Market Risk Management

Market risk refers to exposures generated from changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. The management of market risk is overseen by the Chief Financial Officer with the advice and guidance from the

7

Asset and Liability Management Committee and its sub-committee on risk management chaired by the Vice President of Global Planning. The Company currently manages and mitigates its interest rate sensitivity through several techniques, which include, but are not limited to, changing the maturity and repricing characteristics of various balance sheet categories and by entering into interest rate swaps. The Company currently manages and mitigates its exposure to foreign currency exchange risk by entering into hedges for all material foreign currency denominated transactions. See page 54 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Market Risk Management” for additional information.

Operational Risk Management

Operational risk is the risk of direct or indirect loss resulting from inadequate or failed processes, systems, people, or exposure to external events. The Company employs several principles in the management of operational risk:

Operational risk is a normal part of business for any financial services firm. It may manifest itself in many ways, such as fraud by employees or persons outside the Company, business interruptions, errors related to processing and systems, and model errors. The risk of loss includes the potential for legal actions arising as a result of an operational deficiency or as a result of noncompliance with applicable laws or regulatory standards. The Company could also suffer financial loss, face regulatory action, not be able to service customers and suffer damages to its reputation.

The operational risk management group of the ERM department is responsible for building and implementing methodologies and supporting technology to assist business areas in the management of operational risk, as well as aggregating, analyzing and reporting the results. The individual business areas utilize Business Risk Offices staffed by associates who are trained in operational loss event collection, operational risk assessment and mitigation planning and reporting.

The key tools used in operational risk management are a risk self assessment process and an operational loss event database. The goal is to create an explicit process for risk identification and assessment to increase awareness of exposures and focus appropriate attention on important risks. Key risk exposures are identified by each business area and evaluated according to potential impact and likelihood, as well as the quality of the related controls. If appropriate, mitigation plans are developed for certain identified risks and progress is tracked against the plans. Business units are required to conduct self assessments at least annually.

There are many specialized activities designed to mitigate key operational risks facing the Company. These include a dedicated fraud management department, programs for third party supplier risk management, information security and business continuity planning, development and maintenance of required policies and procedures, and decision model analysis.

The Company also uses a comprehensive methodology to capture operational loss events. The goal is to create awareness of the Company’s risks and learn from past experience. Loss events are captured from each business area and central collection points where available. Each is valued according to a consistent methodology, and categorized according to the standard Basel subcategories for operational risk. Reporting is provided for trends of number and dollars of losses, analyses by event categories and business lines and assessments of common causes.

8

The Company maintains a system of internal control with the objective of providing proper transaction authorization and execution, safeguarding of assets from misuse or theft and ensuring the reliability of financial and other data. The internal control system is intended to provide management with timely and accurate information about the operations of the Company and has been designed to manage operational risk at appropriate levels given the Company’s financial strength, the environment in which it operates and considering factors such as competition and regulation. The Company has established procedures that are designed to ensure that policies are followed on a uniform basis. Management continually monitors and improves its internal control systems, processes and procedures to reduce the potential likelihood and impact of events related to operational risk.

The key governance forum for operational risk is the ERM Committee, described above. The committee reviews significant operational risks from self assessments, progress against mitigation plans and analyses of the Company’s operational loss event experience. In addition, key risk management initiatives and programs are reviewed by the Committee. Operational risk information is also shared with the Executive Committee, described above, and the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board of Directors. Corporate Audit Services also assesses operational risk and the related quality of internal controls and quality of risk management through its audit activities.

Legal Risk Management

Legal risk represents the risk of loss related to (i) contracts that are not properly drafted so as to strike the appropriate balance between the Company’s business interests and its legal exposure, (ii) the Company’s legal entity structure and (iii) changes in laws and regulations, whether domestic or from international jurisdictions in which the Company conducts business. The management of legal risk is overseen by the Company’s General Counsel. Due to the Company’s significant reliance on certain contractual relationships, including with its funding providers, as well as its unique corporate structure and heavily regulated industry, the Company faces significant levels of legal risk. The Company also faces risk of loss from litigation, which is primarily managed by the Company’s legal department.

