely affect our businesses and may require that we modify our operating models or our balance sheet management policies and practices.

Concentration of counterparty exposure presents significant risks to us and to our clients because the failure or perceived weakness of any of our counterparties (or in some cases of our clients’ counterparties) has the potential to expose us to risk of loss.

The continued instability of the financial markets since 2007 and the increased pressure on European financial markets during 2011 and into 2012 have resulted in many financial institutions becoming significantly less creditworthy, as reflected in the credit downgrades of numerous large U.S. and non-U.S. financial institutions during the second half of 2011. Credit downgrades during 2011 and in early 2012 to several sovereign issuers (including the United States, France, Austria, Italy, Spain and Portugal) and other issuers have stressed the market value and perceived creditworthiness of financial institutions, many of which invest in, accept collateral in the form of, or value other transactions based upon the debt or other securities issued by, sovereign or other issuers. Further economic, political or market turmoil may lead to stress on sovereign issuers, and increase the potential for sovereign defaults or restructurings, additional credit rating downgrades or the departure of sovereign issuers from common currencies or economic unions. As a result, we may be exposed to increased counterparty risks, either resulting from our role as principal or because of commitments we make in our capacity as agent for our clients.

Changes in market perception of the financial strength of particular financial institutions or sovereign issuers can occur rapidly, are often based upon a variety of factors and are difficult to predict. In addition, as U.S. and non-U.S. governments have addressed the financial crisis in an evolving manner, the criteria for and manner of governmental support of financial institutions and other economically important sectors remain uncertain. If a significant individual counterparty defaults on an obligation to us, we could incur financial losses that materially adversely affect our businesses and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. A counterparty default can also have adverse effects on, and financially weaken, other of our counterparties, which could also materially adversely affect our businesses and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

The degree of client demand for short-term credit tends to increase during periods of market turbulence, exposing us to further counterparty-related risks. For example, investors in collective investment vehicles for which we act as custodian may experience significant redemption activity due to adverse market or economic news that was not anticipated by the fund’s manager. Our relationship with our clients, the nature of the settlement process and our systems may result in the extension of short-term credit in such circumstances. For some types of clients, we provide credit to allow them to leverage their portfolios, which may expose us to potential loss if the client experiences credit difficulties. In addition to our exposure to financial institutions, we are from time to time exposed to concentrated credit risk at the industry or country level, potentially exposing us to a single market or political event or a correlated set of events. We are also generally not able to net exposures across counterparties that are affiliated entities and may not be able in all circumstances to net exposures to the same legal entity across multiple products. As a consequence, we may incur a loss in relation to one entity or product even though our exposure to one of its affiliates or across product types is over-collateralized. Moreover, not all of our counterparty exposure is secured, and when our exposure is secured, the realizable market value of the collateral may have declined by the time we exercise rights against that collateral. This risk may be particularly acute if we are required to sell the collateral into an illiquid or temporarily impaired market.

In addition, our clients often purchase securities or other financial instruments from financial counterparties, including broker/dealers, under repurchase arrangements, frequently as a method of reinvesting the cash collateral they receive from lending their securities. Under these arrangements, the counterparty is obligated to repurchase these securities or financial instruments from the client at the same price at some point in the future. The anticipated value of the collateral is intended to exceed the counterparty’s repayment obligation. In many cases, we agree to indemnify our clients from any loss that would arise upon a default by the counterparty if the proceeds from the disposition of the securities or other financial assets are less than the amount of the repayment obligation by the client’s counterparty. In such instances of counterparty default, we, rather than our client, are exposed to the risks associated with collateral value.

We also engage in certain off-balance sheet activities that involve risks. For example, we provide benefit responsive contracts, known as wraps, to defined contribution plans that offer a stable value option to their participants. During the financial crisis, the book value of obligations under many of these contracts exceeded the market value of the underlying portfolio holdings. Concerns regarding the portfolio of investments protected by such contracts, or regarding the investment manager overseeing such an investment option, may result in redemption demands from stable value products covered by benefit responsive contracts at a time when the portfolio’s market value is less than its book value, potentially exposing us to risk of loss. Similarly, we provide credit facilities in connection with the remarketing of municipal obligations, potentially exposing us to credit exposure to the municipalities issuing such bonds and to increased liquidity demands. In the current economic environment, where municipal credits are subject to increased investor concern, the risks associated with such businesses increase. Further, our off-balance sheet activities also include indemnified securities financing obligations, where we indemnify our clients against losses they incur in connection with the failure of borrowers under our program to return securities on loan.

Although our overall business is subject to these interdependencies, several of our business units are particularly sensitive to them, including our Global Treasury group, our currency and other trading activities, our securities lending business and our investment management business. Given the limited number of strong counterparties in the current market, we are not able to mitigate all of our and our clients’ counterparty credit risk. The current consolidation of financial service firms that began in 2008, and the failures of other financial institutions, have increased the concentration of our counterparty risk.

Our business involves significant European operations, and disruptions in European economies could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

During 2011 and into 2012, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain and other European economies continued to experience difficulties in financing their deficits and servicing outstanding debt. Financial markets remained highly volatile, reflecting Eurozone instability and sovereign debt concerns, and the credit ratings of associated sovereign debt and European financial institutions were further downgraded during 2011 and early

2012. This loss of confidence has led to rescue measures for Greece, Ireland and Portugal by Eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund. Numerous European governments, notably Italy and Spain, have also adopted austerity and other measures in an attempt to contain the spread of sovereign debt concerns.

The actions required to be taken by certain European countries as a condition to rescue packages and austerity programs, and by other countries to mitigate similar developments in their economies, have increased internal political tensions, and, in the case of Greece, Italy and Spain, have resulted in internal political changes. The complexity and severity of European sovereign debt concerns has also resulted in political discord among the Eurozone countries. Eurozone countries continue to disagree on how to manage current European sovereign debt concerns, and they have not resolved how to stabilize the Eurozone for the near- and long-term, increasing uncertainty about the further spread of sovereign debt concerns, the continuation of prevailing Eurozone treaties, economic interconnectedness and the status of the Euro. The decline in the market value of sovereign debt and the requirement as part of certain rescue packages for creditors to agree to material restructuring of outstanding sovereign debt have weakened the capital position of many European financial institutions, and such institutions will be required to raise additional capital in 2012.

These political disagreements, along with the interdependencies among European economies and financial institutions and the substantial refinancing requirements of European sovereign issuers during 2012, have exacerbated concern regarding the stability of European financial markets generally and certain institutions in particular. Given the scope of our European operations, clients and counterparties, persistent disruptions in the European financial markets, the failure to resolve and contain sovereign debt concerns, the attempt of a country to abandon the Euro, the failure of a significant European financial institution, even if not an immediate counterparty to us, or persistent weakness in the Euro, could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

Our investment securities portfolio and consolidated financial condition could be adversely affected by changes in various interest, market and credit risks.

Our investment securities portfolio represented approximately 50% of our consolidated total assets as of December 31, 2011, and the interest revenue associated with our investment portfolio represented approximately 24% of our consolidated total gross revenue for the year ended December 31, 2011. As such, our consolidated results of operations and financial condition are materially exposed to the risks associated with our investment portfolio, including, without limitation, changes in interest rates, credit spreads, credit performance, credit ratings, access to liquidity, mark-to-market valuations and our ability to reinvest repayments of principal with respect to portfolio securities. The low interest rate environment that has persisted since the financial crisis began, and which is anticipated to continue in 2012 and beyond, limits our ability to maintain a net interest margin in line with our historical averages. Relative to many other major financial institutions, investment securities represent a greater percentage of our consolidated statement of condition and commercial loans represent a smaller percentage.

Our investment portfolio continues to have significant concentrations in certain classes of securities, including non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities and other asset-backed securities and securities with concentrated exposure to consumers. These classes and types of securities experienced significant liquidity, valuation and credit quality deterioration during the financial disruption that began in mid-2007. We also have material holdings of non-U.S. mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities with exposures to European countries whose sovereign debt markets have experienced increased stress over the past year, are expected to continue to experience stress during 2012 and may continue to experience stress in the future. For further information, refer to the risk factor above titled “Our business involves significant European operations, and disruptions in European economies could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.”

Further, we hold a portfolio of state and municipal bonds. In view of the budget deficits that most states and many municipalities are currently incurring due to the continued depressed economic environment, the risks associated with this portfolio have increased.

If market conditions similar to those experienced in 2007 and 2008 were to return, our investment portfolio could experience a decline in liquidity and market value, regardless of our credit view of our portfolio holdings. For example, we recorded significant non-credit losses in connection with the consolidation of our off-balance sheet asset-backed commercial paper conduits in 2009 and the repositioning of our investment portfolio in 2010 with respect to these asset classes. In addition, deterioration in the credit quality of our portfolio holdings could result in other-than-temporary impairment. Our investment portfolio is further subject to changes in both domestic interest rates and foreign interest rates (primarily in Europe) and could be negatively impacted by a quicker than anticipated increase in interest rates. In addition, while approximately 89% of the carrying value of the securities in our investment portfolio is rated “AAA” or “AA,” if a material portion of our investment portfolio were to experience credit rating declines below investment grade, our capital ratios under the requirements of Basel II and Basel III could be adversely affected, which risk is greater with portfolios of investment securities than with loans or holdings of U.S. Treasury securities.

Our business activities expose us to liquidity and interest-rate risk.

In our business activities, we assume liquidity and interest-rate risk in our investment portfolio of longer- and intermediate-term assets, and our net interest revenue is affected by the levels of interest rates in global markets, changes in the relationship between short- and long-term interest rates, the direction and speed of interest-rate changes, and the asset and liability spreads relative to the currency and geographic mix of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. Our ability to anticipate these changes or to hedge the related on- and off-balance sheet exposures can significantly influence the success of our asset-and liability-management activities and the resulting level of our net interest revenue. The impact of changes in interest rates will depend on the relative duration of assets and liabilities as well as the currencies in which they are denominated. Sustained lower interest rates, a flat or inverted yield curve and narrow interest-rate spreads generally have a constraining effect on our net interest revenue. In particular, if short-term interest rates rise, our net interest revenue is likely to decline, and any such decline could be material.

In addition, we may be exposed to liquidity or other risks in managing asset pools for third parties that are funded on a short-term basis, or where the clients participating in these products have a right to the return of cash or assets on limited notice. These business activities include, among others, securities finance collateral pools, money market and other short-term investment funds and liquidity facilities utilized in connection with municipal bond programs. If clients demand a return of their cash or assets, particularly on limited notice, and these investment pools do not have the liquidity to support those demands, we could be forced to sell investment securities at unfavorable prices, damaging our reputation as an asset manager and potentially exposing us to claims related to our management of the pools.

