Introduction

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

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

References to “this“the 2013 Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.2013. All references to 2013, 2012 2011 and 20102011 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2012,2013, December 31, 20112012 and December 31, 2010,2011, respectively.

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

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

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

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

Institutional Client Services

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

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

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

Equity Securities (excluding ICBC).Securities.We make corporate, real estate and infrastructure equity-related investments.

Business Continuity and Information Security

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

Employees

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

Instilling the Goldman Sachs culture in all employees is a continuous process, in which training plays an important part. All employees are offered the opportunity to participate in education and periodic seminars that we sponsor at various locations throughout the world. Another important part of instilling the Goldman Sachs culture is our employee review process. Employees are reviewed by supervisors, co-workers and employees they supervise in a 360-degree review process that is integral to our team approach, and includes an evaluation of an employee’s performance with respect to risk management, compliance and diversity. As of December 2012,2013, we had 32,40032,900 total staff.

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

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

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

Supervision and Regulation

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

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

Activities

The BHC Act generally restricts bank holding companies from engaging in business activities other than the business of banking and certain closely related activities. Financial holding companies, however, generally can engage in a broader range of financial and related activities than are otherwise permissible for bank holding companies as long as they continue to meet the eligibility requirements for financial holding companies. These requirements include that the financial holding company and each of its U.S. depository institution subsidiaries maintain their status as “well-capitalized” and “well-managed.” The broader range of permissible activities for financial holding companies includes underwriting, dealing and making markets in

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

Although our net revenues from investments in our private equity, credit, real estate and hedge funds may vary from period to period, our aggregate net revenues from ourthese investments in hedge funds and private equity funds were not material to our aggregate total net revenues over the period from 1999 through 2012. We continue to manage our existing private equity funds, taking into account2013.

Leveraged Lending

In March 2013, the transition periods underU.S. federal bank regulatory agencies (Agencies) issued updated guidance on leveraged lending. The guidance focuses on transaction structures and risk management frameworks and outlines high-level principles for safe-and-sound leveraged lending, including underwriting standards, valuation and stress testing. Although the Volcker Rule. With respect to our hedge funds, we currently plan to comply withfull impact of the Volcker Rule by redeeming certainguidance remains uncertain, implementation of our intereststhis guidance and any related changes in the funds. Since March 2012, we have been redeeming up to approximately 10% of certain hedge funds’ total redeemable units per quarter, and expect to continue to do so through June 2014. In addition, we have limitedleveraged lending market could adversely affect our initial investment to 3% for certain new investments in hedge funds and private equity funds.

The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the CFPB, which has broad authority to regulate providers of credit, payment and other consumer financial products and services, and has oversight over certain of our products and services.leveraged lending business.

Capital and Liquidity Requirements

Capital requirements are increasingly a factor in determining risk levels and assessing business opportunities and strategies. As a bank holding company, we are subject to consolidated regulatory capital requirements administered by the Federal Reserve Board.

Board, and GS Bank USA is subject to broadly similar capital requirements.

Under the Federal Reserve Board’s capital adequacy requirements and, in the case of GS Bank USA, the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, that is applicable to GS Bank

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

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

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

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

We are also currently working to implementRegulatory Leverage Ratios. The Revised Capital Framework increased the requirements set out in the Agencies’ Risk-Based Capital Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework — Basel 2, asminimum Tier 1 leverage ratio applicable to us asfrom 3% to 4% effective January 1, 2014.

In addition, the Revised Capital Framework will introduce a bank holding company and as an advancednew supplementary leverage ratio for Advanced approach banking organization (Basel 2). These requirements are based on the advanced approachesorganizations, which compares Tier 1 capital (as defined under the Revised Framework forCapital Framework) to a measure of leverage exposure (defined as the International Convergencesum of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards issued by the Basel Committee. Basel 2, among other things, revises the regulatory capital framework for credit risk and equity investments, and introduces a new operational risk capital requirement. We will adopt Basel 2 once we are approved to do so by regulators. Our capital adequacy ratio will also be impacted by the further changes outlined below under Basel 3 and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.our assets less certain CET1 deductions plus certain off-balance-sheet exposures).

