Bank of America Corporation (together, with its consolidated subsidiaries, Bank of America, we or us) is a Delaware corporation, a bank holding company (BHC) and a financial holding company. When used in this report, "the Corporation" may refer to Bank of America Corporation individually, Bank of America Corporation and its subsidiaries, or certain of Bank of America Corporation's subsidiaries or affiliates. As part of our efforts to streamline the Corporation's organizational structure and reduce complexity and costs, the Corporation has reduced and intends to continue to reduce the number of its corporate subsidiaries, including through intercompany mergers.

Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. Our principal executive offices are located in the Bank of America Corporate Center, 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28255.

Bank of America's website is www.bankofamerica.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) are available on our website at http://investor.bankofamerica.com under the heading Financial Information SEC Filings as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish them to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Also, we make available on http://investor.bankofamerica.com under the heading Corporate Governance: (i) our Code of Conduct (including our insider trading policy); (ii) our Corporate Governance Guidelines (accessible by clicking on the Governance Highlights link); and (iii) the charter of each active committee of our Board of Directors (the Board) (accessible by clicking on the committee names under the Committee Composition link), and we also intend to disclose any amendments to our Code of Conduct, or waivers of our Code of Conduct on behalf of our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Chief Accounting Officer, on our website. All of these corporate governance materials are also available free of charge in print to stockholders who request them in writing to: Bank of America Corporation, Attention: Office of the Corporate Secretary, Hearst Tower, 214 North Tryon Street, NC1-027-20-05, Charlotte, North Carolina 28255.

Through our banking and various nonbank subsidiaries throughout the U.S. and in international markets, we provide a diversified range of banking and nonbank financial services and products through five business segments: Consumer Banking , Global Wealth & Investment Management (GWIM), Global Banking, Global Markets and Legacy Assets & Servicing (LAS), with the remaining operations recorded in All Other . Additional information related to our business segments and the products and services they provide is included in the information set forth on pages 32 through 46 of Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) and Note 24 – Business Segment Information to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data (Consolidated Financial Statements).

We operate in a highly competitive environment. Our competitors include banks, thrifts, credit unions, investment banking firms, investment advisory firms, brokerage firms, investment companies, insurance companies, mortgage banking companies, credit card issuers, mutual fund companies, and e-commerce and other internet-based companies. We compete with some of these competitors globally and with others on a regional or product basis.

Competition is based on a number of factors including, among others, customer service, quality and range of products and services offered, price, reputation, interest rates on loans and deposits, lending limits, and customer convenience. Our ability to continue to compete effectively also depends in large part on our ability to attract new employees and retain and motivate our existing employees, while managing compensation and other costs.

As of December 31, 2015 , we had approximately 213,000 full-time equivalent employees. None of our domestic employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Management considers our employee relations to be good.

The following discussion describes, among other things, elements of an extensive regulatory framework applicable to BHCs, financial holding companies, banks and broker-dealers, including specific information about Bank of America.

We are subject to an extensive regulatory framework applicable to BHCs, financial holding companies and banks and other financial services entities. U.S. federal regulation of banks, BHCs and financial holding companies is intended primarily for the protection of depositors and the Deposit Insurance Fund rather than for the protection of stockholders and creditors.

As a registered financial holding company and BHC, the Corporation is subject to the supervision of, and regular inspection by, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve). Our U.S. banking subsidiaries (the Banks) organized as national banking associations are subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve. U.S. financial holding companies, and the companies under their control, are permitted to engage in activities considered "financial in nature" as defined by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and related Federal Reserve interpretations. Unless otherwise limited by the Federal Reserve, a financial holding company may engage directly or indirectly in activities considered financial in nature provided the financial holding company gives the Federal Reserve after-the-fact notice of the new activities. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also permits national banks to engage in activities considered financial in nature through a financial subsidiary, subject to certain conditions and limitations and with the approval of the OCC.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Financial Reform Act) enacted sweeping financial regulatory reform across the financial services industry, including significant changes regarding capital adequacy and capital planning, stress testing, resolution planning, derivatives activities, prohibitions on proprietary trading and restrictions on debit interchange fees. As a result of the Financial Reform Act, we have altered and will continue to alter the way in which we conduct certain businesses. Our costs and revenues could continue to be negatively impacted as additional final rules of the Financial Reform Act are adopted.

We are also subject to various other laws and regulations, as well as supervision and examination by other regulatory agencies, all of which directly or indirectly affect our operations and management and our ability to make distributions to stockholders. For instance, our broker-dealer subsidiaries are subject to both U.S. and international regulation, including supervision by the SEC, the New York Stock Exchange and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, among others; our commodities businesses in the U.S. are subject to regulation by and supervision of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); our U.S. derivatives activity is subject to regulation and supervision of the CFTC and National Futures Association or the SEC, and in the case of the Banks, certain banking regulators; our insurance activities are subject to licensing and regulation by state insurance regulatory agencies; and our consumer financial products and services are regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Our non-U.S. businesses are also subject to extensive regulation by various non-U.S. regulators, including governments, securities exchanges, central banks and other regulatory bodies, in the jurisdictions in which those businesses operate. For example, our financial services operations in the U.K. are subject to regulation by and supervision of the Prudential Regulatory Authority for prudential matters, and the Financial Conduct Authority for the conduct of business matters.

Under the Financial Reform Act and Federal Reserve policy, BHCs are expected to act as a source of financial strength to each subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support each such subsidiary. Similarly, under the cross-guarantee provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), in the event of a loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC, either as a result of default of a banking subsidiary or related to FDIC assistance provided to such a subsidiary in danger of default, the affiliate banks of such a subsidiary may be assessed for the FDIC's loss, subject to certain exceptions.

Pursuant to Section 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, as implemented by the Federal Reserve's Regulation W, the Banks are subject to restrictions that limit certain types of transactions between the Banks and their nonbank affiliates. In general, U.S. banks are subject to quantitative and qualitative limits on extensions of credit, purchases of assets and certain other transactions involving its nonbank affiliates. Additionally, transactions between U.S. banks and their nonbank affiliates are required to be on arm's length terms and must be consistent with standards of safety and soundness.

Deposits placed at U.S. domiciled banks (U.S. banks) are insured by the FDIC, subject to limits and conditions of applicable law and the FDIC's regulations. Pursuant to the Financial Reform Act, FDIC insurance coverage limits were permanently increased to $250,000 per customer. All insured depository institutions are required to pay assessments to the FDIC in order to fund the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF).

The FDIC is required to maintain at least a designated minimum ratio of the DIF to insured deposits in the U.S. The Financial Reform Act requires the FDIC to assess insured depository institutions to achieve a DIF ratio of at least 1.35 percent by September 30, 2020. The FDIC has adopted new regulations that establish a long-term target DIF ratio of greater than two percent. The DIF ratio is currently below the required targets and the FDIC has adopted a restoration plan that may result in increased deposit insurance assessments. Deposit insurance assessment rates are subject to change by the FDIC and will be impacted by the overall economy and the stability of the banking industry as a whole. For more information regarding deposit insurance, see Item 1A. Risk Factors – Regulatory, Compliance and Legal Risk on page 11 .

As a financial services holding company, we and our bank subsidiaries are subject to the risk-based capital guidelines issued by the Federal Reserve and other U.S. banking regulators, including the FDIC and the OCC. These rules are complex and are evolving as U.S. and international regulatory authorities propose and enact enhanced capital and liquidity rules. The Corporation seeks to manage its capital position to maintain sufficient capital to meet these regulatory guidelines and to support our business activities. These evolving rules are likely to influence our planning processes for, and may require additional, regulatory capital and liquidity, as well as impose additional operational and compliance costs on the Corporation. In addition, the Federal Reserve and the OCC have adopted guidelines that establish minimum standards for the design, implementation and board oversight of BHC's and national banks' risk governance frameworks. The Federal Reserve has also proposed rules which would require us to maintain minimum amounts of long-term debt meeting specified eligibility requirements.

For more information on regulatory capital rules, capital composition and pending or proposed regulatory capital changes, see Capital Management – Regulatory Capital in the MD&A on page 54 , and Note 16 – Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions to the Consolidated Financial Statements , which are incorporated by reference in this Item 1.

We are subject to various regulatory policies and requirements relating to capital actions, including payment of dividends and common stock repurchases. For instance, Federal Reserve regulations require major U.S. BHCs to submit a capital plan as part of an annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). The purpose of the CCAR is to assess the capital planning process of the BHC, including any planned capital actions, such as payment of dividends and common stock repurchases.

Our ability to pay dividends is also affected by the various minimum capital requirements and the capital and non-capital standards established under the FDICIA. The right of the Corporation, our stockholders and our creditors to participate in

any distribution of the assets or earnings of our subsidiaries is further subject to the prior claims of creditors of the respective subsidiaries.

If the Federal Reserve finds that any of our Banks are not "well-capitalized" or "well-managed," we would be required to enter into an agreement with the Federal Reserve to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements, which may contain additional limitations or conditions relating to our activities. Additionally, the applicable federal regulatory authority is authorized to determine, under certain circumstances relating to the financial condition of a bank or BHC, that the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice and to prohibit payment thereof.

For more information regarding the requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including the minimum capital requirements, see Note 13 – Shareholders' Equity and Note 16 – Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

Many of our subsidiaries, including our bank and broker-dealer subsidiaries, are subject to laws that restrict dividend payments, or authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the flow of funds from those subsidiaries to the parent company or other subsidiaries.

As a BHC with greater than $50 billion of assets, the Corporation is required by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC to annually submit a plan for a rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure.

Such resolution plan is intended to be a detailed roadmap for the orderly resolution of a BHC and material entities pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and other applicable resolution regimes under one or more hypothetical scenarios assuming no extraordinary government assistance.

If both the Federal Reserve and the FDIC determine that the Corporation's plan is not credible and the deficiencies are not cured in a timely manner, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC may jointly impose on us more stringent capital, leverage or liquidity requirements or restrictions on our growth, activities or operations. A description of our plan is available on the Federal Reserve and FDIC websites.

The FDIC also requires the annual submission of a resolution plan for Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), which must describe how the insured depository institution would be resolved under the bank resolution provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. A description of this plan is also available on the FDIC's website.

We continue to make substantial progress to enhance our resolvability, including simplifying our legal entity structure and business operations, and increasing our preparedness to implement our resolution plan, both from a financial and operational standpoint.

Similarly, in the U.K., rules have been issued requiring the submission of significant information about certain U.K.-incorporated subsidiaries and other financial institutions, as well as branches of non-U.K. banks located in the U.K. (including information on intra-group dependencies, legal entity separation and barriers to resolution) to allow the Bank of England to develop resolution plans. As a result of the Bank of England's review of the submitted information, we could be required to take certain actions over the next several years which could increase operating

costs and potentially result in the restructuring of certain businesses and subsidiaries.

For more information regarding our resolution, see Item 1A. Risk Factors – Regulatory, Compliance and Legal Risk on page 11 .

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the FDIC may be appointed receiver of an insured depository institution if it is insolvent or in certain other circumstances. In addition, under the Financial Reform Act, when a systemically important financial institution (SIFI) such as the Corporation is in default or danger of default, the FDIC may be appointed receiver in order to conduct an orderly liquidation of such institution. In the event of such appointment, the FDIC could, among other things, invoke the orderly liquidation authority, instead of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, if the Secretary of the Treasury makes certain financial distress and systemic risk determinations. The orderly liquidation authority is modeled in part on the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, but also adopts certain concepts from the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The orderly liquidation authority contains certain differences from the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For example, in certain circumstances, the FDIC could permit payment of obligations it determines to be systemically significant (e.g., short-term creditors or operating creditors) in lieu of paying other obligations (e.g., long-term creditors) without the need to obtain creditors' consent or prior court review. The insolvency and resolution process could also lead to a large reduction or total elimination of the value of a BHC's outstanding equity, as well as impairment or elimination of certain debt.

In 2013, the FDIC issued a notice describing its preferred "single point of entry" strategy for resolving SIFIs. Under this approach, the FDIC could replace a distressed BHC with a bridge holding company, which could continue operations and result in an orderly resolution of the underlying bank, but whose equity is held solely for the benefit of creditors of the original BHC.

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board has proposed regulations regarding the minimum levels of long-term debt required for BHCs to ensure there is adequate loss absorbing capacity in the event of a resolution.