If we are unable to continuously attract deposits and other short-term funding, our consolidated financial condition, including our regulatory capital ratios, our consolidated results of operations and our business prospects could be adversely affected.

Liquidity management is critical to the management of our consolidated statement of condition and to our ability to service our client base. We generally use our sources of funds to:

Because the demand for credit by our clients is difficult to forecast and control, and may be at its peak at times of disruption in the securities markets, and because the average maturity of our investment portfolio is significantly longer than the contractual maturity of our client deposit base, we need to continuously attract, and are dependent upon, access to various sources of short-term funding. At the same time, during periods of market uncertainty, the level of client deposits has in recent years tended to increase; however, since such deposits are

considered to be transitory, we deposit excess deposits with central banks and in other highly liquid and low yielding instruments. These levels of excess client deposits, as a consequence, can increase our net interest revenue but adversely affect our net interest margin.

In managing our liquidity, our primary source of short-term funding is client deposits, which are predominantly transaction-based deposits by institutional investors. Our ability to continue to attract these deposits, and other short-term funding sources such as certificates of deposit and commercial paper, is subject to variability based upon a number of factors, including volume and volatility in the global securities markets, the relative interest rates that we are prepared to pay for these deposits and the perception of safety of those deposits or short-term obligations relative to alternative short-term investments available to our clients, including the capital markets. For example, the contraction in the number of counterparties for which we have a favorable credit assessment as a result of ongoing market disruptions has made it difficult for us to invest our available liquidity, which has adversely affected the rate of return that we have earned on these assets, which could adversely affect our ability to attract client deposits.

The availability and cost of credit in short-term markets are highly dependent upon the markets’ perception of our liquidity and creditworthiness. Our efforts to monitor and manage our liquidity risk may not be successful or sufficient to deal with dramatic or unanticipated changes in the global securities markets or other event-driven reductions in liquidity. In such events, our cost of funds may increase, thereby reducing our net interest revenue, or we may need to dispose of a portion of our investment portfolio, which, depending upon market conditions, could result in the realization of a loss in our consolidated statement of income.

The global recession and financial crisis that began in mid-2007 have adversely affected us and increased the uncertainty and unpredictability we face in managing our businesses. Continued or additional disruptions in the global economy or financial markets could further adversely affect our business and financial performance.

Our businesses have been significantly affected by global economic conditions and their impact on financial markets. Since mid-2007, global credit and other financial markets have suffered from substantial volatility, illiquidity and disruption as a result of the global recession and financial crisis. The resulting economic pressure and lack of confidence in the financial markets have adversely affected our business, as well as the businesses of our clients and significant counterparties. These events, and the potential for continuing or additional disruptions, have also affected overall confidence in financial institutions, have further exacerbated liquidity and pricing issues within the fixed-income markets, have increased the uncertainty and unpredictability we face in managing our businesses and have had an adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

While global economies and financial markets have shown initial signs of stabilizing, during 2011, U.S. sovereign debt, non-U.S. sovereign debt and numerous global financial services firms experienced credit downgrades, sovereign debt concerns in the Eurozone increased and key emerging economies, including those in India, China and Brazil, experienced reductions in the rate of their economic growth. The occurrence of additional disruptions in global markets or the worsening of economic conditions could adversely affect our businesses and the financial services industry in general, and also increases the difficulty and unpredictability of aligning our business strategies, infrastructure and operating costs in light of current and future market and economic conditions.

Market disruptions can adversely affect our revenue if the value of assets under custody, administration or management decline, while the costs of providing the related services remain constant due to the fixed nature of such costs. These factors can reduce our asset-based fee revenue and could adversely affect our other transaction-based revenue, such as revenues from securities finance and foreign exchange activities, and the volume of transactions that we execute for or with our clients, but the costs of providing the related services would not similarly decline. Further, the degree of volatility in foreign exchange rates can affect our foreign exchange trading revenue. In general, increased currency volatility tends to increase our market risk but also increases our foreign exchange revenue. Conversely, periods of lower currency volatility tend to decrease our market risk but also decreases our foreign exchange revenue.

In addition, as our business grows globally and as a greater percentage of our revenue is earned in currencies other than U.S. dollars, our exposure to foreign currency volatility could affect our levels of consolidated revenue, our consolidated expenses and our consolidated results of operations, as well as the value of our investment in our non-U.S. operations and our investment portfolio holdings. As our Investment Servicing product offerings within our Global Services and Global Markets businesses expand, in part to seek to take advantage of perceived opportunities arising under various regulatory reforms and resulting market changes, the degree of our exposure to various market and credit risks will evolve, potentially resulting in greater revenue volatility. We also will need to make additional investments to develop the operational infrastructure and to enhance our risk management capabilities to support these businesses, which may increase the operating expenses of such businesses or, if our risk management resources fail to keep pace with product expansion, result in increased risk of loss from our trading businesses.

We face extensive and changing government regulation, including changes to capital requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, Basel II and Basel III, which may increase our costs and expose us to risks related to compliance.

Most of our businesses are subject to extensive regulation by multiple regulatory bodies, and many of the clients to which we provide services are themselves subject to a broad range of regulatory requirements. These regulations may affect the manner and terms of delivery of our services. As a financial institution with substantial international operations, we are subject to extensive regulatory and supervisory oversight, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. The regulations affect, among other things, the scope of our activities and client services, our capital structure and our ability to fund the operations of our subsidiaries, our lending practices, our dividend policy, our share repurchase actions, the manner in which we market our services and our interactions with foreign regulatory agencies and officials, for example, as a result of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. For example, the requirement that we maintain recovery and resolution plans, and organize our operations to facilitate such plans, could require us to operate our businesses in a less efficient manner than we have historically.

The Dodd-Frank Act, which became law in July 2010, will have a significant impact on the regulatory structure of the financial markets and will impose additional costs on us. While few of the regulations required to be implemented under Dodd-Frank are in final form, and while many regulations have not yet been proposed, the regulatory proposals to date could potentially have a significant impact on our businesses and State Street. For example, the provision of the so called “Volcker Rule” applicable to management or sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity funds would, as currently proposed, require that unaffiliated financial institutions provide custody services to some of the funds managed by SSgA, particularly those outside the U.S. Similarly, the proposed prudential rules applicable to “systemically important financial institutions,” or SIFIs, could significantly increase the amount of credit exposure attracted by our securities lending business and result in limiting business volumes to comply with credit concentration limits. Our current designation as a SIFI, and our initial designation as a “global systemically important bank,” or G-SIB, will subject us to incrementally higher capital and prudential requirements that will not be applicable to all of the financial institutions with whom we compete as a custodian, dealer or asset manager.

The Dodd-Frank Act and regulations implementing it also could adversely affect certain of our business operations and our competitive position, or those of our clients. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, establishes a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to monitor systemic risk posed by financial institutions, restricts proprietary trading and private fund investment activities by banking institutions, creates a new framework for the regulation of derivatives, alters the regulatory capital treatment of trust preferred securities and other hybrid capital securities and revises the FDIC’s assessment base for deposit insurance. Provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as regulation in Europe, may also restrict the flexibility of financial institutions to compensate their employees. In addition, provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act may require changes to the existing Basel II capital rules or affect their interpretations by institutions or regulators, which could have an adverse effect on our ability to comply with Basel II regulations, our business operations, regulatory capital structure,

regulatory capital ratios or our financial performance. The final effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on our business will depend largely on the implementation of the Act by regulatory bodies, which in many cases have been delayed, and the exercise of discretion by these regulatory bodies.

In addition, rapid regulatory change is occurring internationally with respect to financial institutions, including, but not limited to, the implementation of Basel III and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and the potential adoption of the EU derivatives initiatives and revisions to the European collective investment fund, or UCITS, directive and the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. Among current regulatory developments are proposed rules to enhance the responsibilities of custodians to their clients for asset losses. The Dodd-Frank Act and these other international regulatory changes could limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, increase our regulatory capital requirements and impose additional costs on us, and otherwise adversely affect our business operations and have other negative consequences, including a reduction of our credit ratings. Different countries may respond to the market and economic environment in different and potentially conflicting manners, which could have the impact of increasing the cost of compliance for us.

The evolving regulatory environment, including changes to existing regulations and the introduction of new regulations, may also contribute to decisions we may make to suspend or withdraw from existing businesses, activities or initiatives. In addition to potential lost revenue associated with any such suspensions or withdrawals, any such suspensions or withdrawals may result in significant restructuring or related costs or exposures. For example, in December 2011, in response to challenging market conditions and an evolving regulatory environment, we initiated the withdrawal from our fixed-income trading initiative. This resulted in an $83 million restructuring charge in the fourth quarter of 2011 related to fair-value adjustments to the initiative’s trading portfolio resulting from our decision to withdraw from the initiative; severance and benefits costs; and costs associated with asset write-downs and contract terminations. In addition, as a result of the withdrawal from this initiative, we intend to wind down the initiative’s remaining trading portfolio. At December 31, 2011, this trading portfolio consisted primarily of derivative assets with an aggregate fair value of approximately $1.89 billion and derivative liabilities with an aggregate fair value of approximately $1.78 billion. Our consolidated results of operations for future periods during which the trading portfolio is wound down may be affected, potentially materially, by the impact of economic and market conditions, including changes in credit profiles and currency and yield spreads, on the valuation of, or trade execution for, the initiative’s remaining trading portfolio.

New or modified regulations and related regulatory guidance, including under Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act, may have unforeseen or unintended adverse effects on the financial services industry. The regulatory perspective, particularly that of the Federal Reserve Board, on regulatory capital requirements may affect our ability to make acquisitions, declare dividends or repurchase our common stock unless we can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of our regulators, that such actions would not adversely affect our regulatory capital position in the event of a severely stressed market environment. In addition, the implementation of certain of the proposals with regard to regulatory capital could affect our regulatory capital position.

If we do not comply with governmental regulations, we may be subject to fines, penalties, lawsuits or material restrictions on our businesses in the jurisdiction where the violation occurred, which may adversely affect our business operations and, in turn, our consolidated results of operations. Similarly, many of our clients are subject to significant regulatory requirements, and retain our services in order for us to assist them in complying with those legal requirements. Changes in these regulations can significantly affect the services that we are asked to provide, as well as our costs. In addition, adverse publicity and damage to our reputation arising from the failure or perceived failure to comply with legal, regulatory or contractual requirements could affect our ability to attract and retain clients. If we cause clients to fail to comply with these regulatory requirements, we may be liable to them for losses and expenses that they incur. In recent years, regulatory oversight and enforcement have increased substantially, imposing additional costs and increasing the potential risks associated with our operations. If this regulatory trend continues, it could adversely affect our operations and, in turn, our consolidated results of operations.