Strategic Risk Management

Strategic risk is the risk to earnings or capital from operating the Company in a competitive environment. The Executive Committee, described above, is the principal management forum for discussion of strategic risk. The Company assesses strategic risk in its annual planning process, which includes both a top-down process set by the Board of Directors and a bottom-up process led by business lines. The Company also performs quarterly business reviews at the Executive Committee to compare business performance and risk assessments to plan. Consideration of strategic risk is also a vital component of due diligence when evaluating new products, ventures or markets.

Reputation Risk Management

Reputation risk represents the risk to earnings or capital arising from negative public or associate opinion. The management of reputation risk is overseen by the Executive Vice President, responsible for the Company’s corporate reputation and governance programs, with the advice and guidance of the Corporate Reputation Committee, a committee of senior management. The Company currently utilizes qualitative criteria to measure reputation risk. Several measures, both internal and external, are considered to gauge changes to the Company’s reputation and overall reputation risk and include brand market research, customer studies, internal operational loss event data and external measures.

Compliance Risk Management

Compliance risk is the risk of non-conformance to laws, rules and regulations. The management of compliance risk is overseen by the Chief Enterprise Risk Officer with the advice and guidance of the ERM Committee and its

9

sub-committee on compliance risk, chaired by the Chief Compliance Officer. The corporate compliance organization, a part of the ERM department, provides the business areas with consulting, training and assistance in the implementation of business processes to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The business areas assess compliance risk through the Company’s enterprise risk self assessment process, and conduct monitoring and remediation activities for which the compliance organization establishes standards.

Technology / Systems

Technology has been a cornerstone of IBS. We leverage information technology to develop and deliver innovative products and services to satisfy our customers’ needs.

A key part of our strategic focus is the development of efficient, flexible computer and operational systems to support complex marketing and account management strategies. We believe that the continued development and integration of these systems is an important part of our efforts to reduce costs, improve quality and provide faster, more flexible technology services. Consequently, we continuously review capabilities and develop or obtain systems, processes and competencies to meet our unique business requirements.

Funding and Liquidity

A discussion of our funding programs and liquidity has been included in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Funding” on pages 49-53.

Competition

Each of our card products is marketed to specific consumer populations across the credit spectrum. The terms of each card product are actively managed to achieve a balance between risk and expected performance. For example, card product terms typically include the ability to reprice individual accounts upwards or downwards based on the customer’s payment and other performance. In addition, since 1998, we have aggressively marketed low non-introductory rate cards to consumers with low-risk and established credit profiles to take advantage of the favorable risk return characteristics of this consumer type. Industry competitors have continuously solicited our customers with these and other similar interest rate strategies. Management believes the competition has put, and will continue to put, additional pressure on our pricing strategies.

As a marketer of credit card and other financial products, we face intense competition in all aspects of our business from numerous bank and non-bank providers of financial services. Many of these companies are substantially larger and have more resources than we do. We compete with international, national, regional and local issuers of Visa ^® and MasterCard ^® credit cards. In addition, American Express ^® , Discover Card ^® , Diner’s Club ^® and, to a certain extent, smart cards and debit cards, represent additional competition to the general purpose credit card. In general, customers are attracted to credit card issuers largely on the basis of price, credit limit and other product features, and customer loyalty is often limited. In motor vehicle finance, we face competition from banks and non-bank lenders who provide financing for dealer-originated loans. Additionally, we face competition from a small, but growing number of online automobile finance providers. We also face competition from lenders in our installment loan and other lending activities. We believe that IBS allows us to compete effectively in both our current and new markets. There can be no assurance, however, that our ability to market products and services successfully or to obtain adequate yield on our loans will not be impacted by the nature of the competition that now exists or may later develop.

In addition, some of our competitors may be substantially larger than we are, which may give those competitors advantages, including a more diversified product and customer base, operational efficiencies and more versatile technology platforms. These competitors may also consolidate with other financial institutions in ways that enhance these advantages.