For more information regarding our resolution, see Item 1A. Risk Factors – Regulatory, Compliance and Legal Risk on page 11 .

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 permits a BHC to acquire banks located in states other than its home state without regard to state law, subject to certain conditions, including the condition that the BHC, after and as a result of the acquisition, controls no more than 10 percent of the total amount of deposits of insured depository institutions in the U.S. and no more than 30 percent or such lesser or greater amount set by state law of such deposits in that state. At December 31, 2015, we held approximately 11 percent of the total amount of deposits of insured depository institutions in the U.S.

In addition, the Financial Reform Act restricts acquisitions by a financial institution if, as a result of the acquisition, the total liabilities of the financial institution would exceed 10 percent of the total liabilities of all financial institutions in the U.S. At December 31, 2015, our liabilities did not exceed 10 percent of the total liabilities of all financial institutions in the U.S.

The Volcker Rule prohibits insured depository institutions and companies affiliated with insured depository institutions (collectively, banking entities) from engaging in short-term proprietary trading of certain securities, derivatives, commodity futures and options for their own account. The Volcker Rule also imposes limits on banking entities' investments in, and other relationships with, hedge funds and private equity funds, although the Federal Reserve extended the conformance period for certain existing covered investments and relationships to July 2016 (with indications that the conformance period may be further extended to July 2017). The Volcker Rule provides exemptions for certain activities, including market-making, underwriting, hedging, trading in government obligations, insurance company activities, and organizing and offering hedge funds and private equity funds. The Volcker Rule also clarifies that certain activities are not prohibited, including acting as agent, broker or custodian. A banking entity with significant trading operations, such as the Corporation, is required to establish a detailed compliance program to comply with the restrictions of the Volcker Rule.

Our derivatives operations are subject to extensive regulation globally. Various regulations have been promulgated since the financial crisis, including those under the U.S. Financial Reform Act, the European Union (EU) Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II/Regulation and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation, that regulate or will regulate the derivatives market by: requiring clearing and exchange trading of certain derivatives; imposing new capital, margin, reporting, registration and business conduct requirements for certain market participants; and imposing position limits on certain over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. In response to global prudential regulator concerns that the closeout of derivatives transactions during the resolution of a SIFI could impede resolution efforts and potentially destabilize markets, SIFIs, including the Corporation, together with the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA) developed a protocol amending ISDA Master Agreements to provide for contractual recognition of stays of termination rights under various statutory resolution regimes and a contractual stay on certain cross-default rights. The original protocol was superseded by the ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol (2015 Protocol), which took effect January 1, 2016, and expanded the financial contracts covered by the original protocol to also include industry forms of repurchase agreements and securities lending agreements. Dealers representing 23 SIFIs have adhered to the 2015 Protocol. Global prudential regulators are beginning

to promulgate regulations requiring regulated firms, including the Corporation and many of its subsidiaries, to amend financial contracts to impose the terms of the 2015 Protocol. The adoption of many of these regulations is ongoing and their ultimate impact remains uncertain.

Our consumer businesses are subject to extensive regulation and oversight by federal and state regulators. Certain federal consumer finance laws to which we are subject, including, but not limited to, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act and Truth in Savings Act, are enforced by the CFPB. Other federal consumer finance laws, such as the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, are enforced by the OCC.

We are subject to many U.S. federal, state and international laws and regulations governing requirements for maintaining policies and procedures to protect the non-public confidential information of our customers and employees. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Banks to periodically disclose Bank of America's privacy policies and practices relating to sharing such information and enables retail customers to opt out of our ability to share information with unaffiliated third parties under certain circumstances. Other laws and regulations, at the international, federal and state level, impact our ability to share certain information with affiliates and non-affiliates for marketing and/or non-marketing purposes, or to contact customers with marketing offers. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also requires the Banks to implement a comprehensive information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information. These security and privacy policies and procedures for the protection of personal and confidential information are in effect across all businesses and geographic locations. The October 6, 2015 ruling by the European Court of Justice that the U.S. EU Safe Harbor is invalid has impacted the ability of certain vendors who relied upon the Safe Harbor to provide services to us. While an EU-U.S. Privacy Shield agreement to replace the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor has been announced, the timing of adoption and implementation is uncertain. We also expect the EU to adopt a Data Protection Regulation, which will replace the existing EU Data Protection Directive. The impacts of the anticipated EU Data Protection Regulation are uncertain at this time.

In the course of conducting our business operations, we are exposed to a variety of risks, some of which are inherent in the financial services industry and others of which are more specific to our own businesses. The discussion below addresses the most significant factors, of which we are currently aware, that could affect our businesses, results of operations and financial condition. Additional factors that could affect our businesses, results of operations and financial condition are discussed in Forward-looking Statements in the MD&A on page 21 . However, other factors not discussed below or elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could also adversely affect our businesses, results of operations and financial condition. Therefore, the risk factors below should not be considered a complete list of potential risks that we may face.

Any risk factor described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any of our other SEC filings could by itself, or together with other factors, materially adversely affect our liquidity, competitive position, business, reputation, results of operations, capital position or financial condition, including by materially increasing our expenses or decreasing our revenues, which could result in material losses.

Our businesses and results of operations may be adversely affected by the U.S. and international financial markets, U.S. and non-U.S. fiscal and monetary policy, and economic conditions generally.

Our businesses and results of operations are affected by the financial markets and general economic, market, political and social conditions in the U.S. and abroad, including factors such as the level and volatility of short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation, home prices, unemployment and under-employment levels, bankruptcies, household income, consumer spending, fluctuations in both debt and equity capital markets and currencies, liquidity of the global financial markets, the availability and cost of capital and credit, investor sentiment and confidence in the financial markets, political risks, the sustainability of economic growth in the U.S., Europe, China and Japan, and economic, market, political and social conditions in several larger emerging market countries. Continued economic challenges include under-employment, declines in energy prices, the ongoing low interest rate environment, restrained growth in consumer demand, the strengthening of the U.S. Dollar versus other currencies, and continued risk in the consumer and commercial real estate markets. Deterioration of any of these conditions could adversely affect our consumer and commercial businesses, our securities and derivatives portfolios, our level of charge-offs and provision for credit losses, the carrying value of our deferred tax assets, our capital levels and liquidity, and our results of operations. For instance, the recent sharp drop in oil prices, while likely a net positive for the U.S. economy, may also add stress to select regional markets that are energy industry dependent and may negatively impact certain commercial and consumer loan portfolios.

Our businesses and results of operations are also affected by domestic and international fiscal and monetary policy. For example, the recent rate increase by the Federal Reserve in the U.S. and continued easing at many central banks internationally impact our cost of funds for lending, investing and capital raising activities and the return we earn on loans and investments. Central bank actions can also affect the value of financial instruments

and other assets, such as debt securities and mortgage servicing rights (MSRs), and their policies can affect our borrowers, potentially increasing the risk that they may fail to repay their loans. Changes in domestic and international fiscal and monetary policies are beyond our control and difficult to predict but could have an adverse impact on our capital requirements and the costs of running our business.

For more information about economic conditions and challenges discussed above, see Executive Summary – 2015 Economic and Business Environment in the MD&A on page 22 .

If we are unable to access the capital markets, continue to maintain deposits, or our borrowing costs increase, our liquidity and competitive position will be negatively affected.

Liquidity is essential to our businesses. We fund our assets primarily with globally sourced deposits in our bank entities, as well as secured and unsecured liabilities transacted in the capital markets. We rely on certain secured funding sources, such as repo markets, which are typically short-term and credit-sensitive in nature. We also engage in asset securitization transactions, including with the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), to fund consumer lending activities. Our liquidity could be adversely affected by any inability to access the capital markets; illiquidity or volatility in the capital markets; unforeseen outflows of cash, including customer deposits, funding for commitments and contingencies; increased regulatory liquidity requirements for our U.S. or international banks and their nonbank subsidiaries; or negative perceptions about our short- or long-term business prospects, including downgrades of our credit ratings. Several of these factors may arise due to circumstances beyond our control, such as a general market disruption, negative views about the financial services industry generally, changes in the regulatory environment, actions by credit rating agencies or an operational problem that affects third parties or us.

Our cost of obtaining funding is directly related to prevailing market interest rates and to our credit spreads. Credit spreads are the amount in excess of the interest rate of U.S. Treasury securities, or other benchmark securities, of a similar maturity that we need to pay to our funding providers. Increases in interest rates and our credit spreads can increase the cost of our funding. Changes in our credit spreads are market-driven and may be influenced by market perceptions of our creditworthiness. Changes to interest rates and our credit spreads occur continuously and may be unpredictable and highly volatile.

For more information about our liquidity position and other liquidity matters, including credit ratings and outlooks and the policies and procedures we use to manage our liquidity risks, see Liquidity Risk in the MD&A on page 60 .

Adverse changes to our credit ratings from the major credit rating agencies could significantly limit our access to funding or the capital markets, increase our borrowing costs, or trigger additional collateral or funding requirements.

Our borrowing costs and ability to raise funds are directly impacted by our credit ratings. In addition, credit ratings may be important to customers or counterparties when we compete in

certain markets and when we seek to engage in certain transactions, including OTC derivatives. Credit ratings and outlooks are opinions expressed by rating agencies on our creditworthiness and that of our obligations or securities, including long-term debt, short-term borrowings, preferred stock and other securities, including asset securitizations. Our credit ratings are subject to ongoing review by the rating agencies, which consider a number of factors, including our own financial strength, performance, prospects and operations as well as factors not under our control such as the likelihood of the U.S. government providing meaningful support to the Corporation or its subsidiaries in a crisis.

The rating agencies could make adjustments to our credit ratings at any time, and there can be no assurance that downgrades will not occur.

A reduction in certain of our credit ratings could negatively affect our liquidity, access to credit markets, the related cost of funds, our businesses and certain trading revenues, particularly in those businesses where counterparty creditworthiness is critical. If the short-term credit ratings of our parent company, bank or broker-dealer subsidiaries were downgraded by one or more levels, we may suffer the potential loss of access to short-term funding sources such as repo financing, and/or increased cost of funds.

In addition, under the terms of certain OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements, in the event of a downgrade of our credit ratings or certain subsidiaries' credit ratings, counterparties to those agreements may require us or certain subsidiaries to provide additional collateral, terminate these contracts or agreements, or provide other remedies.

While certain potential impacts are contractual and quantifiable, the full consequences of a credit ratings downgrade to a financial institution are inherently uncertain, as they depend upon numerous dynamic, complex and inter-related factors and assumptions, including whether any downgrade of a firm's long-term credit ratings precipitates downgrades to its short-term credit ratings, and assumptions about the potential behaviors of various customers, investors and counterparties.

For information about the amount of additional collateral required and derivative liabilities that would be subject to unilateral termination at December 31, 2015 if the rating agencies had downgraded their long-term senior debt ratings for the Corporation or certain subsidiaries by each of two incremental notches, see Credit-related Contingent Features and Collateral in Note 2 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

For more information about our credit ratings and their potential effects to our liquidity, see Liquidity Risk – Credit Ratings in the MD&A on page 63 and Note 2 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

A downgrade in the U.S. government ' s sovereign credit rating, or in the credit ratings of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by related institutions, agencies or instrumentalities, could result in risks to the Corporation and its credit ratings and general economic conditions that we are not able to predict .

The ratings and perceived creditworthiness of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by institutions, agencies or instrumentalities directly linked to the U.S. government could also be correspondingly affected by any downgrade. Instruments of this nature are often held as trading, investment or excess liquidity positions on the balance sheets of financial institutions, including the Corporation, and are widely used as collateral by financial institutions to raise cash in the secured financing markets. A

downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government and perceived creditworthiness of U.S. government-related obligations could impact our ability to obtain funding that is collateralized by affected instruments, as well as affecting the pricing of that funding when it is available. A downgrade may also adversely affect the market value of such instruments.

We cannot predict if, when or how any changes to the credit ratings or perceived creditworthiness of these organizations will affect economic conditions. The credit rating for the Corporation or its subsidiaries could be directly or indirectly impacted by a downgrade of the U.S. government's sovereign rating. In addition, the Corporation presently delivers a portion of the residential mortgage loans it originates into GSEs, agencies or instrumentalities (or instruments insured or guaranteed thereby). We cannot predict if, when or how any changes to the credit ratings of these organizations will affect their ability to finance residential mortgage loans.

A downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings of the U.S. government or the credit ratings of related institutions, agencies or instrumentalities would exacerbate the other risks to which the Corporation is subject and any related adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Bank of America Corporation is a holding company and we depend upon our subsidiaries for liquidity, including our ability to pay dividends to shareholders and to fund payments on our other obligations. Applicable laws and regulations, including capital and liquidity requirements, and actions taken pursuant to our resolution plan could restrict our ability to transfer funds from our subsidiaries to Bank of America Corporation or other subsidiaries.

Bank of America Corporation, as the parent company, is a separate and distinct legal entity from our banking and nonbank subsidiaries. We evaluate and manage liquidity on a legal entity basis. Legal entity liquidity is an important consideration as there are legal and other limitations on our ability to utilize liquidity from one legal entity to satisfy the liquidity requirements of another, including the parent company. For instance, the parent company depends on dividends, distributions and other payments from our banking and nonbank subsidiaries to fund dividend payments on our common stock and preferred stock and to fund all payments on our other obligations, including debt obligations. Many of our subsidiaries, including our bank and broker-dealer subsidiaries, are subject to laws that restrict dividend payments, or authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the flow of funds from those subsidiaries to the parent company or other subsidiaries. Our bank and broker-dealer subsidiaries are subject to restrictions on their ability to lend or transact with affiliates and to minimum regulatory capital and liquidity requirements, as well as restrictions on their ability to use funds deposited with them in bank or brokerage accounts to fund their businesses. In addition, we have arrangements with our key operating subsidiaries regarding the implementation of our preferred single point of entry resolution strategy, which restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to provide funds to us through distributions and advances upon the occurrence of certain severely adverse capital and liquidity conditions.

Additional restrictions on related party transactions, increased capital and liquidity requirements and additional limitations on the use of funds on deposit in bank or brokerage accounts, as well as lower earnings, can reduce the amount of funds available to meet the obligations of the parent company and even require the parent company to provide additional funding to such subsidiaries. Also, additional liquidity may be required at each subsidiary entity.

Regulatory action of that kind could impede access to funds we need to make payments on our obligations or dividend payments. In addition, our right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary's liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary's creditors. For more information regarding our ability to pay dividends, see Capital Management in the MD&A on page 53 and Note 13 – Shareholders' Equity to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

Economic or market disruptions, insufficient credit loss reserves or concentration of credit risk may result in an increase in the provision for credit losses, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

A number of our products expose us to credit risk, including loans, letters of credit, derivatives, debt securities, trading account assets and assets held-for-sale. The financial condition of our consumer and commercial borrowers and counterparties could adversely affect our earnings.

Global and U.S. economic conditions may impact our credit portfolios. To the extent economic or market disruptions occur, such disruptions would likely increase the risk that borrowers or counterparties would default or become delinquent on their obligations to us. Increases in delinquencies and default rates could adversely affect our consumer credit card, home equity, residential mortgage and purchased credit-impaired portfolios through increased charge-offs and provision for credit losses. Additionally, increased credit risk could also adversely affect our commercial loan portfolios with weakened customer and collateral positions.

We estimate and establish an allowance for credit losses for losses inherent in our lending activities (including unfunded lending commitments), excluding those measured at fair value, through a charge to earnings. The amount of allowance is determined based on our evaluation of credit losses included within our loan portfolios. The process for determining the amount of the allowance requires difficult and complex judgments, including loss forecasts on how borrowers will react to current economic conditions. The ability of our borrowers or counterparties to repay their obligations will likely be impacted by changes in economic conditions, which in turn could impact the accuracy of our loss forecasts and allowance estimate. There is also the chance that we will fail to accurately identify the appropriate economic indicators or that we will fail to accurately estimate their impacts.

We may suffer unexpected losses if the models and assumptions we use to establish reserves and make judgments in extending credit to our borrowers or counterparties become less predictive of future events. Although we believe that our allowance for credit losses was in compliance with applicable accounting standards at December 31, 2015 , there is no guarantee that it will be sufficient to address credit losses, particularly if economic conditions deteriorate. In such an event, we may increase the size of our allowance, which reduces our earnings.

In the ordinary course of our business, we also may be subject to a concentration of credit risk in a particular industry, country, counterparty, borrower or issuer. A deterioration in the financial condition or prospects of a particular industry or a failure or

downgrade of, or default by, any particular entity or group of entities could negatively affect our businesses and the processes 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 and counterparties, we routinely execute a high volume of transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers-dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, insurers, mutual and hedge funds, and other institutional clients. This has resulted in significant credit concentration with respect to this industry. Financial services institutions and other counterparties are inter-related because of trading, funding, clearing or other relationships. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about the financial stability of one or more financial services institutions, or the financial services industry generally, could lead to market-wide liquidity disruptions, losses and defaults. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of a counterparty. In addition, our credit risk may be heightened by market risk when the collateral held by us cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivatives exposure due to us.

In the ordinary course of business, we also enter into transactions with sovereign nations, U.S. states and U.S. municipalities. Unfavorable economic or political conditions, disruptions to capital markets, currency fluctuations, changes in oil prices, social instability and changes in government policies could impact the operating budgets or credit ratings of sovereign nations, U.S. states and U.S. municipalities and expose us to credit risk.

We also have a concentration of credit risk with respect to our consumer real estate, including home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), consumer credit card and commercial real estate portfolios, which represent a large percentage of our overall credit portfolio. In addition, our commercial portfolios include exposures to certain industries, including the energy sector, which may result in higher credit losses for the company due to adverse business conditions, market disruptions or greater volatility in those industries as the result of low energy prices or other factors. Economic downturns have adversely affected these portfolios. Continued economic weakness or deterioration in real estate values or household incomes could result in higher credit losses.

For more information about our credit risk and credit risk management policies and procedures, see Credit Risk Management in the MD&A on page 65 and Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

Our derivatives businesses may expose us to unexpected risks and potential losses.

We are party to a large number of derivatives transactions, including credit derivatives. Our derivatives businesses may expose us to unexpected market, credit and operational risks that could cause us to suffer unexpected losses. Severe declines in asset values, unanticipated credit events or unforeseen circumstances that may cause previously uncorrelated factors to become correlated (and vice versa) may create losses resulting from risks not appropriately taken into account in the development, structuring or pricing of a derivative instrument. The terms of certain of our OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements provide that upon the occurrence of certain specified events, such as a change in our credit ratings, we may be required to provide additional collateral or to provide other remedies, or our

counterparties may have the right to terminate or otherwise diminish our rights under these contracts or agreements.

Many derivative instruments are individually negotiated and non-standardized, which can make exiting, transferring or settling some positions difficult. Many derivatives require that we deliver to the counterparty the underlying security, loan or other obligation in order to receive payment. In a number of cases, we do not hold, and may not be able to obtain, the underlying security, loan or other obligation.

In the event of a downgrade of the Corporation's credit ratings, certain derivative and other counterparties may request we substitute BANA (which has generally had equal or higher credit ratings than the Corporation's) as counterparty for certain derivative contracts and other trading agreements. The Corporation's ability to substitute or make changes to these agreements to meet counterparties' requests may be subject to certain limitations, including counterparty willingness, regulatory limitations on naming BANA as the new counterparty and the type or amount of collateral required. It is possible that such limitations on our ability to substitute or make changes to these agreements, including naming BANA as the new counterparty, could adversely affect our results of operations.

Derivatives contracts, including new and more complex derivatives products, and other transactions entered into with third parties are not always confirmed by the counterparties or settled on a timely basis. While a transaction remains unconfirmed, or during any delay in settlement, we are subject to heightened credit, market and operational risk and, in the event of default, may find it more difficult to enforce the contract. In addition, disputes may arise with counterparties, including government entities, about the terms, enforceability and/or suitability of the underlying contracts. These factors could negatively impact our ability to effectively manage our risk exposures from these products and subject us to increased credit and operating costs and reputational risk. For more information on our derivatives exposure, see Note 2 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

Increased market volatility and adverse changes in other financial or capital market conditions may increase our market risk.

Our liquidity, competitive position, business, results of operations and financial condition are affected by market risk factors such as changes in interest and currency exchange rates, equity and futures prices, the implied volatility of interest rates, credit spreads and other economic and business factors. These market risks may adversely affect, among other things, (i) the value of our on- and off-balance sheet securities, trading assets, other financial instruments, and MSRs, (ii) the cost of debt capital and our access to credit markets, (iii) the value of assets under management (AUM), (iv) fee income relating to AUM, (v) customer allocation of capital among investment alternatives, (vi) the volume

of client activity in our trading operations, (vii) investment banking fees, and (viii) the general profitability and risk level of the transactions in which we engage. For example, the value of certain of our assets is sensitive to changes in market interest rates. If the Federal Reserve, or central banks internationally, change or signal a change in monetary policy, market interest rates could be affected, which could adversely impact the value of such assets. In addition, the ongoing prolonged low interest rate environment could negatively impact our liquidity, financial condition or results of operations, including future revenue and earnings growth.

We use various models and strategies to assess and control our market risk exposures but those are subject to inherent limitations. Our models, which rely on historical trends and assumptions, may not be sufficiently predictive of future results due to limited historical patterns, extreme or unanticipated market movements and illiquidity, especially during severe market downturns or stress events. The models that we use to assess and control our market risk exposures also reflect assumptions about the degree of correlation among prices of various asset classes or other market indicators. In addition, market conditions in recent years have involved unprecedented dislocations and highlight the limitations inherent in using historical data to manage risk.

In times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances, such as the market conditions experienced in 2008 and 2009, previously uncorrelated indicators may become correlated, or previously correlated indicators may move in different directions. These types of market movements have at times limited the effectiveness of our hedging strategies and have caused us to incur significant losses, and they may do so in the future. These changes in correlation can be exacerbated where other market participants are using risk or trading models with assumptions or algorithms that are similar to ours. In these and other cases, it may be difficult to reduce our risk positions due to the activity of other market participants or widespread market dislocations, including circumstances where asset values are declining significantly or no market exists for certain assets. To the extent that we own securities that do not have an established liquid trading market or are otherwise subject to restrictions on sale or hedging, we may not be able to reduce our positions and therefore reduce our risk associated with such positions. In addition, challenging market conditions may also adversely affect our investment banking fees.

For more information about market risk and our market risk management policies and procedures, see Market Risk Management in the MD&A on page 92 .

We may incur losses if the values of certain assets decline, including due to changes in interest rates and prepayment speeds.

We have a large portfolio of financial instruments, including, among others, certain loans and loan commitments, loans held-for-sale, securities financing agreements, asset-backed secured financings, long-term deposits, long-term debt, trading account assets and liabilities, derivative assets and liabilities, available-for-sale (AFS) debt and equity securities, other debt securities, certain MSRs and certain other assets and liabilities that we measure at fair value. We determine the fair values of these instruments based on the fair value hierarchy under applicable accounting guidance. The fair values of these financial instruments include adjustments for market liquidity, credit quality, funding impact on certain derivatives and other transaction-specific factors, where appropriate.

Gains or losses on these instruments can have a direct impact on our results of operations, including higher or lower mortgage banking income and earnings, unless we have effectively hedged our exposures. For example, decreases in interest rates and increases in mortgage prepayment speeds, which are influenced by interest rates and other factors such as reductions in mortgage insurance premiums and origination costs, could adversely impact the value of our MSR asset, cause a significant acceleration of purchase premium amortization on our mortgage portfolio, because a decline in long-term interest rates shortens the expected lives of the securities, and adversely affect our net interest margin. Conversely, increases in interest rates may result in a decrease in residential mortgage loan originations. In addition, increases in interest rates may adversely impact the fair value of debt securities and, accordingly, for debt securities classified as AFS, may adversely affect accumulated other comprehensive income and, thus, capital levels.

Fair values may be impacted by declining values of the underlying assets or the prices at which observable market transactions occur and the continued availability of these transactions. The financial strength of counterparties, with whom we have economically hedged some of our exposure to these assets, also will affect the fair value of these assets. Sudden declines and volatility in the prices of assets may curtail or eliminate the trading activity for these assets, which may make it difficult to sell, hedge or value such assets. The inability to sell or effectively hedge assets reduces our ability to limit losses in such positions and the difficulty in valuing assets may increase our risk-weighted assets, which requires us to maintain additional capital and increases our funding costs.