The “Collins Amendment” of the Dodd-Frank ActRevised Capital Framework requires advanced approach banking organizations to continue, upon adoption of Basel 2, to calculate risk-based capital ratios under both Basel 2 and the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital requirements currently applicable to bank holding companies (Basel 1), which are based on the 1988 Capital Accord of the Basel Committee. For each of the Tier 1 and Total capital ratios, the lower of the Basel 1 and Basel 2 ratios calculated will be used to determine whether such advanced approach banking organizations meet theira minimum risk-based capital requirements. Furthermore, the June 2012 proposals described below include provisions which, if enacted as proposed, would modify these minimum risk-based capital requirements.

In June 2012, the Agencies proposed further modifications to their capital adequacy regulations to address aspects of both the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel 3. If enacted as proposed, the most significant changes that would impact us include (i) revisions to the definition of Tier 1 capital, including new deductions from Tier 1 capital, (ii) higher minimum capital andsupplementary leverage ratios, (iii) a new minimum ratio of Tier 1 common equity to RWAs, (iv) new capital conservation and counter-cyclical capital buffers, (v) an additional leverage ratio that includes measures of off-balance sheet exposures, (vi) revisions to the methodology for calculating RWAs, particularly for credit risk capital requirements for derivatives and (vii) a new

Payment of Dividends and Stock RepurchasesRepurchases.

Dividend payments by Group Inc. to its shareholders and stock repurchases by Group Inc. are subject to the oversight of the Federal Reserve Board. Under rules adopted by the Federal Reserve Board in November 2011, theThe dividend and share repurchase policies of large bank holding companies, such as Group Inc., are reviewed by the Federal Reserve Board based on capital plans and stress tests submitted by

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

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

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

Source of Strength

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

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

Guarantees

Group Inc. has, subject to certain exceptions, guaranteed the payment obligations of GS Bank USA, along with those of GS&Co. and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. (GSEC).

Compensation Practices

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

Regulation of GS Bank USA

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

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

Deposit InsuranceInsurance.

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

Prompt Corrective Action and Capital RatiosRatios.

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

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

See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of thisthe 2013 Form 10-K for information on the calculation of GS Bank USA’s regulatory capital ratios under Basel 1 and for a discussion of minimum required ratios.

IfInsolvency of an Insured Depository Institution or a Bank Holding Company

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

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

Resolution Plan

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve Board and FDIC have jointly issued a rule requiring each bank holding company with over $50 billion in assets and each designated systemically important financial institution to provide to regulators an annual plan for its rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure (resolution plan). Our resolution plan must, among other things, demonstrate that GS Bank USA is adequately protected from risks arising from our other entities. The regulators’ joint rule sets specific standards for the resolution plans, including requiring a detailed resolution strategy and analyses of the company’s material entities, organizational structure, interconnections and interdependencies, and management information systems, among other elements. We submitted our resolution plan to the regulators on June 29, 2012. GS Bank USA also submitted its resolution plan on June 29, 2012, as required by the FDIC.

Broker-Dealer and Securities Regulation

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

In addition, state securities and other regulators also have regulatory or oversight authority over GS&Co. Similarly, our businesses are also subject to regulation by various non-U.S. governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory authorities in virtually all countries where we have offices, as discussed further under “Other Regulation” below. GSEC and one of its subsidiaries are registered U.S. broker-dealers and are regulated by the SEC,

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

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

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

Final rules have not been adopted by the CFTC or proposed by the SEC with respect to derivative activities outside the United States. Under the CFTC’s proposed rules, a non-U.S. entity may need to register as a swap dealer if it effects swap transactions with U.S. persons, subject to certain exceptions.