10

Intellectual Property

As part of our overall and ongoing strategy to protect and enhance our intellectual property, we rely on a variety of protections, including copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents and certain restrictions on disclosure. We also undertake other measures to control access to and distribution of our other proprietary information. Despite these precautions, it may be possible for a third party to copy or otherwise obtain and use certain intellectual property or proprietary information without authorization. Our precautions may not prevent misappropriation or infringement of our intellectual property or proprietary information. In addition, our competitors also file patent applications for innovations that are used in our industry. The ability of our competitors to obtain such patents may adversely affect our ability to compete. Conversely, our ability to obtain such patents may increase our competitive advantage. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in such efforts, or that the ability of our competitors to obtain such patents may not adversely impact our financial results.

Employees

As of December 31, 2003, we employed 17,760 employees whom we refer to as “associates.” A central part of our philosophy is to attract and maintain a highly capable staff. We view current associate relations to be satisfactory. None of our associates is covered under a collective bargaining agreement.

Supervision and Regulation

General

The Bank is a banking corporation chartered under Virginia law and a member of the Federal Reserve System, the deposits of which are insured by the Bank Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). In addition to regulatory requirements imposed as a result of the Bank’s international operations (discussed below), the Bank is subject to comprehensive regulation and periodic examination by the Bureau of Financial Institutions of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (the “Bureau of Financial Institutions”), the Federal Reserve Board (the “Federal Reserve”), the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and the FDIC. The Bank is not currently a “bank” under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”), because it (i) engages only in credit card operations, (ii) does not accept demand deposits or deposits that the depositor may withdraw by check or similar means for payment to third parties or others, (iii) does not accept any savings or time deposits of less than $100,000, other than as permitted as collateral for extensions of credit, (iv) maintains only one office that accepts deposits and (v) does not engage in the business of making commercial loans. Due to the Bank’s status as a limited purpose credit card bank, our non-credit card operations must be conducted in our other operating subsidiaries, except as relates to our U.K. operations.

The Savings Bank is a federal savings bank chartered by the Office of Thrift Supervision (the “OTS”) and is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. Its deposits are insured by the Savings Association Insurance Fund of the FDIC. The Savings Bank is subject to comprehensive regulation and periodic examination by the OTS and the FDIC.

The Corporation is not currently a bank holding company under the BHCA as a result of its ownership of the Bank because the Bank is not a “bank” as defined under the BHCA. If the Bank failed to meet the credit card bank exemption criteria described above, its status as an insured depository institution would make the Corporation subject to the provisions of the BHCA, including certain restrictions as to the types of business activities in which a bank holding company and its affiliates may engage. Becoming a bank holding company under the BHCA would affect the Corporation’s ability to engage in certain non-banking businesses. In addition, for purposes of the BHCA, if the Bank failed to qualify for the credit card bank exemption, any entity that acquired direct or indirect control of the Bank and also engaged in activities not permitted for bank holding companies could be required either to discontinue the impermissible activities or to divest itself of control of the Bank.

11

As a result of the Corporation’s ownership of the Savings Bank, the Corporation is a unitary savings and loan holding company subject to regulation by the OTS and the provisions of the Savings and Loan Holding Company Act. As a unitary savings and loan holding company, the Corporation generally is not restricted under existing laws as to the types of business activities in which it may engage so long as the Savings Bank continues to meet the qualified thrift lender test (the “QTL Test”). If the Corporation ceased to be a unitary savings and loan holding company as a result of its acquisition of an additional savings institution, as a result of the failure of the Savings Bank to meet the QTL Test, or as a result of a change in control of the Savings Bank, the types of activities that the Corporation and its non-savings association subsidiaries would be able to engage in would generally be limited to those eligible for bank holding companies.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”) does not impact the permissible range of our activities; it does, however, impose some limitations on the future activities of unitary thrift holding companies. Existing unitary thrift holding companies such as the Corporation are “grandfathered” with full powers to continue and expand their current activities.