Asset values also directly impact revenues in our asset management businesses. We receive asset-based management fees based on the value of our clients' portfolios or investments in funds managed by us and, in some cases, we also receive performance fees based on increases in the value of such investments. Declines in asset values can reduce the value of our clients' portfolios or fund assets, which in turn can result in lower fees earned for managing such assets.

For more information about fair value measurements, see Note 20 – Fair Value Measurements to the Consolidated Financial Statements . For more information about our asset management businesses, see GWIM in the MD&A on page 36 . For more information about interest rate risk management, see Interest Rate Risk Management for Non-trading Activities in the MD&A on page 97 .

Our mortgage loan repurchase obligations or claims from third parties could result in additional losses.

We and our legacy companies have sold significant amounts of residential mortgage loans. In connection with these sales, we or certain of our subsidiaries or legacy companies made various representations and warranties, breaches of which may result in a requirement that we repurchase the mortgage loans, or otherwise make whole or provide other remedies to counterparties (collectively, repurchases). At December 31, 2015, we had approximately $18.4 billion of unresolved repurchase claims, net of duplicate claims. These repurchase claims primarily related to private-label securitizations and exclude claims in the amount of $7.4 billion at December 31, 2015 where the statute of limitations has expired without litigation being commenced. We have also

received notifications pertaining to loans for which we have not received a repurchase request from sponsors of third-party securitizations with whom the Corporation engaged in whole-loan transactions and for which we may owe indemnity obligations.

We have recorded a liability of $11.3 billion for obligations under representations and warranties exposures. We also have an estimated range of possible loss of up to $2 billion over our recorded liability. Our recorded liability and estimated range of possible loss for representations and warranties exposures are based on currently available information and are necessarily dependent on, and limited by, a number of factors including our historical claims and settlement experiences as well as significant judgment and a number of assumptions that are subject to change. As a result, our liability and estimated range of possible loss related to our representations and warranties exposures may materially change in the future. Investors and other residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) counterparties have been engaged in judicial efforts to attempt to avoid or circumvent the impact of recent court rulings concerning the statute of limitations applicable to representations and warranties claims against RMBS sponsors, as well as pursuing other parties to such transaction. Future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of our recorded liability and estimated range of possible loss and such losses could have an adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations. For example, future representations and warranties losses could exceed our recorded liability and estimated range of possible loss if future settlement rates exceed our historical experience, or if investors and other RMBS counterparties are successful in their judicial efforts to avoid or circumvent the impact of recent court rulings concerning the statute of limitations applicable to representation and warranties claims against RMBS sponsors or pursue other parties to the RMBS transactions.

Additionally, our recorded liability for representations and warranties exposures and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss do not consider losses related to servicing foreclosure and related costs, fraud, indemnity, or claims (including for RMBS) related to securities law or monoline litigations. Losses with respect to one or more of these matters could be material to the Corporation's results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period.

For more information about our representations and warranties exposure, including the estimated range of possible loss, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties in the MD&A on page 46 , Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management in the MD&A on page 66 and Note 7 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

Failure to satisfy our obligations as servicer for residential mortgage securitizations, along with other losses we could incur in our capacity as servicer, and continued foreclosure delays and/or investigations into our residential mortgage foreclosure practices could cause losses.

We and our legacy companies have securitized a significant portion of the residential mortgage loans that we originated or acquired. We service a large portion of the loans we have securitized and also service loans on behalf of third-party securitization vehicles and other investors. If we commit a material breach of our obligations as servicer or master servicer, we may be subject to termination if the breach is not cured within a specified period of time following notice, which could cause us to lose servicing income. In addition, for loans principally held in

private-label securitization trusts, we may have liability for any failure by us, as a servicer or master servicer, for any act or omission on our part that involves willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our duties. If any such breach were found to have occurred, it may harm our reputation, increase our servicing costs or adversely impact our results of operations. Additionally, with respect to foreclosures, we may incur costs or losses due to irregularities in the underlying documentation, or if the validity of a foreclosure action is challenged by a borrower or overturned by a court because of errors or deficiencies in the foreclosure process. We may also incur costs or losses relating to delays or alleged deficiencies in processing documents necessary to comply with state law governing foreclosures.

If the U.S. housing market weakens, or home prices decline, our consumer loan portfolios, credit quality, credit losses, representations and warranties exposures, and earnings may be adversely affected.

Although U.S. home prices continued to improve during 2015, the declines in prior years have negatively impacted the demand for many of our products. Additionally, our mortgage loan production volume is generally influenced by the rate of growth in residential mortgage debt outstanding and the size of the residential mortgage market. Conditions in the U.S. housing market in prior years have also resulted in significant write-downs of asset values in several asset classes, notably mortgage-backed securities, and increased exposure to monolines. If the U.S. housing market were to weaken, the value of real estate could decline, which could negatively affect our exposure to representations and warranties and could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, our home equity portfolio contains a significant percentage of loans in second-lien or more junior-lien positions, and such loans have elevated risk characteristics. Our home equity portfolio is largely comprised of HELOCs that have not yet entered their amortization period. HELOCs that have entered the amortization period have experienced a higher percentage of early stage delinquencies and nonperforming status when compared to the HELOC portfolio as a whole. Loans in our HELOC portfolio generally have an initial draw period of 10 years and 44 percent of these loans will enter the amortization period in 2016 and 2017. As a result, delinquencies and defaults may increase in future periods. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations in the MD&A on page 46 and Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 66 .

Changes in the structure of the GSEs and the relationship among the GSEs, the government and the private markets, or the conversion of the current conservatorship of the GSEs into receivership, could result in significant changes to our business operations and may adversely impact our business.

During 2015, we sold approximately $36.1 billion of loans to the GSEs. Each GSE is currently in a conservatorship with its primary regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, acting as conservator. We cannot predict if, when or how the conservatorships will end, or any associated changes to the GSEs' business structure that could result. We also cannot predict whether the conservatorships will end in receivership. There are several proposed approaches to reform the GSEs that, if enacted,

could change the structure of the GSEs and the relationship among the GSEs, the government and the private markets, including the trading markets for agency conforming mortgage loans and markets for mortgage-related securities in which we participate. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of legislative or rulemaking proposals regarding the future status of the GSEs. Accordingly, there continues to be uncertainty regarding the future of the GSEs, including whether they will continue to exist in their current form.

U.S. federal banking agencies may require us to hold higher levels of regulatory capital, increase our regulatory capital ratios or increase liquidity, which could result in the need to issue additional securities that qualify as regulatory capital or to take other actions, such as to sell company assets.

We are subject to U.S. regulators' risk-based capital and liquidity rules. These rules, among other things, establish minimum requirements to qualify as a "well-capitalized" institution. If any of our subsidiary insured depository institutions fail to maintain its status as "well capitalized" under the applicable regulatory capital rules, the Federal Reserve will require us to agree to bring the insured depository institution or institutions back to "well-capitalized" status. For the duration of such an agreement, the Federal Reserve may impose restrictions on our activities. If we were to fail to enter into such an agreement, or fail to comply with the terms of such agreement, the Federal Reserve may impose more severe restrictions on our activities, including requiring us to cease and desist activities permitted under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

The current regulatory environment is fluid, with requirements frequently being introduced and amended. It is possible that increases in regulatory capital requirements, changes in how regulatory capital is calculated or increases to liquidity requirements could cause us to increase our capital levels by issuing additional common stock, thus diluting our existing shareholders, or by taking other actions, such as selling company assets. For example, we have been designated as a global systemically important bank (G-SIB) and as such, are subject to a risk-based capital surcharge (G-SIB surcharge) which could increase our capital ratio requirements higher than our estimated G-SIB of 3.0 percent. Further, the G-SIB surcharge applicable to us may change from time to time. Under the final U.S. rules, the G-SIB surcharge is being phased in beginning on January 1, 2016, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019.

Compliance with the regulatory capital and liquidity requirements may impact our ability to return capital to shareholders and may impact our operations by requiring us to liquidate assets, increase borrowings, issue additional equity or other securities, cease or alter certain operations, or hold highly liquid assets, which may adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, we are required to submit a capital plan to the Federal Reserve on an annual basis. We may be prohibited from taking capital actions such as paying or increasing dividends, or repurchasing securities if the Federal Reserve objects to our capital plan. For additional information, see Capital Management – Regulatory Capital in the MD&A on page 54 .

The ultimate impact of the Federal Reserve Board's recently proposed rules requiring U.S. G-SIBs to maintain minimum amounts of long-term debt meeting specified eligibility requirements is uncertain.

On October 30, 2015, the Federal Reserve released for comment proposed rules (the Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, or TLAC, Rules) that would require the eight U.S. G-SIBs, including Bank of America, to, among other things, maintain minimum amounts of long-term debt satisfying certain eligibility criteria commencing January 1, 2019. As proposed, the TLAC Rules would disqualify from TLAC eligible long-term debt, among other instruments, debt securities that permit acceleration for reasons other than insolvency or payment default, as well as debt securities defined as structured notes in the TLAC Rules and debt securities not governed by U.S. law. Our currently outstanding senior long-term debt typically permits acceleration for reasons other than insolvency or payment default and, as a result, neither such outstanding senior long-term debt nor any subsequently issued senior long-term debt with similar terms would qualify as TLAC eligible long-term debt under the proposed rules. We may need to take action to comply with the final TLAC Rules depending in substantial part on the ultimate eligibility requirements for senior long-term debt and any grandfathering provisions, including actions to conform or replace our existing debt securities.

In the event of our resolution under our preferred single point of entry resolution strategy, such resolution could materially adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to shareholders and to pay our obligations.

We are required to annually submit a plan to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC describing our resolution strategy under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the event of material financial distress or failure. In our current plan, our preferred resolution strategy is a single point of entry strategy. Under the strategy, upon certain severely adverse capital and liquidity conditions, before filing for resolution with the U.S. Bankruptcy court, we would recapitalize certain key operating subsidiaries by contributing substantially all of our assets (other than the stock of our direct subsidiaries and a reserve for expenses in resolution) with the goal of enabling these subsidiaries to continue operating. Following this recapitalization, only Bank of America Corporation would be resolved under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We have arrangements with these key subsidiaries that govern these recapitalizations, which restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to provide funds to us through distributions and advances upon the occurrence of such capital and liquidity conditions. Our obligations under these arrangements are secured by certain of our assets. Any such recapitalizations under our resolution plan and/or these arrangements, or restrictions on the ability of our subsidiaries to provide funds to us, could (i) adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders and to pay our obligations, and (ii) result in holders of our securities being in a worse position as a result thereof and suffering greater losses than would have been the case under bankruptcy, FDIC receivership or a different resolution plan.

Further, if the FDIC and Federal Reserve jointly determine that our resolution plan is not credible and we fail to cure the deficiencies, they could impose more stringent capital, leverage or liquidity requirements or restrictions on our growth, activities or operations, and we could be required to take certain actions that could impose operating costs and could potentially result in the divestiture or restructuring of certain businesses and subsidiaries.

In addition, under the Financial Reform Act, when a G-SIB such as the Corporation is in default or danger of default, the FDIC may be appointed receiver in order to conduct an orderly liquidation of such institution. In the event of such appointment, the FDIC could, among other things, invoke the orderly liquidation authority, instead of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, if the Secretary of the Treasury makes certain financial distress and systemic risk determinations. In 2013, the FDIC issued a notice describing its preferred "single point of entry" strategy for resolving a G-SIB. Under this approach, the FDIC could replace the Corporation with a bridge holding company, which could continue operations and result in an orderly resolution of the underlying bank, but whose equity is held solely for the benefit of our creditors. The FDIC's single point of entry strategy may result in our security holders suffering greater losses than would have been the case under a different resolution plan than the losses that may have resulted from the application of a bankruptcy proceeding or a different resolution strategy.

We are subject to comprehensive government legislation and regulations, both domestically and internationally, which impact our operating costs, and could require us to make changes to our operations and result in an adverse impact on our results of operations. Additionally, these regulations and uncertainty surrounding the scope and requirements of the final rules implementing recently enacted and proposed legislation, as well as certain settlements and consent orders we have entered into, have increased and will continue to increase our compliance and operational risks and costs.

We are subject to comprehensive regulation under federal and state laws in the U.S. and the laws of the various jurisdictions in which we operate. These laws and regulations significantly affect our business, and have the potential to restrict the scope of our existing businesses, limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities or make our products and services more expensive for clients and customers.