Our business and capital-related activities, including our ability to return capital to shareholders and repurchase our capital stock, may be adversely affected by our implementation of the revised capital requirements under Basel II, Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act or in the event our capital structure is determined to be insufficient as a result of mandated stress testing.

We are currently in the qualification period that is required to be completed prior to our full implementation of the Basel II regulatory capital rules. During the qualification period we must demonstrate that we comply with the Basel II requirements to the satisfaction of the Federal Reserve. During or subsequent to this qualification period, the Federal Reserve may determine that we are not in compliance with certain aspects of the regulation and may require us to take certain actions to come into compliance that could adversely affect our business operations, regulatory capital structure, capital ratios or financial performance or otherwise restrict our growth plans or strategies. In addition, regulators could change the Basel II capital rules or their interpretations as they apply to State Street, potentially due to the rule-making associated with certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, which could adversely affect us and our ability to comply with Basel II.

Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulatory rules to be adopted for the implementation of Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act will result in an increase in the minimum levels of regulatory capital and liquidity that we will be required to maintain and changes in the manner in which our regulatory capital ratios are calculated. In addition, we are required by the Federal Reserve to conduct periodic stress testing of our business operations, and our capital structure and liquidity management are subject to periodic review and stress testing by the Federal Reserve, which is used by the Federal Reserve to evaluate the adequacy of our regulatory capital and the potential requirement to maintain capital levels above regulatory minimums. Banking regulators have not yet issued final rules and guidance for our implementation of the revised capital and liquidity rules under Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act. Consequently, we cannot determine at this time the alignment of our regulatory capital, business operations and strategies with the regulatory capital requirements to be implemented.

Our implementation of the new capital requirements may not be approved by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve may impose capital requirements in excess of our expectations, and maintenance of high levels of liquidity may adversely affect our revenues. In the event our implementation of the new capital requirements under Basel III and the Dodd-Frank Act or our current capital structure are determined not to conform with current and future capital requirements, our ability to deploy capital in the operation of our business or our ability to distribute capital to shareholders or to repurchase our capital stock may be constrained and our business may be adversely affected.

Any downgrades in our credit ratings, or an actual or perceived reduction in our financial strength, could adversely affect our borrowing costs, capital costs and liquidity and cause reputational harm.

Various independent rating agencies publish credit ratings for our debt obligations based on their evaluation of a number of factors, some of which relate to our performance and other corporate developments, including financings, acquisitions and joint ventures, and some of which relate to general industry conditions. We anticipate that the rating agencies will review our ratings regularly based on our consolidated results of operations and developments in our businesses. Our credit ratings were downgraded by each of the principal rating agencies during the first quarter of 2009, and in the fourth quarter of 2011, Standard & Poor’s revised its outlook for our credit ratings to negative from stable. A further downgrade or a significant reduction in our capital ratios might adversely affect our ability to access the capital markets or might increase our cost of capital. We cannot provide assurance that we will continue to maintain our current ratings.

The current market environment and our exposure to financial institutions and other counterparties, including sovereigns, increase the risk that we may not maintain our current ratings. Downgrades in our credit ratings may adversely affect our borrowing costs, our capital costs and our ability to raise capital and, in turn, our liquidity. A failure to maintain an acceptable credit rating may also preclude us from being competitive in certain products, may be negatively perceived by our clients or counterparties or may have other adverse reputational effects.

Additionally, our counterparties, as well as our clients, rely upon our financial strength and stability and evaluate the risks of doing business with us. If we experience diminished financial strength or stability, actual or

perceived, including the effects of market or regulatory developments, our announced or rumored business developments or consolidated results of operations, a decline in our stock price or a reduced credit rating, our counterparties may become less willing to enter into transactions, secured or unsecured, with us, our clients may reduce or place limits upon the level of services we provide them or seek other service providers and our prospective clients may select other service providers. The risk that we may be perceived as less creditworthy relative to other market participants is increased in the current market environment, where the consolidation of financial institutions, including major global financial institutions, is resulting in a smaller number of much larger counterparties and competitors. If our counterparties perceive us to be a less viable counterparty, our ability to enter into financial transactions on terms acceptable to us or our clients, on our or our clients’ behalf, will be materially compromised. If our clients reduce their deposits with us or select other service providers for all or a portion of the services we provide them, our revenues will decrease accordingly.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future, which may not be available to us or may only be available on unfavorable terms.

We may need to raise additional capital in order to maintain our credit ratings, in response to changes in regulatory capital rules or for other purposes, including financing acquisitions. However, our ability to access the capital markets, if needed, will depend on a number of factors, including the state of the financial markets. In the event of rising interest rates, disruptions in financial markets, negative perception of our business or financial strength, or other factors that would increase our cost of borrowing, we cannot be sure of our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, on terms acceptable to us, which could adversely affect our business and ability to implement our business plan and strategic goals, including the financing of acquisitions.

We may not be successful in implementing our announced multi-year program to transform our operating model.

In order to maintain and grow our business, we must continuously make strategic decisions about our current and future business plans, including plans to target cost initiatives and enhance operational efficiencies, plans for entering or exiting business lines or geographic markets, plans for acquiring or disposing of businesses and plans to build new systems and other infrastructure, to engage third-party service providers and to address staffing needs. On November 30, 2010, we announced a multi-year program to enhance service excellence and innovation, increase efficiencies and position us for accelerated growth.

Operating model transformations, including this program, entail significant risks. The program, and any future strategic or business plan we implement, may prove to be inadequate for the achievement of the stated objectives, may result in increased or unanticipated costs or risks, may result in earnings volatility, may take longer than anticipated to implement, may involve elements reliant upon the performance of third parties and may not be successfully implemented. In particular, elements of the program include investment in new technologies, such as private processing clouds, to increase global computing capabilities, and also the development of new, and the evolution of existing, methods and tools to accelerate the pace of innovation, the introduction of new services and solutions, the use of service providers associated with components of our technology infrastructure and application maintenance and support and the enhancement of the security of our systems. The transition to new operating models and technology infrastructure may cause disruptions in our relationships with clients, employees and vendors and may present other unanticipated technical, operational or other hurdles.

The success of the program and our other strategic plans could also be affected by continuing market disruptions and unanticipated changes in the overall market for financial services and the global economy. We also may not be able to abandon or alter these plans without significant loss, as the implementation of our decisions may involve significant capital outlays, often far in advance of when we expect to generate any related revenues. Accordingly, our business, our consolidated results of operations and our consolidated financial condition may be adversely affected by any failure or delay in our strategic decisions, including the program or elements thereof. For additional information about the program, see “Consolidated Results of Operations—Expenses” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis, included under Item 7, and note 20 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8.

Our businesses may be adversely affected by litigation.

From time to time, our clients, or the government on their or its own behalf, make claims and take legal action relating to, among other things, our performance of fiduciary or contractual responsibilities. In any such claims or actions, demands for substantial monetary damages may be asserted against us and may result in financial liability or an adverse effect on our reputation or on client demand for our products and services. We may be unable to accurately estimate our exposure to litigation risk when we record balance sheet reserves for probable loss contingencies. As a result, any reserves we establish to cover any settlements or judgments may not be sufficient to cover our actual financial exposure, which may have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

In the ordinary course of our business, we are also subject to various regulatory, governmental and law enforcement inquiries, investigations and subpoenas. These may be directed generally to participants in the businesses in which we are involved or may be specifically directed at us. In regulatory enforcement matters, claims for disgorgement, the imposition of penalties and the imposition of other remedial sanctions are possible.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal actions and regulatory matters, we cannot provide assurance as to the outcome of any pending matter or, if determined adversely against us, the costs associated with any such matter, particularly where the claimant seeks very large or indeterminate damages or where the matter presents novel legal theories, involves a large number of parties or is at a preliminary stage. The resolution of certain pending legal actions or regulatory matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations for the period in which such actions or matters are resolved or a reserve is established.

We face litigation and governmental and client inquiries in connection with our execution of indirect foreign exchange trades with custody clients; these issues have adversely impacted our revenue from such trading and may cause our revenue from such trading to decline in the future.

Our custody clients are not required to execute foreign exchange transactions with us. To the extent they execute foreign exchange trades with us, they generally execute a greater volume using our direct methods of execution at negotiated rates or spreads than they execute using our “indirect” methods at rates we establish. Where our clients or their investment managers choose to use our indirect foreign exchange execution methods, generally they elect that service for trades of smaller size or for currencies where regulatory or operational requirements cause trading in such currencies to present greater operational risk and costs. Given the nature of these trades and other features of our indirect foreign exchange service, we generally charge higher rates for indirect execution than we charge for other trades, including trades in the interbank currency market.

In October 2009, the Attorney General of the State of California commenced an action against State Street Bank under the California False Claims Act and California Business and Professional Code relating to indirect foreign exchange services State Street Bank provides to certain California state pension plans. The California Attorney General has asserted that the rates at which these plans executed indirect foreign exchange transactions were not consistent with the terms of the applicable custody contracts and related disclosures to the plans, and that, as a result, State Street Bank made false claims and engaged in unfair competition. The Attorney General has asserted actual damages of $56 million for periods from 2001 to 2009 and seeks additional penalties, including treble damages. This action is in the discovery phase.

In October 2010, we entered into a $12 million settlement with the State of Washington. This settlement resolved a dispute related to the manner in which we priced some indirect foreign exchange transactions during our ten-year relationship with the State of Washington. Our contract with the State of Washington and related disclosures to the State of Washington were significantly different from those at issue in our ongoing litigation in California.

We provide custody and principal foreign exchange services to government pension plans in other jurisdictions. Since the commencement of the litigation in California, attorneys general and other governmental authorities from a number of jurisdictions, as well as U.S. Attorney’s offices, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, have requested information or issued subpoenas in connection

with inquiries into the pricing of our foreign exchange services. Given that many of these inquiries are ongoing, we can provide no assurance that litigation or regulatory proceedings will not be brought against us or as to the nature of the claims that might be alleged. Such litigation or proceedings may be brought on theories similar to those advanced in California or Washington or on alternative theories of liability.

We offer indirect foreign exchange services such as those we offer to the California pension plans to a broad range of custody clients in the U.S. and internationally. We have responded and are responding to information requests from a number of clients concerning our indirect foreign exchange rates. A putative class action was filed in Massachusetts in February 2011 that seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all custodial clients that executed indirect foreign exchange transactions through State Street since 1998. A second putative class action was filed in Massachusetts in November 2011 that seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all ERISA clients that executed indirect foreign exchange transactions with State Street since 2001. The putative class actions allege, among other things, that the rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and deceptive practice, a breach of a duty of loyalty and a breach of our obligations under ERISA.