Similar regulations have been proposed or adopted in jurisdictions outside the United States (such as the European Market Infrastructure Regulation, which took effect in 2012 subject to ongoing implementation), including the introduction of standardized execution and clearing, margining and reporting requirements for OTC derivatives. In July 2012 and February 2013, the Basel Committee and the International Organization of Securities Commissions released consultative documents proposing margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives.

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

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

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

The EU and national financial legislators and regulators have proposed or adopted numerous market reforms that may impact our businesses. These include stricter capital and liquidity requirements, (including increasedincluding recently finalized legislation to implement Basel III capital requirements for market risk for certain of our EU subsidiaries (such as a resultGSI). These market reforms also include rules on the recovery and resolution of EU institutions, rules on the new market risk frameworkseparation of certain trading activities from deposit taking, rules on the Basel Committee), risk retention and enhanced disclosurecross-border provision of services from countries outside the European Economic Area, authorizations for regulators to impose position limits, requirements for asset-backed security offerings,to execute certain transactions only on certain regulated venues, reporting requirements and(including requirements to publish information about transactions), restrictions on short selling and credit default swaps, additional obligations and restrictions on the management and marketing of funds in the EU, sanctions for regulatory breach and further revised organizational, market structure, conduct of business and market abuse rules. In addition, the European Commission, the European Securities Market Authority the European Banking Authority and the European Insurance and Occupational PensionsBanking Authority have announced or are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our businesses, by their nature, do not produce predictable earnings, and all of our businesses are materially affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic conditions generally, both directly and through their impact on client activity levels. Since 2008, these conditions have changed suddenly and, for a period of time, very negatively. In 2008 and through early 2009, the financial services industry and the securities markets generally were materially and adversely affected by significant declines in the values of nearly all asset classes and by a serious lack of liquidity. InSince 2011, and 2012, concerns about European sovereign debt risk and its impact on the European banking system, and about U.S. growth and uncertainty regarding U.S. federal fiscal and monetary policies, the U.S. federal debt ceiling and the continued funding of the U.S. government, have resulted, at times, in significant volatility while negatively impacting the levels of client activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The models that we use to assess and control our risk exposures reflect assumptions about the degrees of correlation or lack thereof among prices of various asset classes or other market indicators. In times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances, such as occurred during 2008 and early 2009, and to some extent insince 2011, and 2012,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the ordinary course of business, we may be subject to a concentration of credit risk to a particular counterparty, borrower, or issuer, including sovereign issuers, or geographic area or group of related countries, such as the EU, and a failure or downgrade of, or default by, such entity could negatively impact our businesses, perhaps materially, and the systems by which we set limits and monitor the level of our credit exposure to individual entities, industries and countries may not function as we have anticipated. While our activities expose us to many different industries, counterparties and counterparties,countries, we routinely execute a high volume of transactions with counterparties engaged in financial services activities, including brokers and dealers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory developments, in particular the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel 3,III, have significantly altered the regulatory framework within which we operate and may adversely affect our competitive position and profitability. As discussed further under “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the 2013 Form 10-K, in December 2013, final rules were adopted to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule,” which will prohibit proprietary trading and will limit our sponsorship of, and investment in, covered funds. Based on what we know as of the date of this filing, we do not expect the impact of the prohibition on proprietary trading to be material to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, given that the rule is highly complex, and its full impact will not be known until market practices are fully developed, the implementation of the rule and the related market changes could negatively impact our businesses and expose us to increased liability for inadvertent breaches and reporting failures. Among the other aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act most likely to affect our businesses are: the prohibition on proprietary tradingincreased capital, liquidity and the limitation on the sponsorship of, and investment in, hedge funds and private equity funds by bank holding companies and other banking entities; increased capitalreporting requirements; increased regulation of and restrictions on OTC derivatives markets and transactions; limitations on incentive compensation; the prohibition on engaging in certain swaps-based activities through an insured depository institution; limitations on affiliate transactions; the annual updating of arequirements to reorganize or limit activities in connection with recovery and resolution plan;plans; increased deposit insurance assessments; and increased standards of care for broker-dealers in dealing with clients. The implementation of higher capital requirements, the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio under Basel 3III may also adversely affect our profitability and competitive position, particularly if the requirements do not apply, or do not apply equally, to our competitors or are not implemented uniformly across jurisdictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item 1B.    Unresolved Staff Comments