Significant new legislation and regulations affecting the financial services industry have been enacted or proposed in recent years, both in the U.S. and globally. In response to the financial crisis, the U.S. adopted the Financial Reform Act, which has resulted in significant rulemaking and proposed rulemaking by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the CFPB, Financial Stability Oversight Council, the FDIC, the SEC and CFTC. Under the provisions of the Financial Reform Act known as the "Volcker Rule," we are prohibited from proprietary trading and limited in our sponsorship of, and investment in, hedge funds, private equity funds and certain other covered private funds. Non-U.S. regulators, such as the U.K. financial regulators and the European Parliament and Commission, have adopted or proposed laws and regulations regarding financial institutions located in their jurisdictions. Recent EU legislative and regulatory initiatives, including those relating to the resolution of financial institutions, the proposed separation of trading activities from core banking services, mandatory on-exchange trading, position limits and reporting rules for derivatives, governance and conduct of business requirements, interchange, and restrictions on compensation, could require us to make significant modifications to our non-U.S. businesses, operations and legal entity structure in order to comply with these requirements.

We continue to make adjustments to our business and operations, legal entity structure and capital and liquidity management policies, procedures and controls to comply with these new and proposed laws and regulations. However, a number of provisions still require final rulemaking, guidance and

interpretation by regulatory authorities. Further, we could become subject to regulatory requirements beyond those currently proposed, adopted or contemplated. Accordingly, the cumulative effect of all of the new and proposed legislation and regulations on our business, operations and profitability remains uncertain. This uncertainty necessitates that in our business planning we make certain assumptions with respect to the scope and requirements of the proposed rules. If these assumptions prove incorrect, we could be subject to increased regulatory and compliance risks and costs as well as potential reputational harm. In addition, U.S. and international regulatory initiatives may overlap, and non-U.S. regulations and initiatives may be inconsistent or may conflict with current or proposed regulations in the U.S., which could lead to compliance risks and increased costs.

Our regulators' prudential and supervisory authority gives them broad power and discretion to direct our actions, and they have assumed an increasingly active oversight, inspection and investigatory role across the financial services industry. Regulatory focus is not limited to laws and regulations applicable to the financial services industry specifically, but also extends to other significant regulations such as Office of Foreign Assets Control, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and U.S. and international anti-money laundering regulations. The number of investigations and proceedings brought by regulators against the financial services industry generally has increased. As part of their enforcement authority, our regulators have the authority to, among other things, assess significant civil or criminal monetary penalties, fines or restitution, issue cease and desist or removal orders and initiate injunctive actions. Recently, the amounts paid by us and other financial institutions to settle proceedings or investigations have been increasing and are likely to continue to increase. In some cases, governmental authorities have required criminal pleas or other extraordinary terms as part of such settlements, which could have significant consequences for a financial institution, including reputational harm, loss of customers, restrictions on the ability to access capital markets, and the inability to operate certain businesses or offer certain products for a period of time.

The complexity of the federal and state regulatory and enforcement regimes in the U.S., coupled with the global scope of our operations and the increasing aggressiveness of the regulatory environment worldwide, also means that a single event or practice or a series of related events or practices may give rise to a large number of overlapping investigations and regulatory proceedings, either by multiple federal and state agencies in the U.S. or by multiple regulators and other governmental entities in different jurisdictions. Responding to inquiries, investigations, lawsuits and proceedings, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the matter, is time-consuming and expensive and can divert the attention of our senior management from our business. The outcome of such proceedings may be difficult to predict or estimate until late in the proceedings, which may last a number of years.

We are currently subject to the terms of settlements and consent orders that we have entered into with government agencies and may become subject to additional settlements or orders in the future. Such settlements and consent orders impose significant operational and compliance costs on us as they typically require us to enhance our procedures and controls, expand our risk and control functions within our lines of business, invest in technology and hire significant numbers of additional risk, control and compliance personnel. Moreover, if we fail to meet the requirements of the regulatory settlements and orders to which

we are subject, or more generally, to maintain risk and control procedures and processes that meet the heightened standards established by our regulators and other government agencies, we could be required to enter into further settlements and orders, pay additional fines, penalties or judgments, or accept material regulatory restrictions on our businesses.

While we believe that we have adopted appropriate risk management and compliance programs, compliance risks will continue to exist, particularly as we adapt to new rules and regulations. We also rely upon third parties who may expose us to compliance and legal risk. Future legislative or regulatory actions, and any required changes to our business or operations, or those of third parties upon whom we rely, resulting from such developments and actions, could result in a significant loss of revenue, impose additional compliance and other costs or otherwise reduce our profitability, limit the products and services that we offer or our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, require us to dispose of or curtail certain businesses, affect the value of assets that we hold, require us to increase our prices and therefore reduce demand for our products, or otherwise adversely affect our businesses. In addition, legal and regulatory proceedings and other contingencies will arise from time to time that may result in fines, penalties, equitable relief and changes to our business practices. As a result, we are and will continue to be subject to heightened compliance and operating costs that could adversely affect our results of operations.

We are subject to significant financial and reputational risks from potential liability arising from lawsuits, and regulatory and government action.

We face significant legal risks in our business, and the volume of claims and amount of damages, penalties and fines claimed in litigation, and regulatory and government proceedings against us and other financial institutions remains high. Greater than expected litigation and investigation costs, substantial legal liability or significant regulatory or government action against us could have adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations or cause significant reputational harm to us, which in turn could adversely impact our business results and prospects. We continue to experience a significant volume of litigation and other disputes, including claims for contractual indemnification, with counterparties regarding relative rights and responsibilities. Consumers, clients and other counterparties have grown more litigious. Among other things, financial institutions, including the Corporation, increasingly have been the subject of claims alleging anti-competitive conduct with respect to various products and markets, including U.S. antitrust class actions claiming joint and several liability for treble damages. Our experience with certain regulatory authorities suggests an increasing supervisory focus on enforcement, including in connection with alleged violations of law and customer harm. Recent actions by regulators and government agencies indicate that they may, on an industry basis, increasingly pursue claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement act of 1989 (FIRREA) and the False Claims Act, as well as claims under the antitrust laws. FIRREA contemplates civil monetary penalties as high as $1.1 million per violation or, if permitted by the court, based on pecuniary gain derived or pecuniary loss suffered as a result of the violation. Treble damages are potentially available for False Claims Act and antitrust claims. The ongoing environment of additional regulation, increased regulatory compliance burdens, and enhanced regulatory and governmental enforcement, combined with ongoing uncertainty related to the continuing evolution of the regulatory

environment, has resulted in operational and compliance costs and may limit our ability to continue providing certain products and services.

For more information on litigation risks, see Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

We may be adversely affected by changes in U.S. and non-U.S. tax and other laws and regulations.

The U.S. Congress and the Administration have indicated an interest in reforming the U.S. corporate income tax code. Possible approaches include lowering the 35 percent corporate tax rate, modifying the taxation of income earned outside the U.S. and limiting or eliminating various other deductions, tax credits and/or other tax preferences. It is not possible at this time to quantify either the one-time impacts from the remeasurement of deferred tax assets and liabilities that might result upon tax reform enactment or the ongoing impacts reform proposals might have on income tax expense.

The Corporation has $7.3 billion of U.K. net deferred tax assets which consist primarily of net operating losses that are expected to be realized by certain subsidiaries over an extended number of years. Adjusted pretax income for these subsidiaries for 2015, 2014 and 2013 on a cumulative basis totaled $2.1 billion, excluding the impact of debit valuation adjustments and the adoption impact of a funding valuation adjustment. Adverse developments with respect to tax laws or to other material factors, such as a prolonged worsening of Europe's capital markets, could lead management to reassess and/or change its current conclusion that no valuation allowance is necessary with respect to our U.K. net deferred tax assets.

Other countries have also proposed and adopted certain regulatory changes targeted at financial institutions or that otherwise affect us. The EU has adopted increased capital requirements and the U.K. has (i) increased liquidity requirements for local financial institutions, including regulated U.K. subsidiaries of non-U.K. BHCs and other financial institutions as well as branches of non-U.K. banks located in the U.K.; (ii) adopted a Bank Levy, which applies to the aggregate balance sheet of branches and subsidiaries of non-U.K. banks and banking groups operating in the U.K.; and (iii) proposed the creation and production of recovery and resolution plans by U.K.-regulated entities.

We face significant and increasing competition in the financial services industry.

We operate in a highly competitive environment and will continue to experience intense competition from local and global financial institutions as well as new entrants, in both domestic and foreign markets. Additionally, the changing regulatory environment may create competitive disadvantages for certain financial institutions given geography-driven capital and liquidity requirements. For example, U.S. regulators have in certain instances adopted stricter capital and liquidity requirements than those applicable to non-U.S. institutions. To the extent we expand into new business areas and new geographic regions, we may face competitors with more experience and more established relationships with clients, regulators and industry participants in the relevant market, which could adversely affect our ability to compete. In addition, technological advances and the growth of e-commerce have made it easier for non-depository institutions to

offer products and services that traditionally were banking products, and for financial institutions to compete with technology companies in providing electronic and internet-based financial solutions including electronic securities trading, marketplace lending, and payment processing. Increased competition may negatively affect our earnings by creating pressure to lower prices or credit standards on our products and services requiring additional investment to improve the quality and delivery of our technology and/or reducing our market share.

Damage to our reputation could harm our businesses, including our competitive position and business prospects.

Our ability to attract and retain customers, clients, investors and employees is impacted by our reputation. We continue to face increased public and regulatory scrutiny as well as alleged irregularities in servicing, foreclosure, consumer collections, mortgage loan modifications and other practices, compensation practices, and the suitability or reasonableness of recommending particular trading or investment strategies.

Harm to our reputation can also arise from other sources, including employee misconduct, security breaches, unethical behavior, litigation or regulatory outcomes, failing to deliver standards of service and quality expected by our customers and clients, compliance failures, inadequacy of responsiveness to internal controls, unintended disclosure of confidential information, and the activities of our clients, customers and counterparties, including vendors. In addition, adverse publicity or negative information posted on social media websites, whether or not factually correct, may adversely impact our business prospects or financial results. Actions by the financial services industry generally or by certain members or individuals in the industry also can adversely affect our reputation.

We are subject to complex and evolving laws and regulations regarding privacy, data protections and other matters. Principles concerning the appropriate scope of consumer and commercial privacy vary considerably in different jurisdictions, and regulatory and public expectations regarding the definition and scope of consumer and commercial privacy may remain fluid. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied by various jurisdictions in a manner inconsistent with our current or future practices, or that is inconsistent with one another. We face regulatory, reputational and operational risks if personal, confidential or proprietary information of customers or clients in our possession is mishandled or misused.

We could suffer reputational harm if we fail to properly identify and manage potential conflicts of interest. Management of potential conflicts of interests has become increasingly complex as we expand our business activities through more numerous transactions, obligations and interests with and among our clients. The failure to adequately address, or the perceived failure to adequately address, conflicts of interest could affect the willingness of clients to deal with us, or give rise to litigation or enforcement actions, which could adversely affect our businesses.

Our actual or perceived failure to address these and other issues gives rise to reputational risk that could cause harm to us and our business prospects, including failure to properly address operational risks. Failure to appropriately address any of these issues could also give rise to additional regulatory restrictions, legal risks and reputational harm, which could, among other consequences, increase the size and number of litigation claims and damages asserted or subject us to enforcement actions, fines and penalties and cause us to incur related costs and expenses.

Our ability to attract and retain qualified employees is critical to the success of our business and failure to do so could hurt our business prospects and competitive position.

Our performance is heavily dependent on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals. Competition for qualified personnel within the financial services industry and from businesses outside the financial services industry has been, and is expected to continue to be, intense. Our competitors include non-U.S. based institutions and institutions subject to different compensation and hiring regulations than those imposed on U.S. institutions and financial institutions.

In order to attract and retain qualified personnel, we must provide market-level compensation. As a large financial and banking institution, we may be subject to limitations on compensation practices (which may or may not affect our competitors) by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC or other regulators around the world. For instance, recent EU rules limit and subject to clawback certain forms of variable compensation for senior employees. Current and potential future limitations on executive compensation imposed by legislation or regulation could adversely affect our ability to attract and maintain qualified employees. Furthermore, a substantial portion of our annual incentive compensation paid to our senior employees has in recent years taken the form of long-term equity awards. Therefore, the ultimate value of this compensation depends on the price of our common stock when the awards vest. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain qualified individuals, our business prospects and competitive position could be adversely affected.