We can provide no assurance as to the outcome of the pending proceedings in California or Massachusetts, or whether any other proceedings might be commenced against us by clients or government authorities. For example, the New York Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, each of which has brought indirect foreign exchange-related legal proceedings against one of our competitors, have made inquiries to us about our indirect foreign exchange execution methods. We expect that plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all or a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from providing indirect foreign exchange services. Our total revenue worldwide from such services was approximately $331 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, approximately $336 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, approximately $369 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 and approximately $462 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Although we did not calculate revenue for such services prior to 2006 in the same manner, and have refined our calculation method over time, we believe that the amount of our revenue for such services has been of a similar or lesser order of magnitude for many years.

We cannot predict the outcome of any pending proceedings or whether a court, in the event of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be the appropriate measure of damages. The resolution of pending proceedings or any that may be filed or threatened could have a material adverse effect on our future consolidated results of operations and our reputation. Our revenue calculations related to indirect foreign exchange services reflect a judgment concerning the relationship between the rates we charge for indirect foreign exchange execution and indicative interbank market rates near in time to execution. Our trading revenue depends upon the difference between the rates we set for indirect trades and indicative interbank market rates on the date when trades settle.

The heightened regulatory and media scrutiny on indirect foreign exchange services could result in pressure on our pricing of these services or in clients reducing the volume of trades executed through these services, each of which would have an adverse impact on the revenue from, and profitability of, these services for us. Some custody clients or their investment managers have elected to change the manner in which they execute foreign exchange with us or have decided not to use our foreign exchange execution methods. For the year ended December 31, 2011, our revenue from indirect foreign exchange services decreased by 1% compared to the year ended December 31, 2010. We expect the market, regulatory and other pressures on our indirect foreign exchange service to increase in 2012. We intend to offer our custody clients a range of execution options for their foreign exchange needs; however, the range of services, costs and profitability vary by service options. There can be no assurance that clients or investment managers who choose to use less or none of our indirect foreign exchange services, or to use alternatives to our existing indirect foreign exchange services, will choose alternatives offered by us. Accordingly, our revenue from these services may decline.

We may incur losses, which could be material to our financial performance in the periods incurred, arising from bankruptcy-related claims by and against Lehman entities in the U.S. and the U.K.

We have claims against Lehman entities in bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. and the U.K. We also have amounts that we owe to Lehman entities. These claims and amounts owed arise from the resolution of

transactions that existed at the time the Lehman entities entered bankruptcy, including foreign exchange transactions, securities lending arrangements and repurchase agreements. In the aggregate, the amounts that we believe we owe Lehman entities, as reflected in our submissions in the bankruptcy proceedings, are less than our estimate of the realizable value of the claims we have asserted against Lehman entities. However, we may recognize gains and losses in different periods depending in part on the timing and sequence of the resolution of the claims by us and against us in the different proceedings.

In addition, the process for resolving these claims and obligations is complex and may continue for some time. While the bankruptcy courts in the U.S. have approved the majority of our claims, the process is not as advanced in the United Kingdom. Certain of our clients had entered into securities lending arrangements and/or repurchase agreements with Lehman’s U.K. affiliate. In accordance with the terms of our lending program and repurchase agreement product, we have indemnified those clients against loss in connection with the resolution of these arrangements, and we have sold or taken possession of the related collateral, which included asset-backed securities.

For purposes of the resolution of securities lending arrangements and repurchase agreements in the U.K. in connection with the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings, we valued the asset-backed securities at their assumed liquidation values, in each case reflecting the absence of an active trading market for these securities following the bankruptcy of Lehman. We subsequently recorded these assets in our consolidated statement of condition at a significantly greater value, based on relevant market conditions and our assessment of their fair value in accordance with GAAP at that time. As a result of these valuation decisions, we determined that there was a shortfall in the collateral supporting the repurchase agreements, and we applied the excess collateral supporting Lehman’s obligations under securities lending. The administrators for Lehman’s U.K. affiliate have and may continue to challenge our claims.

We may incur losses, which could be material to our consolidated results of operations in the period incurred, with respect to prime broker arrangements we had with Lehman entities.

In our capacity as manager and trustee, we appointed Lehman as prime broker for certain common trust funds. Of the seven investors in these funds, we have entered into settlements with three clients (one of which was entered into after the client obtained a €42 million judgment from a Dutch court), and three others have ongoing litigation against us. The aggregate net asset value, at September 15, 2008 (the date two of the Lehman entities involved entered into insolvency proceedings), of cash and securities held by Lehman entities attributable to the four clients with whom we have not entered into settlement agreements was approximately $143 million. The claims of these clients should be reduced by the value of the distributions from the Lehman entities to these common trust funds, which amounts cannot be determined at this time. There can be no assurance as to the outcome of these proceedings, and an adverse resolution could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the fiscal period or periods in which resolved.

Our reputation and business prospects may be damaged if our clients incur substantial losses in investment pools where we act as agent.

Our management of collective investment pools on behalf of clients exposes us to reputational risk and, in some cases, operational losses. If our clients incur substantial losses in these pools, particularly in money market funds (where there is a general market expectation that net asset value will not drop below $1.00 per share), receive redemptions as in-kind distributions rather than in cash, or experience significant under-performance relative to the market or our competitors’ products, our reputation could be significantly harmed, which harm could significantly and adversely affect the prospects of our associated business units. Because we often implement investment and operational decisions and actions over multiple investment pools to achieve scale, we face the risk that losses, even small losses, may have a significant effect in the aggregate. While it is currently not our intention, any decision by us to provide financial support to our investment pools to support our reputation in circumstances where we are not statutorily or contractually obligated to do so would potentially result in the recognition of significant losses and could in certain situations require us to consolidate the investment pools onto our consolidated statement of condition. A failure or inability to provide such support could damage our reputation among current and prospective clients.

The net asset values of our collateral pools have been below $1.00 per unit.

Our securities lending operations consist of two components: a direct lending program for third-party investment managers and asset owners, the collateral pools for which we refer to as agency lending collateral pools; and investment funds with a broad range of investment objectives that are managed by SSgA and engage in securities lending, which we refer to as SSgA lending funds.

In 2007, the net asset value of the assets held by the agency lending collateral pools declined below $1.00 per unit. The agency lending collateral pools continued to transact purchases and redemptions at a constant net asset value of $1.00 per unit even though the market value of the collateral pools’ portfolio holdings, determined using pricing from third-party pricing sources, has been below $1.00 per unit. This difference between the transaction value used for purchase and redemption activity and the market value of the collateral pools’ assets arose, depending upon the collateral pool, at various points since the commencement of the financial crisis in mid-2007 and has declined but persisted throughout 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

In 2008, we imposed restrictions on cash redemptions from the agency lending collateral pools. In December 2010, in order to increase participants’ control over the degree of their participation in the lending program, we divided certain agency lending collateral pools into liquidity pools, from which clients can obtain cash redemptions, and duration pools, which are restricted and operate as liquidating accounts. Depending upon the agency lending collateral pool, the percentage of the collateral pool’s assets that were represented by interests in the liquidity pool varied as of such division date from 58% to 84%.

As of December 31, 2011, the aggregate net asset value of the duration pools was approximately $3.3 billion, and as of such date the return obligations of participants in the agency lending program represented by interests in the duration pools exceeded the market value of the assets in the duration pools by approximately $198 million, which amount is expected to be eliminated as the assets in the duration pools mature or amortize.

We may incur losses, which could be material to our consolidated results of operations in the period incurred, as a result of our past practice of effecting purchase and redemptions of interests in the collateral pools based upon a consistent $1.00 per unit net asset value during periods when those pools had a market value of less than $1.00 per unit.

We believe that our practice of effecting purchases and redemptions of units of the collateral pools at $1.00 per unit, notwithstanding that the underlying portfolios have a market value of less than $1.00 per unit, complied with the terms of our unregistered cash collateral pools and was in the best interests of participants in the agency lending program and the SSgA lending funds. We continued this practice until June 30, 2010 for the SSgA lending funds and until the end of 2010 for the agency lending collateral pools for a number of reasons, including that none of the securities in the cash collateral pools were in default or considered to be materially impaired, and that the collective investment funds restricted withdrawals.

Although the market value of the assets in the collateral pools has improved since 2008, a portion of these assets are floating rate instruments with several years of remaining maturity; consequently, the rate of valuation improvement for the duration pools has slowed and the market value may decline again as a result of changes in market sentiment or in the credit quality of such instruments. In addition, the assets of the liquid pools are currently insufficient to satisfy in full the obligations of participants in the agency lending program to return cash collateral to borrowers. Participants in the agency lending program who received units of the duration pool, or who previously received in-kind redemptions from the agency lending collateral pools, could seek to assert claims against us in connection with either their loss of liquidity or unrealized mark-to-market losses. If such claims were successfully asserted, such a resolution could adversely affect our results of operations in future periods.

The illiquidity and volatility of global fixed-income and equity markets has affected our ability to effectively and profitably manage assets on behalf of clients and may make our products less attractive to clients.

We manage assets on behalf of clients in several forms, including in collective investment pools, money market funds, securities finance collateral pools, cash collateral and other cash products and short-term

investment funds. In addition to the impact on the market value of client portfolios, at various times since 2007 the illiquidity and volatility of both the global fixed-income and equity markets have negatively affected our ability to manage client inflows and outflows from our pooled investment vehicles. Within our asset management business, we manage investment pools, such as mutual funds and collective investment funds that generally offer our clients the ability to withdraw their investments on short notice, generally daily or monthly. This feature requires that we manage those pools in a manner that takes into account both maximizing the long-term return on the investment pool and retaining sufficient liquidity to meet reasonably anticipated liquidity requirements of our clients.

During the market disruption that accelerated following the bankruptcy of Lehman, the liquidity in many asset classes, particularly short- and long-term fixed-income securities, declined dramatically, and providing liquidity to meet all client demands in these investment pools without adversely affecting the return to non-withdrawing clients became more difficult. For clients that have invested directly or indirectly in certain of the collateral pools and have sought to terminate their participation in lending programs, we have required, in accordance with the applicable client arrangements, that these withdrawals from the collateral pools take the form of partial in-kind distributions of securities.