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

Item 2.    Properties

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

We have offices at 30 Hudson Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, which we own and which include approximately 1.6 million gross square feet of office space, and we own over 700,000 square feet of additional commercial space spread among four locations in New York and New Jersey. We also have offices with approximately 450,000 rentable square feet in the New York Metropolitan Area.

We have additional offices in the United States and elsewhere in the Americas, which together comprise approximately 2.02.1 million rentable square feet of leased space.

In Europe, the Middle East and Africa, we have offices that total approximately 1.81.9 million rentable square feet of leased and owned space. Our European headquarters is located in London at Peterborough Court, pursuant to a lease expiring in 2026. In total, we have offices with approximately 1.21.4 million rentable square feet in London, relating to various properties.

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

Lloyd C. Blankfein, 5859

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

Alan M. Cohen, 6263

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

Gary D. Cohn, 5253

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

Edith W. Cooper, 5152

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

J. Michael Evans, 55

Mr. Evans has been our global head of Growth Markets since January 2011 and a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs since February 2008. From 2004 to June 2012, Mr. Evans was Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific.

The principal market on which our common stock is traded is the NYSE. Information relating to the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock, as reported by the Consolidated Tape Association, for each full quarterly period during 2011, 2012 and 20122013 is set forth under the heading “Supplemental Financial Information — Common Stock Price Range” in Part II, Item 8 of this the 2013Form 10-K. As of February 15, 2013,14, 2014, there were 13,29711,661 holders of record of our common stock.

During 20112012 and 2012, dividends2013, a dividend of $0.35 per common share werewas declared on January 18, 2011, April 18, 2011, July 18, 2011, October 17, 2011 and January 17, 2012, dividends of $0.46 per common share were declared on April 16, 2012 and July 16, 2012, dividends of $0.50 per common share were declared on October 15, 2012, January 15, 2013, April 15, 2013 and July 15, 2013 and a dividend of $0.50$0.55 per common share was declared on October 15, 2012.16, 2013. The holders of our common stock share proportionately on a per share basis in all dividends and other distributions on common stock declared by the Board of Directors of Group Inc. (Board).

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

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

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

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

References to “this“the 2013 Form 10-K” are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.2013. All references to 2013, 2012 2011 and 20102011 refer to our years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, December 31, 2012,2013, December 31, 20112012 and December 31, 2010,2011, respectively. Any reference to a future year refers to a year ending on December 31 of that year. Certain reclassifications have been made to previously reported amounts to conform to the current presentation.

The firm generated net earnings of $8.04 billion for 2013, compared with $7.48 billion for 2012 compared withand $4.44 billion and $8.35 billion for 2011 and 2010, respectively.2011. Our diluted earnings per common share were $15.46 for 2013, compared with $14.13 for 2012 compared withand $4.51 ¹for 2011 and $13.18 ² for 2010.2011. Return on average common shareholders’ equity (ROE) ³¹ was 11.0% for 2013, compared with 10.7% for 2012 compared withand 3.7% ¹for 2011 and 11.5% ² for 2010.2011.

Book value per common share increased approximately 11%5% to $144.67$152.48 and tangible book value per common share ⁴² increased approximately 12%7% to $134.06$143.11 compared with the end of 2011. 2012. ³During the year, the firm repurchased 42.039.3 million shares of its common stock for a total cost of $4.64 billion.$6.17 billion, while maintaining strong capital levels. Our Tier 1 capital ratio under Basel 1 was 16.7% and our Tier 1 common ratio under Basel 1 ⁵⁴ was 14.5%14.6% as of December 2012.2013 (in each case under Basel I and also reflecting the revised market risk regulatory capital requirements which became effective on January 1, 2013).