Our inability to adapt our products and services to evolving industry standards and consumer preferences could harm our business.

Our business model is based on a diversified mix of business that provides a broad range of financial products and services, delivered through multiple distribution channels. Our success depends on our ability to adapt our products and services to evolving industry standards. There is increasing pressure by competitors to provide products and services at lower prices and this may impact our ability to grow revenue and/or effectively compete, in part, due to legislative and regulatory developments that affect the competitive landscape. Additionally, the competitive landscape may be impacted by the growth of non-depository institutions that offer products that were traditionally banking products as well as new innovative products. This can reduce our net interest margin and revenues from our fee-based products and services. In addition, the widespread adoption of new technologies, including internet services and payment systems, could require substantial expenditures to modify or adapt our existing products and services as we grow and develop our internet banking and mobile banking channel strategies in addition to remote connectivity solutions. We might not be successful in developing or introducing new products and services, integrating new products or services into our existing offerings, responding or adapting to changes in consumer behavior, preferences, spending, investing and/or saving habits, achieving market acceptance of our products and services, reducing costs in response to pressures to deliver products and services at lower prices or sufficiently developing and maintaining loyal customers.

Our risk management framework may not be effective in mitigating risk and reducing the potential for losses.

Our risk management framework is designed to minimize risk and loss to us. We seek to identify, measure, monitor, report and control our exposure to the types of risk to which we are subject, including strategic, credit, market, liquidity, compliance, operational and reputational risks, among others. While we employ a broad and diversified set of risk monitoring and mitigation techniques, including hedging strategies and techniques that seek to balance our ability to profit from trading positions with our exposure to potential losses, those techniques are inherently limited because they cannot anticipate the existence or future development of currently unanticipated or unknown risks. For instance, we use various models to assess and control risk, but those are subject to inherent limitations.

Additionally, we are reliant on our ability to manage data and our ability to aggregate data in an accurate and timely manner to ensure effective risk reporting and management. Our ability to manage data and aggregate data may be limited by the effectiveness of our policies, programs, processes and practices that govern how data is acquired, validated, stored, protected and processed. While we continuously update our policies, programs, processes and practices, many of our data management and aggregation processes are manual and subject to human error or system failure. Failure to manage data effectively and to aggregate data in an accurate and timely manner may limit our ability to manage current and emerging risk, as well as to manage changing business needs.

Our risk management framework is also dependent on ensuring that a sound risk culture exists throughout the Corporation, as well as ensuring that we manage risks associated with third parties and vendors. Recent economic conditions, heightened legislative and regulatory scrutiny of the financial services industry and the overall complexity of our operations, among other developments, have resulted in a heightened level of risk for us. Accordingly, we could suffer losses as a result of our failure to properly anticipate and manage risks.

For more information about our risk management policies and procedures, see Managing Risk in the MD&A on page 49 .

A failure in or breach of our operational or security systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, could disrupt our businesses, and adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, as well as cause reputational harm.

The potential for operational risk exposure exists throughout our organization and as a result of our interactions with third parties, and is not limited to our operational functions. Our operational and security systems, infrastructure, including our computer systems, data management, and internal processes, as well as those of third parties, are integral to our performance. In addition, we rely on our employees and third parties in our day-to-day and ongoing operations, who may, as a result of human error, misconduct or malfeasance or failure or breach of third-party systems or infrastructure, expose us to risk. We have taken measures to implement backup systems and other safeguards to support our operations, but our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by any significant disruptions to us or to third parties with whom we interact. In addition, our ability to implement backup systems and other safeguards with respect to third-party systems is more limited than with respect to our own systems. Our financial, accounting, data processing, backup or other operating or security systems and infrastructure may fail to

operate properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control which could adversely affect our ability to process these transactions or provide these services. There could be sudden increases in customer transaction volume; electrical, telecommunications or other major physical infrastructure outages; natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and floods; disease pandemics; and events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts. We continuously update these systems to support our operations and growth. This updating entails significant costs and creates risks associated with implementing new systems and integrating them with existing ones. Operational risk exposures could adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, as well as cause reputational harm.

A cyber attack, information or security breach, or a technology failure of ours or of a third party could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business, manage our exposure to risk or expand our businesses, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, increase our costs to maintain and update our operational and security systems and infrastructure, and adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, as well as cause reputational harm.

Our businesses are highly dependent on the security and efficacy of our infrastructure, computer and data management systems, as well as those of third parties with whom we interact. Cyber security risks for financial institutions have significantly increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists and other external parties, including foreign state actors. Our businesses rely on the secure processing, transmission, storage and retrieval of confidential, proprietary and other information in our computer and data management systems and networks, and in the computer and data management systems and networks of third parties. We rely on digital technologies, computer, database and email systems, software, and networks to conduct our operations. In addition, to access our network, products and services, our customers and other third parties may use personal mobile devices or computing devices that are outside of our network environment. We, our customers, regulators and other third parties have been subject to, and are likely to continue to be the target of, cyber attacks. These cyber attacks include computer viruses, malicious or destructive code, phishing attacks, denial of service or information or other security breaches, that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of confidential, proprietary and other information of the Corporation, our employees, our customers or of third parties, or otherwise materially disrupt our or our customers' or other third parties' network access or business operations. For example, in recent years, we have been subject to malicious activity, including distributed denial of service attacks. Additionally, several large retailers have disclosed substantial cyber security breaches affecting debit and credit card accounts of their customers, some of whom were our cardholders. Although these incidents have not, to date, had a material impact on us, we believe that such incidents will continue, and we are unable to predict the severity of such future attacks on us. Our counterparties, regulators, customers and clients, and other third parties with whom we or our customers and clients interact are exposed to similar incidents, and incidents affecting those third parties could impact us.

Although to date we have not experienced any material losses or other material consequences relating to technology failure, cyber attacks or other information or other security breaches, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses or other consequences in the future. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of, among other things, the evolving nature of these threats, our prominent size and scale, and our role in the financial services industry and the broader economy, our plans to continue to implement our internet banking and mobile banking channel strategies and develop additional remote connectivity solutions to serve our customers when and how they want to be served, our continuous transmission of sensitive information to, and storage of such information by, third parties, including our vendors and regulators, our expanded geographic footprint and international presence, the outsourcing of some of our business operations, the continued uncertain global economic environment, threats of cyber terrorism, external extremist parties, including foreign state actors, in some circumstances as a means to promote political ends, and system and customer account updates and conversions. As a result, cyber security and the continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes and practices designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a priority for us. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities or incidents.

We also face indirect technology, cyber security and operational risks relating to the third parties with whom we do business or upon whom we rely to facilitate or enable our business activities. In addition to customers and clients, the third parties with whom we interact and upon whom we rely include financial counterparties; financial intermediaries such as clearing agents, exchanges and clearing houses; vendors; regulators; providers of critical infrastructure such as internet access and electrical power, and retailers for whom we process transactions. Each of these third parties faces the risk of cyber attack, information breach or loss, or technology failure. Any such cyber attack, information breach or loss, or technology failure of a third party could, among other things, adversely affect our ability to effect transactions, service our clients, manage our exposure to risk or expand our businesses. As a result of financial entities and technology systems becoming more interdependent and complex, a cyber incident, information breach or loss, or technology failure that significantly degrades, deletes or compromises the systems or data of one or more financial entities could have a material impact on counterparties or other market participants, including the Corporation. For example, in recent years, there has been significant consolidation among clearing agents, exchanges and clearing houses and increased interconnectivity of multiple financial institutions with central agents, exchanges and clearing houses. This consolidation and interconnectivity increases the risk of operational failure, on both individual and industry-wide bases, as disparate complex systems need to be integrated, often on an accelerated basis. Any such cyber attack, information breach or loss, failure, termination or constraint could, among other things, adversely affect our ability to effect transactions, service our clients, manage our exposure to risk or expand our businesses.

Any of the matters discussed above could result in our loss of customers and business opportunities, significant business disruption to our operations and business, misappropriation or

destruction of our confidential information and/or that of our customers, or damage to our customers' and/or third parties' computers or systems, and could result in a violation of applicable privacy laws and other laws, litigation exposure, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, loss of confidence in our security measures, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensatory costs, and additional compliance costs. In addition, any of the matters described above could adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

We are subject to numerous political, economic, market, reputational, operational, legal, regulatory and other risks in the non-U.S. jurisdictions in which we operate.

We do business throughout the world, including in developing regions of the world commonly known as emerging markets. Our businesses and revenues derived from non-U.S. jurisdictions are subject to risk of loss from currency fluctuations, financial, social or judicial instability, changes in governmental policies or policies of central banks, expropriation, nationalization and/or confiscation of assets, price controls, capital controls, exchange controls, other restrictive actions, unfavorable political and diplomatic developments, oil price fluctuation and changes in legislation. These risks are especially elevated in emerging markets. A number of non-U.S. jurisdictions in which we do business have been negatively impacted by slowing growth rates or recessionary conditions, market volatility and/or political unrest. The eurozone economy grew modestly in 2015 but faces continuing challenges, including uncertainty regarding economic performance in emerging markets, some weakened appreciably by the severe decline in oil prices. The influx of refugees, related to the war in Syria, and continued political uncertainty relating to various nations' fiscal plans have the potential to negatively impact consumer and business confidence and credit factors, affecting our business and operation results. Notably, sovereign debt purchases by the European Central Bank have supported Southern European financial markets but risks remain. The economy in China continues to gradually slow while facing longer term readjustment challenge. Russia and Brazil remain nations in the midst of severe downturns.

Additionally, the U.K. government has announced the possibility of a referendum regarding the U.K.'s continued membership in the EU. The referendum is expected to occur before the end of 2017. An exit of the U.K. from the EU could significantly affect the fiscal, monetary and regulatory landscape in the U.K. We conduct business in Europe primarily through our U.K. subsidiaries. An exit from the EU could impact our operations in the EU and may result in moving some of our operations in the U.K. to our EU based entities, which could impose costs on us and could have an impact on our business, finance condition and results of operations.

Potential risks of default on sovereign debt in some non-U.S. jurisdictions remain and could expose us to substantial losses. Risks in one nation can limit our opportunities for portfolio growth and negatively affect our operations in another nation or nations, including our U.S. operations. Market and economic disruptions have affected, and may continue to affect, consumer confidence levels and spending, corporate investment and job creation, bankruptcy rates, levels of incurrence and default on consumer debt and corporate debt, economic growth rates and asset values, among other factors. Any such unfavorable conditions or developments could have an adverse impact on our company.

Our non-U.S. businesses are also subject to extensive regulation by various regulators, including governments, securities exchanges, central banks and other regulatory bodies, in the jurisdictions in which those businesses operate. In many countries, the laws and regulations applicable to the financial services and securities industries are uncertain and evolving, and it may be difficult for us to determine the exact requirements of local laws in every market or manage our relationships with multiple regulators in various jurisdictions. Our potential inability to remain in compliance with local laws in a particular market and manage our relationships with regulators could have an adverse effect not only on our businesses in that market but also on our reputation in general.

We also invest or trade in the securities of corporations and governments located in non-U.S. jurisdictions, including emerging markets. Revenues from the trading of non-U.S. securities may be subject to negative fluctuations as a result of the above factors. Furthermore, the impact of these fluctuations could be magnified, because non-U.S. trading markets, particularly in emerging market countries, are generally smaller, less liquid and more volatile than U.S. trading markets.

In addition to non-U.S. legislation, our international operations are also subject to U.S. legal requirements. For example, our international operations are subject to U.S. laws on foreign corrupt practices, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and anti-money laundering regulations.

We are subject to geopolitical risks, including acts or threats of terrorism, and actions taken by the U.S. or other governments in response thereto and/or military conflicts, which could adversely affect business and economic conditions abroad as well as in the U.S.

For more information on our non-U.S. credit and trading portfolios, see Non-U.S. Portfolio in the MD&A on page 86 .

Changes in accounting standards or inaccurate estimates or assumptions in applying accounting policies could adversely affect us.

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Some of these policies require use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the reported value of our assets or liabilities and results of operations and are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain. If those assumptions, estimates or judgments were incorrectly made, we could be required to correct and restate prior-period financial statements. Accounting standard-setters and those who interpret the accounting standards (such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the SEC, banking regulators and our independent registered public accounting firm) may also amend or even reverse their previous interpretations or positions on how various standards should be applied. These changes may be difficult to predict and could impact how we prepare and report our financial statements. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in the Corporation possibly needing to revise and republish prior-period financial statements.