In the case of SSgA funds that engage in securities lending, we implemented limitations, which were terminated in 2010, on the portion of an investor’s interest in such fund that may be withdrawn during any month, although such limitations do not apply to participant-directed activity in defined contribution plans. If higher than normal demands for liquidity from our clients were to return to post-Lehman-bankruptcy levels or increase, managing the liquidity requirements of our collective investment pools could become more difficult and, as a result, we may elect to support the liquidity of these pools. If such liquidity problems were to re-occur, our relationships with our clients may be adversely affected; we could, in certain circumstances, be required to consolidate the investment pools, levels of redemption activity could increase and our consolidated results of operations and business prospects could be adversely affected.

In addition, if a money market fund that we manage were to have unexpected liquidity demands from investors in the fund that exceeded available liquidity, the fund could be required to sell assets to meet those redemption requirements, and selling the assets held by the fund at a reasonable price, if at all, may then be difficult.

Alternatively, although we have no such obligations or arrangements currently in place, we have in the past guaranteed, and may in the future guarantee, liquidity to investors desiring to make withdrawals from a fund, and making a significant amount of such guarantees could adversely affect our own liquidity and financial condition. Because of the size of the investment pools that we manage, we may not have the financial ability or regulatory authority to support the liquidity demands of our clients. The extreme volatility in the equity markets has led to potential for the return on passive and quantitative products deviating from their target returns. The temporary closures of securities exchanges in certain markets create a risk that client redemptions in pooled investment vehicles may result in significant tracking error and under-performance relative to stated benchmarks. Any failure of the pools to meet redemption requests or to under-perform relative to similar products offered by our competitors could harm our business and our reputation.

Our businesses may be negatively affected by adverse publicity or other reputational harm.

Our relationship with many of our clients is predicated upon our reputation as a fiduciary and a service provider that adheres to the highest standards of ethics, service quality and regulatory compliance. Adverse publicity, regulatory actions, litigation, operational failures, the failure to meet client expectations and other issues with respect to one or more of our businesses, counterparties, clients or vendors 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. Preserving and enhancing our reputation also depends on maintaining systems, procedures and relationships that address known risks and regulatory requirements, as well as our ability to identify and mitigate additional risks that arise due to changes in our businesses and the marketplaces in which we operate, the regulatory environment and client expectations. If any of these developments has a material effect on our reputation, our business will suffer. For example, in the latter part of 2011, our transition management revenue

was adversely affected by compliance issues in our U.K. business, the reputational impact of which may adversely affect our revenue from transition management in 2012. Similar or other reputational effects in this or other businesses could similarly or more significantly affect our business or financial performance.

Cost shifting to non-U.S. jurisdictions may expose us to increased operational risk and reputational harm and may not result in expected cost savings.

We actively strive to achieve cost savings by shifting certain business processes to lower-cost geographic locations, including by forming joint ventures and by establishing operations in lower cost locations, such as Poland, India, the Philippines and China, and by outsourcing to vendors in various jurisdictions. This effort exposes us to the risk that we may not maintain service quality, control or effective management within these business operations, as well as the relevant macroeconomic, political and similar risks generally involved in doing business in those jurisdictions. The increased elements of risk that arise from conducting certain operating processes in some jurisdictions could lead to an increase in reputational risk. During periods of transition, greater operational risk and client concern exist regarding the continuity of a high level of service delivery. The extent and pace at which we are able to move functions to lower-cost locations may also be impacted by regulatory and client acceptance issues. Such relocation of functions also entails costs, such as technology and real estate expenses, that may offset or exceed the expected financial benefits of the lower-cost locations.

We depend on information technology, and any failures of or damage to, attack on or unauthorized access to our information technology systems could result in significant costs and reputational damage.

Our businesses depend on information technology infrastructure, both internal and external, to record and process a large volume of increasingly complex transactions and other data, in many currencies, on a daily basis, across numerous and diverse markets. During 2011 and 2010, several financial services firms suffered successful computer systems hacking launched domestically and from abroad, resulting in the disruption of services to clients, loss or misappropriation of sensitive or private data and reputational harm. We, like other financial services firms, will continue to face increasing cyber security threats. Any interruptions, delays, breakdowns or breach, including as a result of cyber security breaches, of our, or of our counterparties’ or business partners’, information technology infrastructure, including improper employee actions, could result in significant costs and exposures to us, including regulatory fines, loss of confidential, personal or proprietary information and damage to our reputation, and they may also jeopardize our ability to perform our services to clients.

It may be difficult and costly to protect our intellectual property rights, and we may not be able to ensure their protection.

We may be unable to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology effectively, which may allow competitors to duplicate our technology and products and may adversely affect our ability to compete with them. To the extent that we do not protect our intellectual property effectively through patents or other means, other parties, including former employees, with knowledge of our intellectual property may leave and seek to exploit our intellectual property for their own or others’ advantage. In addition, we may infringe upon claims of third-party patents, and we may face intellectual property challenges from other parties. We may not be successful in defending against any such challenges or in obtaining licenses to avoid or resolve any intellectual property disputes. The intellectual property of an acquired business may be an important component of the value that we agree to pay for such a business. However, such acquisitions are subject to the risks that the acquired business may not own the intellectual property that we believe we are acquiring, that the intellectual property is dependent upon licenses from third parties, that the acquired business infringes upon the intellectual property rights of others or that the technology does not have the acceptance in the marketplace that we anticipated.

Competition for our employees is intense, and we may not be able to attract and retain the highly skilled people we need to support our business.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract and/or retain key people. Competition for the best people in most activities in which we engage can be intense, and we may not be able to hire people or retain

them, particularly in light of uncertainty concerning evolving compensation restrictions applicable, or which may become applicable, to banks and that potentially are not applicable to other financial services firms. The unexpected loss of services of one or more of our key personnel could have a material adverse impact on our business because of their skills, their knowledge of our markets, their years of industry experience and, in some cases, the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel. Similarly, the loss of key employees, either individually or as a group, can adversely affect our clients’ perception of our ability to continue to manage certain types of investment management mandates or to provide other services to them.

We are subject to intense competition in all aspects of our business, which could negatively affect our ability to maintain or increase our profitability.

The markets in which we operate across all facets of our business are both highly competitive and global. These markets are changing as a result of new and evolving laws and regulations applicable to financial services institutions. Regulatory-driven market changes cannot always be anticipated, and may adversely affect the demand for, and profitability of, the products and services that we offer. In addition, new market entrants and competitors may address changes in the markets more rapidly than we do, or may provide clients with a more attractive offering of products and services, adversely affecting our business. We have also experienced, and anticipate that we will continue to experience, pricing pressure in many of our core businesses. Many of our businesses compete with other domestic and international banks and financial services companies, such as custody banks, investment advisors, broker-dealers, outsourcing companies and data processing companies. Ongoing consolidation within the financial services industry could pose challenges in the markets we serve, including potentially increased downward pricing pressure across our businesses.

Some of our competitors, including our competitors in core services, have substantially greater capital resources than we do. In some of our businesses, we are service providers to significant competitors. These competitors are in some instances significant clients, and the retention of these clients involves additional risks, such as the avoidance of actual or perceived conflicts of interest and the maintenance of high levels of service quality. The ability of a competitor to offer comparable or improved products or services at a lower price would likely negatively affect our ability to maintain or increase our profitability. Many of our core services are subject to contracts that have relatively short terms or may be terminated by our client after a short notice period. In addition, pricing pressures as a result of the activities of competitors, client pricing reviews, and rebids, as well as the introduction of new products, may result in a reduction in the prices we can charge for our products and services.

Acquisitions, strategic alliances and divestiture pose risks for our business.

As part of our business strategy, we acquire complementary businesses and technologies, enter into strategic alliances and joint ventures and divest portions of our business. In 2011, we completed our acquisitions of Bank of Ireland Asset Management, or BIAM; Complementa Investment-Controlling AG, or Complementa; and Pulse Trading, Inc., or Pulse. Also during 2011, we continued the integration of our 2010 acquisitions of Intesa Sanpaolo’s securities services business and Mourant International Finance Administration, or MIFA. We undertake transactions of varying sizes such as these to, among other reasons, expand our geographic footprint, access new clients, technologies or services, develop closer relationships with our business partners, efficiently deploy capital or leverage cost savings or other financial opportunities. We may not achieve the expected benefits of these transactions, which could result in increased costs, lowered revenues, ineffective deployment of capital and diminished competitive position or reputation.

Transactions of this nature also involve a number of risks and financial, accounting, tax, regulatory, managerial, operational and employment challenges, which could adversely affect our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. For example, the businesses that we acquire or our strategic alliances may under-perform relative to the price paid or the resources committed by us, we may not achieve anticipated cost savings or we may otherwise be adversely affected by acquisition-related charges. Further, past acquisitions, including the acquisitions of the Intesa securities services business, MIFA, BIAM, Complementa and Pulse, have resulted in the recording of goodwill and other significant intangible assets on our consolidated statement of

condition. These assets are not eligible for inclusion in regulatory capital under current proposals, and we may be required to record impairment in our consolidated statement of income in future periods if we determine that we will not realize the value of these assets. Through our acquisitions we may also assume unknown or undisclosed business, operational, tax, regulatory and other liabilities, fail to properly assess known contingent liabilities or assume businesses with internal control deficiencies. While in most of our transactions we seek to mitigate these risks through, among other things, due diligence and indemnification provisions, these or other risk mitigants we put in place may not be sufficient to address these liabilities and contingencies.

Various regulatory approvals or consents are generally required prior to closing of acquisitions, which may include approvals of the Federal Reserve and other domestic and non-U.S. regulatory authorities. These regulatory authorities may impose conditions on the completion of the acquisition or require changes to its terms that materially affect the terms of the transaction or our ability to capture some of the opportunities presented by the transaction. Any such conditions, or any associated regulatory delays, could limit the benefits of the transaction. Some acquisitions we announce may not be completed, if we do not receive the required regulatory approvals, if regulatory approvals are significantly delayed or if other closing conditions are not satisfied.

The integration of our acquisitions results in risks to our business and other uncertainties.

The integration of acquisitions presents risks that differ from the risks associated with our ongoing operations. Integration activities are complicated and time consuming. We may not be able to effectively assimilate services, technologies, key personnel or businesses of acquired companies into our business or service offerings, as anticipated, alliances may not be successful, and we may not achieve related revenue growth or cost savings. We also face the risk of being unable to retain, or cross-sell our products or services to, the clients of acquired companies. Acquisitions of investment servicing businesses entail information technology systems conversions, which involve operational risks and may result in client dissatisfaction and defection. Clients of asset servicing businesses that we have acquired may be competitors of our non-custody businesses. The loss of some of these clients or a significant reduction in revenues generated from them, for competitive or other reasons, could adversely affect the benefits that we expect to achieve from these acquisitions. With any acquisition, the integration of the operations and resources of the businesses could result in the loss of key employees, the disruption of our and the acquired company’s ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures or policies that could adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with clients or employees or to achieve the anticipated benefits of the acquisition. Integration efforts may also divert management attention and resources.