Grandfathered unitary thrift holding companies, however, may not be acquired by nonfinancial companies and maintain their grandfathered powers. In addition, if a grandfathered unitary thrift holding company is acquired by a financial company without such grandfathered rights, it may lose its ability to engage in certain non-banking activities otherwise ineligible for bank holding companies or financial holding companies.

The Corporation is also registered as a financial institution holding company under Virginia law and as such is subject to periodic examination by Virginia’s Bureau of Financial Institutions. Our automobile financing activities conducted by COAF and its subsidiaries fall under the scrutiny of the state agencies having supervisory authority under applicable sales finance laws or consumer finance laws in most states. We also face regulation in the international jurisdictions in which we conduct our business.

The Corporation has filed an application with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”) (12 U.S.C. § 1842(a)(1)) to become a bank holding company (“BHC”) as a result of the Bank’s proposal to amend its Virginia charter to remove existing restrictions on its activities and thereby permit the Bank to engage in the full range of lending, deposit-taking and other activities permissible under Virginia and federal banking laws and regulations. The Corporation also filed a notice with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1843(c)(8) to retain its nonbanking subsidiaries, including the Savings Bank and COAF, upon its conversion to a BHC. The Corporation seeks to effect this change to further diversify its financial service activities and funding base. If approved, the Corporation will register as a BHC with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and become subject to the requirements of the BHC Act, including limiting its nonbanking activities to those that are permissible for a BHC. Such activities include those that are so closely related to banking as to be incident thereto such as consumer lending and other activities that have been approved by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by regulation or order. Certain servicing activities are also permissible for a BHC if conducted for or on behalf of the BHC or any of its affiliates. Impermissible activities for BHCs include activities that are related to commerce such as retail sales of nonfinancial products. The Corporation does not engage in any significant activities impermissible for a BHC and therefore, does not anticipate an immediate change in its activities as a result of this proposal.

Informal Memorandum of Understanding

As described in the Company’s report on Form 10-Q, dated August 13, 2002, the Company entered into an informal memorandum of understanding with the bank regulatory authorities with respect to certain issues, including capital, allowance for loan losses, finance charge and fee reserve policies, procedures, systems and controls. A memorandum of understanding is characterized by regulatory authorities as an informal action that is not published or publicly available.

Effective January 29, 2004, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, the OTS, and the Bureau of Financial Institutions of the Commonwealth of Virginia terminated the informal memorandum of understanding. Like other

12

regulated financial institutions, the Company continues to be subject to regular and ongoing general and targeted regulatory exams.

Dividends and Transfers of Funds

Dividends to the Corporation from its direct and indirect subsidiaries represent a major source of funds for the Corporation to pay dividends on its stock, make payments on its debt securities and meet its other obligations. There are various federal and Virginia law limitations on the extent to which the Bank and the Savings Bank can finance or otherwise supply funds to the Corporation through dividends, loans or otherwise. These limitations include minimum regulatory capital requirements, Federal Reserve, OTS and Virginia law requirements concerning the payment of dividends out of net profits or surplus, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, Regulation W under governing transactions between an insured depository institution and its affiliates and general federal and Virginia regulatory oversight to prevent unsafe or unsound practices. In general, federal banking laws prohibit an insured depository institution, such as the Bank and the Savings Bank, from making dividend distributions if such distributions are not paid out of available earnings or would cause the institution to fail to meet applicable capital adequacy standards. In addition, the Savings Bank is required to give the OTS at least 30 days’ advance notice of any proposed dividend. Under OTS regulations, other limitations apply to the Savings Bank’s ability to pay dividends, the magnitude of which depends upon the extent to which the Savings Bank meets its regulatory capital requirements. In addition, under Virginia law, the Bureau of Financial Institutions may limit the payment of dividends by the Bank if the Bureau of Financial Institutions determines that such a limitation would be in the public interest and necessary for the Bank’s safety and soundness.