The FASB issued in 2012 a proposed standard on accounting for credit losses. The standard would replace multiple existing impairment models, including replacing an "incurred loss" model

for loans with an "expected loss" model. The FASB has indicated a tentative effective date of January 1, 2019, and final guidance is expected to be issued in the second quarter of 2016. The final standard may materially reduce retained earnings in the period of adoption.

For more information on some of our critical accounting policies and recent accounting changes, see Complex Accounting Estimates in the MD&A on page 100 and Note 1 – Summary of

Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

None

We own or lease approximately 84.3 million square feet in 22,512 facility and ATM locations globally, including approximately 78.4 million square feet in the U.S. (all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) and approximately 5.9 million square feet in more than 35 countries.

We believe our owned and leased properties are adequate for our business needs and are well maintained. We continue to evaluate our owned and leased real estate and may determine from time to time that certain of our premises and facilities, or ownership structures, are no longer necessary for our operations. In connection therewith, we are evaluating the sale or sale/leaseback of certain properties and we may incur costs in connection with any such transactions.

See Litigation and Regulatory Matters in Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements , which is incorporated herein by reference.

None

This report, the documents that it incorporates by reference and the documents into which it may be incorporated by reference may contain, and from time to time Bank of America Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, the Corporation) and its management may make certain statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements often use words such as "anticipates," "targets," "expects," "hopes," "estimates," "intends," "plans," "goals," "believes," "continue," "suggests" and other similar expressions or future or conditional verbs such as "will," "may," "might," "should," "would" and "could." Forward-looking statements represent the Corporation ' s current expectations, plans or forecasts of its future results and revenues, and future business and economic conditions more generally, and other future matters. These statements are not guarantees of future results or performance and involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict and are often beyond the Corporation ' s control. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, any of these forward-looking statements.

You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement and should consider the following uncertainties and risks, as well as the risks and uncertainties more fully discussed elsewhere in this report, including under Item 1A. Risk Factors of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in any of the Corporation's subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission filings: the Corporation's ability to resolve representations and warranties repurchase and related claims, including claims brought by investors or trustees seeking to distinguish certain aspects of the ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products, Inc. (ACE) decision or to assert other claims seeking to avoid the impact of the ACE decision; the possibility that the Corporation could face servicing, securities, fraud, indemnity, contribution or other claims from one or more counterparties, including trustees, purchasers of loans, underwriters, issuers, other parties involved in securitizations, monolines or private-label and other investors; the possibility that future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of the Corporation ' s recorded liability and estimated range of possible loss for its representations and warranties exposures; the possibility that the Corporation may not collect mortgage insurance claims; potential claims, damages, penalties, fines and reputational damage resulting from pending or future litigation and regulatory

proceedings, including the possibility that amounts may be in excess of the Corporation's recorded liability and estimated range of possible losses for litigation exposures; the possible outcome of LIBOR, other reference rate and foreign exchange inquiries and investigations; uncertainties about the financial stability and growth rates of non-U.S. jurisdictions, the risk that those jurisdictions may face difficulties servicing their sovereign debt, and related stresses on financial markets, currencies and trade, and the Corporation ' s exposures to such risks, including direct, indirect and operational; the impact of U.S. and global interest rates, currency exchange rates and economic conditions; the possibility that future credit losses may be higher than currently expected due to changes in economic assumptions, customer behavior and other uncertainties; the impact on the Corporation ' s business, financial condition and results of operations of a potential higher interest rate environment; the impact on the Corporation ' s business, financial condition and results of operations from a protracted period of lower oil prices; adverse changes to the Corporation ' s credit ratings from the major credit rating agencies; estimates of the fair value of certain of the Corporation ' s assets and liabilities; uncertainty regarding the content, timing and impact of regulatory capital and liquidity requirements, including the potential adoption of total loss-absorbing capacity requirements; the potential for payment protection insurance exposure to increase as a result of Financial Conduct Authority actions; the possible impact of Federal Reserve actions on the Corporation's capital plans; the impact of implementation and compliance with new and evolving U.S. and international regulations, including, but not limited to, recovery and resolution planning requirements, the Volcker Rule, and derivatives regulations; a failure in or breach of the Corporation's operational or security systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, including as a result of cyber attacks and other similar matters.

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and the Corporation undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statement was made.

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements referred to in the Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) are incorporated by reference into the MD&A. Certain prior-year amounts have been reclassified to conform to current-year presentation. Throughout the MD&A, the Corporation uses certain acronyms and abbreviations which are defined in the Glossary.

The Corporation is a Delaware corporation, a bank holding company (BHC) and a financial holding company. When used in this report, "the Corporation" may refer to Bank of America Corporation individually, Bank of America Corporation and its subsidiaries, or certain of Bank of America Corporation's subsidiaries or affiliates. Our principal executive offices are located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Through our banking and various nonbank subsidiaries throughout the U.S. and in international markets, we provide a diversified range of banking and nonbank financial services and products through five business segments: Consumer Banking , Global Wealth & Investment Management (GWIM) , Global Banking , Global Markets and Legacy Assets & Servicing (LAS) , with the remaining operations recorded in All Other . We operate our banking activities primarily under the Bank of America, National Association (Bank of America, N.A. or BANA) charter. At December 31, 2015 , the Corporation had approximately $2.1 trillion in assets and approximately 213,000 full-time equivalent employees.

As of December 31, 2015 , we operated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and more than 35 countries. Our retail banking footprint covers approximately 80 percent of the U.S. population, and we serve approximately 47 million consumer and small business relationships with approximately 4,700 retail financial centers, approximately 16,000 ATMs, nationwide call centers, and leading online and mobile banking platforms (www.bankofamerica.com). We offer industry-leading support to approximately three million small business owners. Our wealth management businesses, with client balances of nearly $2.5 trillion , provide tailored solutions to meet client needs through a full set of investment management, brokerage, banking, trust and retirement products. We are a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world.

In the U.S., the economy grew in 2015 for the seventh consecutive year. Following a soft start to the year partly reflecting severe winter weather and other temporary factors, economic growth picked up mid-year before a mild deceleration near year end. While economic growth struggled to reach two percent in the year, the labor market continued to improve. Payroll gains were solid, while the unemployment rate fell to five percent late in the year. With steady employment gains and continued low oil prices, consumer spending increased at a strong pace for most of the year and residential construction gained momentum. Core inflation (which excludes certain items which may be subject to frequent volatile price changes, like food and energy) remained relatively unchanged in 2015, more than half a percentage point below the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System's (Federal Reserve) longer-term target of two percent. Inflation was suppressed by falling energy costs.

U.S. household net worth rose for a seventh consecutive year, but at a slower pace in 2015. After a modest first half of the year, home prices rebounded in the second half of 2015 and rose more than five percent in 2015, while equity markets registered little net change. With energy costs continuing to decline in 2015, the

consumer spending outlook remained positive, although the negative impacts on energy-related investments hurt the manufacturing economy and continued to impact financial markets. With the sharp U.S. Dollar appreciation in late 2014 and 2015, export gains slowed, further weakening manufacturing, while import growth was steady, resulting in a decline in net exports and a negative impact on 2015 gross domestic product growth.

U.S. Treasury yields were unstable, but rose modestly over the course of the year, as a rate hike from the Federal Reserve neared. At its final meeting of the year, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised its target range for the Federal funds rate by 25 basis points (bps), its first rate increase in over nine years. At the same time, the Federal Reserve repeated its expectation that policy would be normalized gradually, and would remain accommodative for the foreseeable future. Amid the contrast between U.S. tightening of monetary policy versus the easing of monetary policy in much of the world, the U.S. Dollar appreciated significantly over the year, especially against emerging market and commodity-oriented currencies.

Internationally, the eurozone continued to grow modestly in 2015, as the European Central Bank (ECB) began a program of significant purchases of sovereign debt, helping to keep bond yields low and to maintain stability in southern European markets. Core inflation in the eurozone stabilized early and then edged higher over the year. The Euro/U.S. Dollar exchange rate continued to decline early in the year driven by the differing directions of U.S. and eurozone monetary policies, further boosting European competitiveness. However, the eurozone remains vulnerable to economic slowing in emerging markets. Late in the year, the ECB extended its horizon for bond purchases, but failed to increase their size.

Economic growth was slow and uncertain in Japan, while the 2014 gains in core inflation were reversed. Declining energy costs continued to hurt Russia's economy, which remained in recession for 2015. Brazil's recession also continued, aggravated by extreme policy uncertainty. Amid continued gradual economic moderation, China eased monetary policy during the year, but continued its focus on longer-run issues including increasing its focus on rebalancing the economy and encouraging consumer spending.

Recent Events

The final conditions of the settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon) have been satisfied and, accordingly, the Corporation made the settlement payment of $8.5 billion in February 2016. The settlement payment was previously fully reserved. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, allocation and distribution of the $8.5 billion settlement payment is the responsibility of the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trustee, BNY Mellon. On February 5, 2016, BNY Mellon filed an Article 77 proceeding in the New York County Supreme Court asking the court for instruction with respect to certain issues concerning the distribution of each trust's allocable share of the settlement payment and asking that the settlement payment be ordered to be held in escrow pending the outcome of this Article 77 proceeding. The Corporation is not a party to this proceeding. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations on page 46 .

During 2015, we repurchased approximately $2.4 billion of common stock, with an average price of $16.92 per share, in connection with our 2015 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) capital plan, which included a request to repurchase $4.0 billion of common stock over five quarters beginning in the second quarter of 2015, and to maintain the quarterly common stock dividend at the current rate of $0.05 per share.

Based on the conditional non-objection we received from the Federal Reserve on our 2015 CCAR submission, we were required to resubmit our CCAR capital plan by September 30, 2015 and address certain weaknesses the Federal Reserve identified in our capital planning process. We have established plans and taken actions which addressed the identified weaknesses, and we resubmitted our CCAR capital plan on September 30, 2015. The Federal Reserve announced that it did not object to our resubmitted CCAR capital plan on December 10, 2015.

As an Advanced approaches institution, under Basel 3, we were required to complete a qualification period (parallel run) to demonstrate compliance with the Basel 3 Advanced approaches capital framework to the satisfaction of U.S. banking regulators. We received approval to begin using the Advanced approaches capital framework to determine risk-based capital requirements beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015. As previously disclosed, with the approval to exit parallel run, U.S. banking regulators requested modifications to certain internal analytical models including the wholesale (e.g., commercial) credit models. All requested modifications were incorporated, which increased our risk-weighted assets, and are reflected in the risk-based ratios in the fourth quarter of 2015. Having exited parallel run on October 1, 2015, we are required to report regulatory risk-based capital ratios and risk-weighted assets under both the Standardized and Advanced approaches. The approach that yields the lower ratio is used to assess capital adequacy including under the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) framework and was the Advanced approaches in the fourth quarter of 2015. For additional information, see Capital Management on page 53 .

On December 29, 2015, the Corporation provided notice of the redemption on January 29, 2016 of all trust preferred securities of Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust III, Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Capital Trust V (the Trust Preferred Securities). In connection with the Corporation's acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in 2009, the Corporation recorded a discount to par value as purchase accounting adjustments associated with the Trust Preferred Securities. The Corporation recorded a $612 million charge to net interest income related to the discount on these securities.

In January 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued new accounting guidance on recognition and measurement of financial instruments. The Corporation has early adopted, retrospective to January 1, 2015, the provision that requires the Corporation to present unrealized gains and losses resulting from changes in the Corporation's own credit spreads on liabilities accounted for under the fair value option (referred to as debit valuation adjustments, or DVA) in accumulated other comprehensive income (OCI). The impact of the adoption was to reclassify, as of January 1, 2015, unrealized DVA losses of $2.0 billion pretax ($1.2 billion after tax) from retained earnings to accumulated OCI. Further, pretax unrealized DVA gains of $301 million, $301 million and $420 million were reclassified from other income to accumulated OCI for the third, second and first quarters of 2015, respectively. This had the effect of reducing net income as previously reported for the aforementioned quarters by $187 million, $186 million and $260 million, or approximately $0.02 per share in each quarter. This change is reflected in consolidated results and the Global Markets segment results. Results for 2014 were not subject to restatement under the provisions of the new accounting guidance.