Development of new products and services may impose additional costs on us and may expose us to increased operational risk.

Our financial performance depends, in part, on our ability to develop and market new and innovative services and to adopt or develop new technologies that differentiate our products or provide cost efficiencies, while avoiding increased related expenses. The introduction of new products and services can entail significant time and resources. 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. Regulatory and internal control requirements, capital requirements, competitive alternatives, vendor relationships and shifting market preferences may also determine if such initiatives can be brought to market in a manner that is timely and attractive to our clients. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business and reputation, as well as on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

Long-term contracts expose us to pricing and performance risk.

We enter into long-term contracts to provide middle office or investment manager and alternative investment manager operations outsourcing services, primarily for conversions, to clients, including services

related but not limited to certain trading activities, cash reporting, settlement and reconciliation activities, collateral management and information technology development. These arrangements generally set forth our fee schedule for the term of the contract and, absent a change in service requirements, do not permit us to re-price the contract for changes in our costs or for market pricing. The long-term contracts for these relationships require, in some cases, considerable up-front investment by us, including technology and conversion costs, and carry the risk that pricing for the products and services we provide might not prove adequate to generate expected operating margins over the term of the contracts. The profitability of these contracts is largely a function of our ability to accurately calculate pricing for our services, efficiently assume our contractual responsibilities in a timely manner, control our costs and maintain the relationship with the client for an adequate period of time to recover our up-front investment. Our estimate of the profitability of these arrangements can be adversely affected by declines in the assets under the clients’ management, whether due to general declines in the securities markets or client-specific issues. In addition, the profitability of these arrangements may be based on our ability to cross-sell additional services to these clients, and we may be unable to do so.

In addition, performance risk exists in each contract, given our dependence on successful conversion and implementation onto our own operating platforms of the service activities provided. Our failure to meet specified service levels may also adversely affect our revenue from such arrangements, or permit early termination of the contracts by the client. If the demand for these types of services were to decline, we could see our revenue decline.

Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented, our risk management policies and procedures may be inadequate, and operational risk could adversely affect our consolidated results of operations.

We may fail to identify and manage risks related to a variety of aspects of our business, including, but not limited to, operational risk, interest-rate risk, trading risk, fiduciary risk, legal and compliance risk, liquidity risk and credit risk. We have adopted various controls, procedures, policies and systems to monitor and manage risk. While we currently believe that our risk management process is effective, we cannot provide assurance that those controls, procedures, policies and systems will always be adequate to identify and manage the internal and external, including service provider, risks in our various businesses. Among risks realized by other financial institutions resulting from inadequate controls is the risk that an individual in a position to engage in trading on the institution’s behalf, or on behalf of the institution’s clients, exceeds authorized limits or causes trading losses to be unrecognized. The financial and reputational impact of such control failures can be significant.

In addition, our businesses and the markets in which we operate are continuously evolving. We may fail to fully understand the implications of changes in our businesses or the financial markets and fail to adequately or timely enhance our risk framework to address those changes. If our risk framework is ineffective, either because it fails to keep pace with changes in the financial markets, our businesses, our counterparties, clients or service providers or for other reasons, we could incur losses, suffer reputational damage or find ourselves out of compliance with applicable regulatory or contractual mandates or expectations.

Operational risk is inherent in all of our business activities. As a leading provider of services to institutional investors, we provide a broad array of services, including research, investment management, trading services and investment servicing that give rise to operational risk. In addition, these services generate a broad array of complex and specialized servicing, confidentiality and fiduciary requirements. We face the risk that the policies, procedures and systems we have established to comply with our operational requirements will fail, be inadequate or become outdated. We also face the potential for loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, employee supervisory or monitoring mechanisms, service provider processes or other systems or controls, which could materially affect our future consolidated results of operations. Operational errors that result in us remitting funds to a failing or bankrupt entity may be irreversible, and may subject us to losses.

We may also be subject to disruptions from external events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, which could cause delays or disruptions to operational functions, including information processing and financial market settlement functions. In addition, our clients, vendors and counterparties could suffer from such events. Should these events affect us, or the clients, vendors or counterparties with which we conduct business, our consolidated results of operations could be negatively affected. When we record balance sheet reserves for

probable loss contingencies related to operational losses, we may be unable to accurately estimate our potential exposure, and any reserves we establish to cover operational losses may not be sufficient to cover our actual financial exposure, which may have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition for the periods in which we recognize the losses.

Changes in accounting standards may be difficult to predict and may adversely affect our consolidated financial statements.

New accounting standards, including the potential adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards, or changes in the interpretation of existing accounting standards, by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the International Accounting Standards Board or the SEC, can potentially affect our consolidated results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. These changes are difficult to predict, and can materially affect how we record and report our consolidated results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and other financial information. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in the revised treatment of certain transactions or activities, and, in some cases, the restatement of prior period consolidated financial statements.

Changes in tax laws, rules or regulations, challenges to our tax positions with respect to historical transactions, and changes in the composition of our pre-tax earnings may increase our effective tax rate and thus adversely affect our consolidated financial statements.

Our businesses can be directly or indirectly affected by new tax legislation, the expiration of existing tax laws or the interpretation of existing tax laws worldwide. The U.S. federal government, state governments and jurisdictions around the world continue to review proposals to amend tax laws, rules and regulations applicable to our business that could have a negative impact on our after-tax earnings. In addition, the expiration at the end of 2011 of certain U.S. tax laws that favorably affected the taxation of our overseas operations could begin to affect the results of those operations by the end of 2012. Although these U.S. tax laws have previously expired and been re-enacted, it is uncertain whether they will be re-enacted again.

In the normal course of our business, we are subject to review by U.S. and non-U.S. tax authorities. A review by any such authority could result in an increase in our recorded tax liability. In addition to the aforementioned risks, our effective tax rate is dependent on the nature and geographic composition of our pre-tax earnings and could be negatively affected by changes in these factors.

Any theft, loss or other misappropriation of the confidential information we possess could have an adverse impact on our business and could subject us to regulatory actions, litigation and other adverse effects.

Our businesses and relationships with clients are dependent upon our ability to maintain the confidentiality of our and our clients’ trade secrets and confidential information (including client transactional data and personal data about our employees, our clients and our clients’ clients). Unauthorized access to such information may occur, resulting in theft, loss or other misappropriation. Any theft, loss or other misappropriation of confidential information could have a material adverse impact on our competitive positions, our relationships with our clients and our reputation and could subject us to regulatory inquiries and enforcement, civil litigation and possible financial liability or costs.

The quantitative models we use to manage our business may contain errors that result in imprecise risk assessments, inaccurate valuations or poor business decisions.

We use quantitative models to help manage many different aspects of our businesses. As an input to our overall assessment of capital adequacy, we use models to measure the amount of credit risk, market risk, operational risk, interest rate risk and business risk we face. During the preparation of our consolidated financial statements, we sometimes use models to measure the value of asset and liability positions for which reliable market prices are not available. We also use models to support many different types of business decisions including trading activities, hedging, asset management and liability management and whether to change business strategy. In all of these uses, errors in the underlying model or model assumptions, or inadequate model

assumptions, could result in unanticipated and adverse consequences. Because of our widespread usage of models, potential errors in models pose an ongoing risk to us.

Additionally, we may fail to accurately quantify the magnitude of the risks we face. Our measurement methodologies rely upon many assumptions and historical analyses and correlations. These assumptions may be incorrect, and the historical correlations we rely on may not continue to be relevant. Consequently, the measurements that we make for regulatory and economic capital may not adequately capture or express the true risk profiles of our businesses. Additionally, as businesses and markets evolve, our measurements may not accurately reflect those changes. While our risk measures may indicate sufficient capitalization, we may in fact have inadequate capital to conduct our businesses.

We may incur losses as a result of unforeseen events, including terrorist attacks, the emergence of a pandemic or acts of embezzlement.

Acts of terrorism or the emergence of a pandemic could significantly affect our business. We have instituted disaster recovery and continuity plans to address risks from terrorism and pandemic; however, forecasting or addressing all potential contingencies is not possible for events of this nature. Acts of terrorism, either targeted or broad in scope, could damage our physical facilities, harm our employees and disrupt our operations. A pandemic, or concern about a possible pandemic, could lead to operational difficulties and impair our ability to manage our business. Acts of terrorism and pandemics could also negatively affect our clients, counterparties and service providers, as well as result in disruptions in general economic activity and the financial markets.

Terrorism may also take the form of the theft or misappropriation of property, confidential information or financial assets. Due to our role as a financial services institution, our businesses are already subject to similar risks of theft, misappropriation and embezzlement with respect to our and our clients’ property, information and assets. Our employees and contractors and other partners have access to our facilities and internal systems and may seek to create the opportunity to engage in these activities. In the event our controls and procedures to prevent theft, misappropriation or embezzlement fail or are circumvented, our business would be negatively affected by, among other things, the related financial losses, diminished reputation and threat of litigation and regulatory inquiry and investigation.

None.

We occupy a total of approximately 8.7 million square feet of office space and related facilities around the world, of which approximately 7.7 million square feet are leased. Of the total leased space, approximately 3.3 million square feet are located in eastern Massachusetts. An additional 1.5 million square feet are located elsewhere throughout the U.S. and in Canada. We lease approximately 1.9 million square feet in the U.K. and elsewhere in Europe, and approximately 1.0 million square feet in the Asia/Pacific region.

Our headquarters is located at State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street, Boston, Massachusetts, a 36-story office building. Various divisions of our two lines of business, as well as support functions, occupy space in this building. We lease the entire 1,025,000 square feet of this building, as well as the entire 366,000-square-foot parking garage at One Lincoln Street, under 20-year, non-cancelable capital leases expiring in 2023. A portion of the lease payments is offset by subleases for 153,390 square feet of the building. We occupy three buildings located in Quincy, Massachusetts, one of which we own and two of which we lease. The buildings, containing a total of approximately 1,100,000 square feet (720,000 square feet owned and 380,000 square feet leased), function as State Street Bank’s principal operations facilities. We occupy an office building in the U.K., utilized by certain of our operations in that country, where we lease approximately 362,000 square feet under a 20-year capital lease expiring in 2028.

We believe that our owned and leased facilities are suitable and adequate for our business needs. Additional information about our occupancy costs, including our commitments under non-cancelable leases, is provided in note 19 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8.