The firm generated net revenues of $34.16$34.21 billion for 2012.2013. These results reflected significantly higher net revenues in Investing & Lending,Investment Banking, as well as higher net revenues in Institutional Client Services, Investment BankingInvesting & Lending and Investment Management compared with 2011.2012. These increases were offset by lower net revenues in Institutional Client Services compared with 2012.

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

Net revenuesThe decrease in Equities were essentially unchanged compared with 2011. Net revenues2012 was due to the sale of our Americas reinsurance business ¹ in securities services were significantly higher compared with 2011, reflecting a gain of approximately $500 million on2013 and the sale of our hedge fund administration business. In addition,business in 2012. Net revenues in equities client execution (excluding net revenues from our Americas reinsurance business) were higher compared with 2012, including significantly higher net revenues in cash products, partially offset by significantly lower net revenues in derivatives. Commissions and fees were slightly higher compared with 2012. Securities services net revenues were higher than 2011,significantly lower compared with 2012, primarily reflecting significantly higher results in cash products, principally due to increased levelsthe sale of client activity. These increases were offset by lower commissions and fees, reflecting lower market volumes.our hedge fund administration business in 2012 (2012 included a gain on sale of $494 million). During 2012,2013, Equities operated in an environment generally characterized by ana significant increase in global equity prices, particularly in Japan and the U.S., and generally lower volatility levels.

The net loss attributable to the impact of changes in our own credit spreads on borrowings for which the fair value option was elected was $296 million ($220 million and $76 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2013, compared with a net loss of $714 million ($433 million and $281 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2012, compared with a net gain of $596 million ($399 million and $197 million related to Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution and equities client execution, respectively) for 2011.2012.

Investing & Lending

Net revenues in Investing & Lending were $5.89 billionincreased compared with 2012, reflecting a significant increase in net gains from investments in equity securities, driven by company-specific events and $2.14 billion for 2012 and 2011, respectively. During 2012, Investing & Lending net revenues were positively impacted by tighter credit spreads and an increase instronger corporate performance, as well as significantly higher global equity prices. Results for 2012 included a gain of $408 million from our investment in the ordinary shares of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited (ICBC), net gains of $2.39 billion from other investments in equities, primarily in private equities,In addition, net gains and net interest income of $1.85 billion from debt securities and loans andwere slightly higher, while other net revenues, of $1.24 billion, principally related to our consolidated investment entities.investments, were lower compared with 2012.

Global economic conditions generally weakened in 2012, as realReal gross domestic product (GDP) growth slowed, although generally rising, appeared to remain subdued in most major economies. Market sentiment was affectedimproved in advanced economies, supported by continued broad market concernsbetter private sector growth prospects in the United States and uncertainties, although positive developments helped to improve market conditions. These developments included certain central bank actions to easesigns of a turnaround in the Euro area, while monetary policy and address funding risks for European financial institutions. In addition,generally remained accommodative. Improvements in the U.S. economy posted stable to improving economic data, includingreflected favorable developments in unemployment and housing.housing, even though a reduction in fiscal spending weighed on growth. These improvements resulted in tighter credit spreads, significantly higher global equity prices and generally lower levels of volatility. However, concerns aboutsignals during the outlookyear from the U.S. Federal Reserve that it would begin tapering its asset purchase program contributed to a rise in U.S. interest rates and a more challenging environment, particularly for the global economy andemerging markets. In addition, continued political uncertainty, particularly the political debate in the United States surrounding the fiscal cliff,government shutdown and a potential breach of the debt ceiling, generally resulted in clientheightened risk aversion and lower activity levels. Also, uncertainty over financial regulatory reform persisted.aversion. These concerns also weighed on investment banking activity as completedindustry-wide mergers and acquisitions activity declined compared with 2011, and2012. Industry-wide equity and equity-related underwriting activity remained low, particularly in initial public offerings. However,improved and industry-wide debt underwriting activity improved compared with 2011.remained solid. For a further discussion of how market conditions may affect our businesses, see “Certain Risk Factors That May Affect Our Businesses” below as well as “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of thisthe 2013 Form 10-K.