Financial Highlights

Net income was $15.9 billion , or $1.31 per diluted share in 2015 compared to $4.8 billion , or $0.36 per diluted share in 2014 . The results for 2015 compared to 2014 were primarily driven by a decrease of $15.2 billion in litigation expense, as well as decreases in all other noninterest expense categories, partially offset by a decline in net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent (FTE) basis, higher provision for credit losses and lower revenue. Included in net interest income on an FTE basis was a charge related to the discount on certain trust preferred securities of $612 million in 2015 , as well as a negative market-related adjustment on debt securities of $296 million compared to a negative market-related adjustment of $1.1 billion in 2014 .

Total assets increased $39.8 billion from December 31, 2014 to $2.1 trillion at December 31, 2015 primarily driven by an increase in debt securities due to the deployment of deposit inflows, an increase in loans driven by strong demand for commercial loans outpacing consumer loan sales and run-off, and higher cash and cash equivalents from strong deposit inflows. Total liabilities increased $27.0 billion from December 31, 2014 to $1.9 trillion at December 31, 2015 primarily driven by an increase in deposits, partially offset by declines in securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase, trading account liabilities and long-term debt. During 2015 , we returned $5.9 billion in capital to shareholders through common and preferred stock dividends and share repurchases. For more information on the balance sheet, see Executive Summary – Balance Sheet Overview on page 27 .

From a capital management perspective, during 2015 , we maintained our strong capital position with Common equity tier 1 capital of $163.0 billion , risk-weighted assets of $1,602 billion and a Common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 10.2 percent at December 31, 2015 as measured under the Basel 3 Advanced – Transition. On September 3, 2015, we received approval to exit parallel run and begin using the Basel 3 Advanced approaches capital framework to determine risk-based capital requirements in the fourth quarter of 2015. The Corporation's transitional supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) was 6.6 percent and 6.2 percent at December 31, 2015 and 2014 , both above the 5.0 percent required minimum. Our Global Excess Liquidity Sources were $504 billion with time-to-required funding at 39 months at December 31, 2015 compared to $439 billion and 39 months at December 31, 2014 . For additional information, see Capital Management on page 53 and Liquidity Risk on page 60 .

Net interest income on an FTE basis decreased $661 million to $40.2 billion in 2015 compared to 2014 . The net interest yield on an FTE basis decreased five  bps to 2.20 percent for 2015 . These declines were primarily driven by lower loan yields and consumer loan balances, as well as a charge of $612 million in 2015 related to the discount on certain trust preferred securities, partially offset by a $785 million improvement in market-related adjustments on debt securities, lower funding costs, higher trading-related net interest income, lower rates paid on deposits and commercial loan growth. Market-related adjustments on debt securities resulted in an expense of $296 million in 2015 compared to an expense of $1.1 billion in 2014 . Negative market-related adjustments on debt securities were primarily due to the acceleration of premium amortization on debt securities as the decline in long-term interest rates shortened the estimated lives of mortgage-related debt securities. Also included in market-related adjustments is hedge ineffectiveness that impacted net interest income. For additional information, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

Noninterest income decreased $1.0 billion to $43.3 billion for 2015 compared to 2014 . The following highlights the significant changes.

The provision for credit losses increased $886 million to $3.2 billion for 2015 compared to 2014 . The provision for credit losses was $1.2 billion lower than net charge-offs for 2015 , resulting in a reduction in the allowance for credit losses. The provision for credit losses in 2014 included $400 million of additional costs associated with the consumer relief portion of the settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ). Excluding these additional costs, the provision for credit losses in the consumer portfolio increased $1.1 billion compared to 2014 due to a slower pace of portfolio improvement than in 2014 , and also due to a lower level of recoveries on nonperforming loan sales and other recoveries in 2015 . The provision for credit losses for the commercial portfolio increased $160 million in 2015 compared to 2014 driven by energy sector exposure and higher unfunded balances. The decrease in net charge-offs was primarily due to credit quality improvement in the consumer portfolio, partially offset by higher net charge-offs in the commercial portfolio primarily due to lower net recoveries in commercial real estate and higher energy-related net charge-offs.

As we look at 2016, reserve releases are expected to decrease from 2015 levels. All else equal, this would result in increased provision expense, assuming sustained stability in underlying asset quality. For more information on the provision for credit losses, see Provision for Credit Losses on page 88 .

Noninterest expense decreased $17.9 billion to $57.2 billion for 2015 compared to 2014 . The following highlights the significant changes.

The effective tax rate for 2015 was driven by our recurring tax preference benefits and tax benefits related to certain non-U.S. restructurings, partially offset by a charge for the impact of the U.K. tax law changes discussed below. The effective tax rate for 2014 was driven by our recurring tax preference benefits, the resolution of several tax examinations and tax benefits from non-U.S. restructurings, partially offset by the non-deductible treatment of certain litigation charges. We expect an effective tax rate in the low 30 percent range, absent unusual items, for 2016.

On November 18, 2015, the U.K. Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 (the Act) was enacted, reducing the U.K. corporate income tax rate by two percent to 18 percent. The first one percent reduction will be effective on April 1, 2017 and the second on April 1, 2020. The Act also included a tax surcharge on banking companies of eight percent, effective on January 1, 2016, and provided that existing net operating loss carryforwards may not reduce the additional eight percent income tax liability. Lastly, the Act provided that expenses for certain compensation payments, such as PPI, are not deductible to the extent attributable to July 8, 2015 or later. These provisions resulted in a charge of approximately $290 million in 2015, primarily from remeasuring our U.K. deferred tax assets.

At December 31, 2015 , total assets were approximately $2.1 trillion , up $39.8 billion from December 31, 2014 . The increase in assets was primarily driven by an increase in debt securities due to the deployment of deposit inflows, an increase in loans and leases driven by strong demand for commercial loans outpacing consumer loan sales and run-off, and higher cash and cash equivalents from strong deposit inflows. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in trading account assets due to repositioning activity on the balance sheet, and a decrease in all other assets.

The Corporation took certain actions in 2015 to further strengthen liquidity in response to the Basel 3 Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) requirements. Most notably, we exchanged residential mortgage loans supported by long-term standby agreements with Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) into debt securities guaranteed by FNMA and FHLMC, which further improved liquidity in the asset and liability management (ALM) portfolio.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents increased $20.8 billion primarily due to strong deposit inflows driven by growth in customer and client activity, partially offset by commercial loan growth.

Federal Funds Sold and Securities Borrowed or Purchased Under Agreements to Resell

Federal funds transactions involve lending reserve balances on a short-term basis. Securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell are collateralized lending transactions utilized to accommodate customer transactions, earn interest rate spreads, and obtain securities for settlement and for collateral. Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell remained relatively unchanged compared to December 31, 2014 , as an increase in securities borrowed of $3.3 billion was offset by a decrease in reverse repurchase agreements of $2.6 billion.

Trading Account Assets

Trading account assets consist primarily of long positions in equity and fixed-income securities including U.S. government and agency securities, corporate securities and non-U.S. sovereign debt. Trading account assets decreased $15.3 billion primarily due to balance sheet repositioning activity driven by client demand within Global Markets .

Debt Securities

Debt securities primarily include U.S. Treasury and agency securities, mortgage-backed securities (MBS), principally agency MBS, non-U.S. bonds, corporate bonds and municipal debt. We use the debt securities portfolio primarily to manage interest rate and liquidity risk and to take advantage of market conditions that create economically attractive returns on these investments. Debt securities increased $26.5 billion primarily driven by the deployment of deposit inflows and the exchange of certain loans into debt securities. For more information on debt securities, see Note 3 – Securities to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

Loans and Leases

Loans and leases increased $21.6 billion driven by strong demand for commercial loans, outpacing consumer loan sales and run-off. For more information on the loan portfolio, see Credit Risk Management on page 65 .

Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses

Allowance for loan and lease losses decreased $2.2 billion primarily due to the impact of improvements in credit quality from the improving economy. For additional information, see Allowance for Credit Losses on page 88 .

All Other Assets

All other assets decreased $16.7 billion driven by a decrease in other noninterest receivables, loans held-for-sale (LHFS) and derivative assets.

At December 31, 2015 , total liabilities were approximately $1.9 trillion , up $27.0 billion from December 31, 2014 , primarily driven by an increase in deposits, partially offset by declines in securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase, trading account liabilities and long-term debt.

Deposits

Deposits increased $78.3 billion due to an increase in retail deposits.

Federal Funds Purchased and Securities Loaned or Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase

Federal funds transactions involve borrowing reserve balances on a short-term basis. Securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase are collateralized borrowing transactions utilized to accommodate customer transactions, earn interest rate spreads and finance assets on the balance sheet. Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase decreased $27.0 billion due to a decrease in repurchase agreements.

Trading Account Liabilities

Trading account liabilities consist primarily of short positions in equity and fixed-income securities including U.S. Treasury and agency securities, corporate securities, and non-U.S. sovereign debt. Trading account liabilities decreased $7.2 billion primarily due to lower levels of short U.S. Treasury positions due to balance sheet repositioning activity driven by client demand within Global Markets .

Short-term Borrowings

Short-term borrowings provide an additional funding source and primarily consist of Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) short-term borrowings, notes payable and various other borrowings that generally have maturities of one year or less. Short-term

borrowings decreased $3.1 billion due to planned reductions in FHLB borrowings. For more information on short-term borrowings, see Note 10 – Federal Funds Sold or Purchased, Securities Financing Agreements and Short-term Borrowings to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

Long-term Debt

Long-term debt decreased $6.4 billion primarily due to the impact of revaluation of non-U.S. Dollar debt and changes in fair value for debt accounted for under the fair value option. These impacts were substantially offset through derivative hedge transactions. Excluding these two factors, total long-term debt remained relatively unchanged in 2015 . For more information on long-term debt, see Note 11 – Long-term Debt to the Consolidated Financial Statements .

All Other Liabilities

All other liabilities decreased $7.6 billion due to a decrease in derivative liabilities.

Shareholders' equity increased $12.7 billion driven by earnings and preferred stock issuances, partially offset by returns of capital to shareholders of $5.9 billion through common and preferred stock dividends and share repurchases, as well as a decrease in accumulated OCI due primarily to an increase in unrealized losses on available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities as a result of the increase in interest rates.

The Corporation's operating assets and liabilities support our global markets and lending activities. We believe that cash flows from operations, available cash balances and our ability to generate cash through short- and long-term debt are sufficient to fund our operating liquidity needs. Our investing activities primarily include the debt securities portfolio and loans and leases. Our financing activities reflect cash flows primarily related to customer deposits, securities financing agreements and long-term debt. For additional information on liquidity, see Liquidity Risk on page 60 .

We view net interest income and related ratios and analyses on an FTE basis, which when presented on a consolidated basis, are non-GAAP financial measures. We believe managing the business with net interest income on an FTE basis provides a more accurate picture of the interest margin for comparative purposes. To derive the FTE basis, net interest income is adjusted to reflect tax-exempt income on an equivalent before-tax basis with a corresponding increase in income tax expense. For purposes of this calculation, we use the federal statutory tax rate of 35 percent. This measure ensures comparability of net interest income arising from taxable and tax-exempt sources.

Certain performance measures including the efficiency ratio and net interest yield utilize net interest income (and thus total revenue) on an FTE basis. The efficiency ratio measures the costs expended to generate a dollar of revenue, and net interest yield measures the bps we earn over the cost of funds.

We also evaluate our business based on certain ratios that utilize tangible equity, a non-GAAP financial measure. Tangible equity represents an adjusted shareholders' equity or common shareholders' equity amount which has been reduced by goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities. These measures are used to evaluate our use of equity. In addition, profitability, relationship and investment models use both return on average tangible common shareholders' equity and return on average tangible shareholders' equity as key

measures to support our overall growth goals. These ratios are as follows:

The aforementioned supplemental data and performance measures are presented in Table 8 and Statistical Table X.

We evaluate our business segment results based on measures that utilize average allocated capital. Return on average allocated capital is calculated as net income adjusted for cost of funds and earnings credits and certain expenses related to intangibles, divided by average allocated capital. Allocated capital and the related return both represent non-GAAP financial measures.

Statistical Tables XIII, XIV and XV on pages 123 , 124 and 125 provide reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to GAAP financial measures. We believe the use of these non-GAAP financial measures provides additional clarity in assessing the results of the Corporation and our segments. Other companies may define or calculate these measures and ratios differently.