ITEM 3.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are involved in disputes, litigation and regulatory inquiries and investigations, both pending and threatened. These matters, if resolved adversely against us, may result in monetary damages, fines and penalties or require changes in our business practices. The resolution of these proceedings is inherently difficult to predict. However, we do not believe that the amount of any judgment, settlement or other action arising from any pending proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or cash flows, although the outcome of certain of the matters described below may have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations for the period in which such matter is resolved or a reserve is determined to be required. To the extent that we have established reserves in our consolidated statement of condition for probable loss contingencies, such reserves may not be sufficient to cover our ultimate financial exposure associated with any settlements or judgments. We may be subject to proceedings in the future that, if adversely resolved, would have a material adverse effect on our businesses or on our future consolidated financial statements. Except where otherwise noted below, we have not recorded a reserve with respect to the claims discussed and do not believe that potential exposure, if any, as to any matter discussed can be reasonably estimated.

SSgA

The SEC has requested information regarding registered mutual funds managed by SSgA that invested in sub-prime securities. As of June 30, 2007, these funds had net assets of less than $300 million, and the net asset value per share of the funds experienced an average decline of approximately 7.23% during the third quarter of 2007. Average returns for industry peer funds were positive during the same period. During the course of our responding to such inquiry, certain potential compliance issues have been identified and are in the process of being resolved with the SEC staff. These funds were not covered by our regulatory settlement, announced in the first quarter of 2010, with the SEC, the Massachusetts Attorney General and the Massachusetts Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of State, which concerned certain unregistered SSgA-managed funds that pursued active fixed-income strategies. Four lawsuits by individual investors in those active fixed-income strategies remain pending. The U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority have also requested information in connection with our active-fixed income strategies.

One of the four lawsuits by investors was filed by Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Co. in 2007 in New York federal court. Prudential sought damages in excess of the compensation it received from the fair fund established by State Street in the first quarter of 2010 in connection with the regulatory settlement noted above. Prudential is also seeking related costs, including pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. On February 3, 2012, the Court issued a ruling finding that Prudential is entitled to a payment from State Street, after adjustment for the compensation received from the fair fund, in the amount of $28.1 million. This award may ultimately be increased if the Court awards Prudential interest and costs. We intend to appeal the Court’s February 3, 2012 ruling. The timing of the remaining phases of further trial proceedings or of any appeal cannot currently be determined. Two of the other three lawsuits by individual investors are in federal court in Texas, with one scheduled for trial in March 2012, and the other is in federal court in New York. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits also seek to recover amounts in excess of their compensation from the fair fund established by the 2010 settlement, along with pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and punitive damages.

We estimate that our exposure in the Prudential and three other lawsuits may be, in the aggregate, in a range from $0 to approximately $90 million. This estimated exposure range includes estimated pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees, if awarded. The estimated exposure range does not include any potential awards of claimed punitive damages, which cannot reasonably be estimated. The actual amount, if any, of our ultimate aggregate liability in the Prudential and three other lawsuits may be more or less than the top of the estimated range. We have not established a reserve with respect to these matters.

We are currently defending a putative ERISA class action by investors in unregistered SSgA-managed funds which challenges the division of our securities lending-related revenue between the SSgA lending funds and State Street in its role as lending agent. The action alleges, among other things, that State Street breached its

fiduciary duty to investors in the SSgA lending funds. The plaintiff contends that State Street’s agency lending clients received more favorable fee splits than did clients of the SSgA lending funds.

As previously reported, we managed, through SSgA, four common trust funds for which, in our capacity as manager and trustee, we appointed various Lehman entities as prime broker. As of September 15, 2008 (the date two of the Lehman entities involved entered insolvency proceedings), these funds had cash and securities held by Lehman with net asset values of approximately $312 million. Some clients who invested in the funds managed by us brought litigation against us seeking compensation and additional damages, including double or treble damages, for their alleged losses in connection with our prime brokerage arrangements with Lehman’s entities. A total of seven clients were invested in such funds, of which three currently have suits pending against us. Two cases are pending in federal court in Boston and the third is pending in Nova Scotia. We have entered into settlements with three clients, one of which was entered into after the client obtained a €42 million judgment from a Dutch court. As of September 15, 2008, the four clients with whom we have not entered into settlement agreements had approximately $143 million invested in the funds at issue. We have not established a reserve with respect to any of the unsettled claims.

Through SSgA, we acted as collateral manager for several collateralized debt obligation, or CDO, transactions structured and offered through other financial institutions. A CDO is an asset-backed security constructed from a portfolio of fixed-income assets such as residential mortgage-backed securities or other CDO securities. In April 2011, a purchaser of $10 million of notes from one CDO (Markov CDO I, Ltd.) commenced an action against us and the offering bank in federal court in New York. The suit alleges, among other things, that the offering bank had financial interests that conflicted with those of the investors, and designed the CDO to fail. The complaint also alleges that SSgA failed to independently manage the CDO portfolio, and that, as a result, misrepresented its role as collateral manager. The plaintiff asserts various fraud-related claims and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In addition, the Massachusetts Secretary of State is conducting an investigation of disclosures we made to prospective investors in our role as collateral manager for a second CDO (Carina CDO, Ltd.).

Securities Finance

Two related participants in our agency securities lending program have brought suit against us challenging actions taken by us in response to their withdrawal from the program. We believe that certain withdrawals by these participants were inconsistent with the redemption policy applicable to the agency lending collateral pools and, consequently, redeemed their remaining interests through an in-kind distribution that reflected the assets these participants would have received had they acted in accordance with the collateral pools’ redemption policy. The participants have asserted damages of $120 million, an amount that plaintiffs have stated was the difference between the amortized cost and market value of the assets that State Street proposed to distribute to the plans in-kind in or about August 2009. While management does not believe that such difference is an appropriate measure of damages, as of September 30, 2010, the last date on which State Street acted as custodian for the participants, the difference between the amortized cost and market value of the in-kind distribution was approximately $49 million, and if such securities were still held by the participants on such date, would have been approximately $28.5 million as of December 31, 2011. In taking these actions, we believe that we acted in the best interests of all participants in the collateral pools. We have not established a reserve with respect to this litigation.

We have been informed by the Staff of the SEC that its investigation, previously reported by us, with respect to the SSgA lending funds and the agency lending program has been closed.

Foreign Exchange

We offer our custody clients and their investment managers the option to route foreign exchange transactions to our foreign exchange desk through our asset servicing operation. We record as revenue an amount approximately equal to the difference between the rates we set for those trades and indicative interbank market rates at the time of execution of the trade. As discussed more fully below, claims have been asserted on behalf of certain current and former custody clients, and future claims may be asserted, alleging that our indirect foreign exchange rates (including the differences between those rates and indicative interbank market rates) were not

adequately disclosed or were otherwise improper, and seeking to recover, among other things, the full amount of the revenue we earned from our indirect foreign exchange trading with them.

In October 2009, the Attorney General of the State of California commenced an action under the California False Claims Act and California Business and Professional Code related to services State Street provides to California state pension plans. The California Attorney General asserts that the pricing of certain foreign exchange transactions for these pension plans was governed by the custody contracts for these plans and that our pricing was not consistent with the terms of those contracts and related disclosures to the plans, and that, as a result, State Street made false claims and engaged in unfair competition. The Attorney General asserted actual damages of $56 million for periods from 2001 to 2009 and seeks additional penalties, including treble damages. This action is in the discovery phase.

In October 2010, we entered into a $12 million settlement with the State of Washington. This settlement resolves a contract dispute related to the manner in which we priced some foreign exchange transactions during our ten-year relationship with the State of Washington. Our contractual obligations and related disclosures to the State of Washington were significantly different from those presented in our ongoing litigation in California.

We provide custody and principal foreign exchange services to government pension plans in other jurisdictions. Since the commencement of the litigation in California, attorneys general and other governmental authorities from a number of jurisdictions, as well as U.S. Attorney’s offices, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, have requested information or issued subpoenas in connection with inquiries into the pricing of our foreign exchange services. We continue to respond to such inquiries and subpoenas.

We offer indirect foreign exchange services such as those we offer to the California pension plans to a broad range of custody clients in the U.S. and internationally. We have responded and are responding to information requests from a number of clients concerning our indirect foreign exchange rates. In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009. The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts law and a breach of the duty of loyalty. A second putative class action is currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging various violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with us that executed indirect foreign exchange transactions with State Street between 2001 and 2009. The complaint, originally filed in federal court in Baltimore, alleges that State Street caused class members to pay unfair and unreasonable rates for indirect foreign exchange transactions with State Street. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief.

We have not established a reserve with respect to any of the pending legal proceedings relating to our indirect foreign exchange services. There can be no assurance as to the outcome of the pending proceedings in California or Massachusetts, or whether any other proceedings might be commenced against us by clients or government authorities. We expect that plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all or a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from providing indirect foreign exchange services. Our total revenue worldwide from such services was approximately $331 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, approximately $336 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, approximately $369 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 and approximately $462 million for the year ended December 31, 2008. Although we did not calculate revenue for such services prior to 2006 in the same manner, and have refined our calculation method over time, we believe that the amount of our revenue for such services has been of a similar or lesser order of magnitude for many years.

We cannot predict the outcome of any pending proceedings or whether a court, in the event of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be the appropriate measure of damages. The resolution of pending proceedings or any that may be filed or threatened could have a material adverse effect on our future consolidated results of operations and our reputation. Our revenue calculations reflect a judgment concerning the relationship between the rates we charge for indirect foreign exchange execution and indicative interbank market rates near in time to execution. Our trading revenue depends on the difference between the rates we set for indirect trades and indicative interbank market rates on the date trades settle.

Shareholder Litigation

Three shareholder-related class action complaints are currently pending in federal court in Boston. One complaint purports to be brought on behalf of State Street shareholders. The two other complaints purport to be brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the State Street Salary Savings Program who invested in the program’s State Street common stock investment option. The complaints variously allege violations of the federal securities laws and ERISA in connection with our foreign exchange trading business, our investment securities portfolio and our asset-backed commercial paper conduit program.

Lehman Entities

We have claims against Lehman entities, referred to as Lehman, in bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. and the U.K. We also have amounts that we owe, or return obligations, to Lehman. The various claims and amounts owed have arisen from transactions that existed at the time Lehman entered bankruptcy, including foreign exchange transactions, securities lending arrangements and repurchase agreements. During the third quarter of 2011, we reached agreement with certain Lehman bankruptcy estates in the U.S. to resolve the value of deficiency claims arising out of indemnified repurchase transactions in the U.S., and the bankruptcy court has allowed those claims in the amount of $400 million. The amount we ultimately collect will be subject to the availability of assets in those estates. We are in discussions with other Lehman bankruptcy administrators and would expect over time to resolve or obtain greater clarity on the other outstanding claims. We continue to believe that our allowed and/or realizable claims against Lehman exceed our potential return obligations, but the ultimate outcomes of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty. In addition, given the complexity of these matters, it remains likely that the resolution of these matters could occur in different periods, potentially resulting in the recognition of gains or losses in different periods.