Global

During 2012,2013, real GDP growth declinedappeared to decline in mostmany advanced economies and emerging markets. In advanced economies, the slowdown primarily reflected a decline in consumer expenditure and fixed investment growth particularly in Europe, as well as a decelerationthe United States and continued weakness in international trade compared with 2011.the Euro area. In emerging markets, growth in domestic demand weakened, although the contribution from government spending was generally positive.decreased and current account balances worsened. Unemployment levels declined slightly in some economies compared with 2011,2012, including the United States, but increased in others, particularly in the Euro area.

Europe

In the Euro area, real GDP declined by 0.5%0.4% in 2012,2013, compared with an increasea decrease of 1.5%0.6% in 2011.2012. The contraction was principally due to a sharp fallcontinued weakness in domestic demand, primarily reflecting downturnsfurther declines in fixed investment and consumer spending and fixed investment.spending. Business and consumer confidence declinedremained at low levels and measures of core inflation increased slightlydecelerated further during the year. The unemployment rate increased substantially,remained elevated, particularly in SpainItaly and Italy. These negative developments reflectedSpain. Political uncertainty in Italy and the impact that the sovereign debt crisis had on the region’s economic growth, particularly during the first half ofin Cyprus temporarily increased market volatility earlier in the year, as concerns about Greece’s debt situation and the fiscal outlookwhile private sector lending conditions remained very tight in Spain and Italy intensified.periphery countries. To address these issues, the European Central Bank injected liquidity in the Eurosystem through its longer-term refinancing operations (LTROs), decreased its main refinancing operations rate by 2550 basis points to 0.75%0.25%, and announcedadopted forward guidance for the future path of interest rates as a program to make outright purchasesnew part of sovereign bonds in the secondary markets.its monetary policy tools. The Euro appreciated by 2%5% against the U.S. dollar. In the United Kingdom, real GDP increased by 0.2%1.8% in 20122013, compared with an increase of 0.9%0.3% in 2011.2012. The Bank of England maintained its official bank rate at 0.50% and increasedalso introduced forward guidance for the sizefuture path of its asset purchase program.interest rates, contingent on the evolution of employment and inflation. The British pound appreciated by 4%2% against the U.S. dollar. Long-term government bond yields generally declinedincreased during the year.year, except in the periphery countries where yields fell. In equity markets, the DAX Index, the CAC 40 Index, the Euro Stoxx 50 Index and the FTSE 100 indexIndex increased by 29%25%, 15%18%, 14%18% and 6%14%, respectively, compared with the end of 2011.during 2013.

Asia

In Japan, real GDP increased by 1.9%1.6% in 2012,2013, compared with a declinean increase of 0.6%1.4% in 2011. Fixed2012. Growth was supported by significant increases in private housing investment growth increased, particularly from theand in public sector, helped by reconstruction efforts following the earthquake and tsunami in 2011.fixed investment. However, the trade balance continued to deteriorate during 2012.2013. Measures of inflation remained negative or close to zeroturned positive during the year. year, but remain far from the Bank of Japan’s newly adopted 2% inflation target. In addition, the Bank of Japan, under new leadership, introduced a new program of quantitative and qualitative monetary easing, which included a significant increase in the size and mandate of its asset purchases, as well as a commitment to a more targeted communication strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total level 3 financial assets were $47.10$40.01 billion and $47.94$47.10 billion as of December 20122013 and December 2011,2012, respectively.