Capital Adequacy

The Bank and the Savings Bank are currently subject to capital adequacy guidelines adopted by the Federal Reserve and the OTS, respectively. For a further discussion of the capital adequacy guidelines, see page 55 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Capital Adequacy” and page 86 in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note O—Regulatory Matters”. The Bank and the Savings Bank were well capitalized under these guidelines as of December 31, 2003.

Basel Committee

In April 2003, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Committee”) issued a consultative document for public comment, “The New Basel Capital Accord,” (the “New Accord”) which proposes significant revisions to the current Basel Capital Accord. The proposed new accord would establish a three-part framework for capital adequacy that would include: (1) minimum capital requirements; (2) supervisory review of an institution’s capital adequacy and internal assessment process; and (3) market discipline through effective disclosures regarding capital adequacy.

The first part of the proposal would create options for a bank to use when determining its capital charge. The option selected by each bank would depend on the complexity of the bank’s business and the quality of its risk management. The proposed standardized approach would refine the current measurement framework and introduce the use of external credit assessments to determine a bank’s capital charge. Banks with more advanced risk management capabilities could make use of an internal risk-rating based approach (the “IRB Approach”). Under the IRB Approach, a bank could use its internal estimates to determine certain elements of credit risk, such as the loss that a borrower’s default would cause and the probability of a borrower’s default. The Committee is also proposing an explicit capital charge for operational risk to provide for risks created by processes, systems, or people, such as internal systems failure or fraud.

The second part of the proposal would establish new supervisory review requirements for capital adequacy and would seek to ensure that a bank’s capital position is consistent with its overall risk profile and strategy. The proposed supervisory review process would also encourage early supervisory intervention when a bank’s capital position deteriorates.

13

The third aspect of the proposal, market discipline, would require detailed disclosure of a bank’s capital adequacy to enhance the role of market participants in encouraging banks to hold adequate capital. Each bank would also be required to disclose how it evaluates its own capital adequacy.

It is not clear as of this date whether and in what manner the proposed new accord will be adopted by U.S. bank regulators with respect to banking organizations that they supervise and regulate. Adoption of the proposed new accord could require U.S. banking organizations, including the Company, to increase their regulatory capital.

FDICIA

Among other things, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) requires federal bank regulatory authorities to take “prompt corrective action” (“PCA”) in respect of insured depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. FDICIA establishes five capital ratio levels: well-capitalized, adequately-capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. As of December 31, 2003, each of the Bank and the Savings Bank met the requirements for a “well-capitalized” institution. The “well-capitalized” classification is determined solely for the purposes of applying FDICIA’s PCA provisions, as discussed below, and should not be viewed as describing the condition or future prospects of a depository institution, including the Bank and the Savings Bank. Were the Bank and Savings Bank to lose their status as “well-capitalized” they could be required to increase capital or lose access to deposits.

The Bank and the Savings Bank may accept brokered deposits as part of their funding. Under FDICIA, only “well-capitalized” and “adequately-capitalized” institutions may accept brokered deposits. Adequately-capitalized institutions, however, must first obtain a waiver from the FDIC before accepting brokered deposits, and such deposits may not pay rates that significantly exceed the rates paid on deposits of similar maturity from the institution’s normal market area or the national rate on deposits of comparable maturity, as determined by the FDIC, for deposits from outside the institution’s normal market area.

Liability for Commonly-Controlled Institutions

Under the “cross-guarantee” provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), insured depository institutions such as the Bank and the Savings Bank may be liable to the FDIC in respect of any loss or reasonably anticipated loss incurred by the FDIC resulting from the default of, or FDIC assistance to, any commonly controlled insured depository institution. The Bank and the Savings Bank are commonly controlled within the meaning of the FIRREA cross-guarantee provision.