Investment Servicing

State Street Bank is named as a defendant in three complaints filed in federal court in Boston in January 2012 by investment management clients of TAG Virgin Islands, Inc., or TAG, which hold custodial accounts with State Street. The complaints, collectively, allege claims for breach of contract, gross negligence, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and/or abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, in connection with certain assets managed by TAG and custodied with State Street. One complaint is an individual action. Two of the complaints are putative class actions asserted on behalf of certain persons or entities who were clients of TAG and entered into a custodial relationship with State Street and/or its predecessors in interest. Collectively, the complaints seek relief including claimed damages in excess of $100 million.

Not applicable.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

The following table sets forth certain information with regard to each of our executive officers as of February 24, 2012.

All executive officers are appointed by the Board of Directors. All officers hold office at the discretion of the Board. No family relationships exist among any of our directors and executive officers.

Mr. Hooley joined State Street in 1986 and has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer since March 2010, prior to which he had served as President and Chief Operating Officer since April 2008. From 2002 to April 2008, Mr. Hooley served as Executive Vice President and head of Investor Services and, in 2006, was appointed Vice Chairman and Global Head of Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading. Mr. Hooley was elected to serve on the Board of Directors effective October 22, 2009, and he was appointed Chairman of the Board effective January 1, 2011.

Mr. Antonellis joined State Street in 1991 and has served as head of all Europe and Asia/Pacific Global Services and Global Markets businesses since March 2010. Prior to this, in 2003, he was named head of Information Technology and Global Securities Services. In 2006, he was appointed Vice Chairman with additional responsibility as head of Investor Services in North America and Global Investment Manager Outsourcing Services.

Mr. Carp joined State Street in 2006 as Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer. In 2006, he was also appointed Secretary. From 2004 to 2005, Mr. Carp served as executive vice president and general counsel of Massachusetts Financial Services, an investment management and research company. From 1989 until 2004, Mr. Carp was a senior partner at the law firm of Hale and Dorr LLP, where he was an attorney since 1982. Mr. Carp served as interim Chief Risk Officer from February 2010 until September 2010.

Mr. Klinck joined State Street in 2006 and has served as Executive Vice President and global head of Corporate Development and Global Relationship Management since March 2010, prior to which he served as Executive Vice President and global head of Alternative Investment Solutions. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Klinck was with Mellon Financial Corporation, a global financial services company, from 1997 to 2006. During that time, he served as vice chairman and president of its Investment Manager Solutions group and before that as chairman for Mellon Europe, where he was responsible for the company’s investor services business in the region.

Mr. Kuritzkes joined State Street in 2010 as Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Kuritzkes was a partner at Oliver, Wyman & Company, an international management consulting firm, and led the firm’s Public Policy practice in North America. He joined Oliver, Wyman & Company in 1988, was a managing director in the firm’s London office from 1993 to 1997, and served as vice chairman of Oliver, Wyman & Company globally from 2000 until the firm’s acquisition by MMC in 2003. From 1986 to 1988, he worked as an economist and lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Mr. Malerba joined State Street in 2004 as Deputy Corporate Controller. In 2006, he was appointed Corporate Controller. Prior to joining State Street, he served as Deputy Controller at FleetBoston Financial Corporation from 2000 and continued in that role after the merger with Bank of America Corporation in 2004.

Mr. O’Neill has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Markets and Global Services in the Asia/Pacific region since April 2009. He joined State Street in 1985 and has held several senior positions during his tenure, including his appointment in January 2000 as managing director of State Street Global Markets in Europe. This role was expanded in June 2006 to include responsibility for Investor Services for the United Kingdom, Middle East and Africa.

Mr. Phalen joined State Street in 1992 and has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Operations, Technology and Product Development since March 2010. Prior to that, starting in 2003, he served as Executive Vice President of State Street and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CitiStreet, a global benefits provider and retirement plan record keeper. In February 2005, he was appointed head of Investor Services in North America. In 2006, he was appointed head of international operations for Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading, based in Europe. From January 2008 until May 2008, he served on an interim basis as President and Chief Executive Officer of SSgA, following which he returned to his role as head of international operations for Investment Servicing and Investment Research and Trading.

Mr. Powers joined State Street in 2008 as President and Chief Executive Officer of State Street Global Advisors. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Powers served as Chief Executive Officer of Old Mutual US, the U.S. operating unit of London-based Old Mutual plc, an international savings and wealth management company, from 2001 through 2008.

Ms. Quirk joined State Street in 2002, and since January 2012 has served as Chief Human Resources and Citizenship Officer. She has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Human Resources since March 2010. Prior to that, Ms. Quirk served as Executive Vice President in Global Human Resources and held various senior roles in that group.

Mr. Resch joined State Street in 2002 as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. He also served as Treasurer from 2006 until January 2008. Prior to joining State Street, Mr. Resch was Chief Financial Officer of Pershing, a Credit Suisse First Boston subsidiary, and prior to that, he served as Managing Director and Chief Accounting Officer of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc. and as Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of that firm’s capital markets group.

Mr. Rogers joined State Street in 2007 as part of our acquisition of Investors Financial Services Corp., and he has served as Executive Vice President and head of Global Markets and Global Services - Americas since November 2011. He has served as head of Global Services, including alternative investment solutions, for all of the Americas since March 2010. Mr. Rogers was previously head of the Relationship Management group, a role which he held since 2009. From State Street’s acquisition of Investors Financial Services Corp. in July 2007 to 2009, Mr. Rogers headed the post-acquisition Investors Financial Services Corp. business and its integration into State Street. Before joining State Street at the time of the acquisition, Mr. Rogers spent 27 years at Investors Financial Services Corp. in various capacities, most recently as President beginning in 2001.

PART II

MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY,

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol STT. There were 3,878 shareholders of record as of January 31, 2011. Information concerning the market prices of, and dividends on, our common stock during the past two years is included under Item 8, under the caption “Quarterly Summarized Financial Information.”

Additional information about our common stock, including existing Board of Directors authorization with respect to purchases by us of our common stock, and other equity securities is provided in the “Capital—Regulatory Capital” section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis, included under Item 7, and in note 13 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8.

RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol STT. There were 3,749 shareholders of record as of January 31, 2012. Information concerning the market prices of, and dividends on, our common stock during the past two years is included under Item 8, under the caption “Quarterly Summarized Financial Information,” and is incorporated herein by reference.

In March 2011, we announced a new program under which the purchase by us of up to $675 million of our common stock in 2011 was authorized by our Board of Directors. During 2011, we purchased approximately 16.3 million shares of our common stock under this program, and as of December 31, 2011, no purchase authority remained under the program.

The following table presents purchases of our common stock and related information for the three months ended December 31, 2011.

Additional information about our common stock, including Board of Directors authorization with respect to purchases by us of our common stock, is provided under “Capital-Regulatory Capital” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis, included under Item 7, and in note 12 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, and is incorporated herein by reference.

RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

As a bank holding company, the parent company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its principal banking subsidiary, State Street Bank, and its non-banking subsidiaries. The right of the parent company to participate as a shareholder in any distribution of assets of State Street Bank upon its liquidation, reorganization or otherwise is subject to the prior claims by creditors of State Street Bank, including obligations for federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements and deposit liabilities.

Payment of common stock dividends by State Street Bank is subject to the provisions of Massachusetts banking law, which provide that dividends may be paid out of net profits provided (i) capital stock and surplus remain unimpaired, (ii) dividend and retirement fund requirements of any preferred stock have been met, (iii) surplus equals or exceeds capital stock, and (iv) losses and bad debts, as defined, in excess of reserves specifically established for such losses and bad debts, have been deducted from net profits. Under the Federal Reserve Act and Massachusetts state law, regulatory approval of the Federal Reserve and the Massachusetts Division of Banks would be required if dividends declared by State Street Bank in any year exceeded the total of its net profits for that year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfers to surplus.

In 2011, the parent company declared aggregate common stock dividends of $0.72 per share, or approximately $358 million. In 2010, the parent company declared aggregate common stock dividends of $0.04 per share, or $20 million. The 2011 common stock dividends represented the first increase in our common stock dividend since we announced a reduction of such dividends in the first quarter of 2009. The prior approval of the Federal Reserve is required for us to pay future common stock dividends. Information about dividends from the parent company and from our subsidiary banks is provided under “Capital—Regulatory Capital” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis, included under Item 7, and in note 15 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, and is incorporated herein by reference. Future dividend payments of State Street Bank and other non-banking subsidiaries cannot be determined at this time.

As of December 31, 2011, the parent company had $500 million outstanding in aggregate liquidation preference of its series A preferred stock. Holders of shares of the preferred stock are entitled to receive non-cumulative cash dividends, only when, as and if declared by the parent company’s Board of Directors. Any dividends on the preferred stock are calculated at a rate per annum equal to the three-month LIBOR for the relevant three-month period plus 4.99%, with such dividend rate applied to the outstanding liquidation preference

of the preferred stock. Dividend payment dates for the preferred stock are March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15 of each year. The parent company may pay a partial dividend or skip a dividend payment on the preferred stock at any time. However, unless full dividends are paid (or declared, with funds set aside for payment) on all outstanding shares of preferred stock, in general and among other restrictions, no cash dividend may be declared on the common stock nor may the parent company purchase shares of its common stock. For a complete description of our preferred stock, including dividend rights and related provisions, refer to our restated articles of organization, as amended, included in Exhibit 3.1 to this Form 10-K.

Information about our equity compensation plans is included under Item 12 and in note 14 to the consolidated financial statements included under Item 8, and is incorporated herein by reference.

SHAREHOLDER RETURN PERFORMANCE PRESENTATION

The graph presented below compares the cumulative total shareholder return on State Street’s common stock to the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index and the S&P Financial Index over a five-year period. The cumulative total shareholder return assumes the investment of $100 in State Street common stock and in each index on December 31, 2006 at the closing price on the last trading day of 2006, and also assumes reinvestment of common stock dividends. The S&P Financial Index is a publicly available measure of 81 of the Standard & Poor’s 500 companies, representing 27 diversified financial services companies, 22 insurance companies, 17 real estate companies and 15 banking companies.

Comparison of Five-Year Cumulative Total Shareholder Return

ITEM 6.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts or where otherwise noted)