Investment Limitation and Qualified Thrift Lender Test

Federally-chartered savings banks such as the Savings Bank are subject to certain investment limitations. For example, federal savings banks are not permitted to make consumer loans (i.e., certain open-end or closed-end loans for personal, family or household purposes, excluding credit card loans) in excess of 35% of the savings bank’s assets. Federal savings banks are also required to meet the QTL Test, which generally requires a savings bank to maintain at least 65% “portfolio assets” (total assets less (i) specified liquid assets up to 20% of total assets, (ii) intangibles, including goodwill and (iii) property used to conduct business) in certain “qualified thrift investments” (residential mortgages and related investments, including certain mortgage backed and mortgage related investments, small business related securities, certain state and federal housing investments, education loans and credit card loans) on a monthly basis in nine out of every twelve months. Failure to qualify under the QTL Test could subject the Savings Bank to substantial restrictions on its activities, including the activity restrictions that apply generally to bank holding companies and their affiliates and potential loss of grandfathered rights under the GLB Act. As of December 31, 2003, 83.24% of the Savings Bank’s portfolio assets were held in qualified thrift investments, and the Savings Bank was in compliance with the QTL Test.

14

Subprime Lending Guidelines

On January 31, 2001, the federal banking agencies, including the Federal Reserve and the OTS, issued “Expanded Guidance for Subprime Lending Programs” (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines, while not constituting a formal regulation, provide guidance to the federal bank examiners regarding the adequacy of capital and loan loss reserves held by insured depository institutions engaged in “subprime” lending. The Guidelines adopt a broad definition of “subprime” loans which likely covers more than one-third of all consumers in the United States. Because our business strategy is to provide credit card products and other consumer loans to a wide range of consumers, a portion of our loan assets would likely be viewed by the examiners as “subprime.” Thus, under the Guidelines, bank examiners could require the Bank or the Savings Bank to hold additional capital (up to one and one-half to three times the minimally required level of capital, as set forth in the Guidelines), or additional loan loss reserves, against such assets. As described above, as of December 31, 2003 the Bank and the Savings Bank each met the requirements for a “well-capitalized” institution. Federal examiners, however, have wide discretion as to how to apply the Guidelines and there can be no assurances that the Bank or the Savings Bank may not be required to hold additional regulatory capital against such assets.

For purposes of the Subprime Guidelines, we treat as “subprime” all loans in the Bank’s and the Savings Bank’s programs that are targeted at customers either with a Fair, Isaac and Company (“FICO”) score of 660 or below or with no FICO score. The Bank and the Savings Bank hold on average 200% of the total risk-based capital charge that would otherwise apply to such assets.

FFIEC Account Management Guidance

On January 8, 2003, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (“FFIEC”) released Account Management and Loss Allowance Guidance (the “Guidance”). The Guidance applies to all credit lending of regulated financial institutions and generally requires that banks properly manage several elements of their credit card lending programs, including line assignments, over-limit practices, minimum payment and negative amortization, workout and settlement programs, and the accounting methodology used for various assets and income items related to credit card loans.

We believe that our credit card account management and loss allowance practices are prudent and appropriate and, therefore, consistent with the Guidance. We also believe the Guidance will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. We caution, however, that similar to the Guidelines, the Guidance provides wide discretion to bank regulatory agencies in the application of the Guidance to any particular institution and its account management and loss allowance practices. Accordingly, under the Guidance, bank examiners could require changes in our account management or loss allowance practices in the future.

Regulation of Lending Activities

The activities of the Bank and the Savings Bank as consumer lenders also are subject to regulation under various federal laws, including the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”), the Community Reinvestment Act and the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, as well as under various state laws. Depending on the underlying issue and applicable law, regulators are often authorized to impose penalties for violations of these statutes and, in certain cases, to order the Bank and the Savings Bank to compensate injured borrowers. Borrowers may also have a private right of action to bring actions for certain violations. Federal bankruptcy and state debtor relief and collection laws also affect the ability of the Bank and the Savings Bank to collect outstanding balances owed by borrowers. These laws plus state sales finance laws also affect the ability of our automobile financing business to collect outstanding balances.

Privacy and Fair Credit Reporting

The GLB Act requires a financial institution to disclose its privacy policy to customers and consumers, and requires that such customers or consumers be given a choice (through an opt-out notice) to forbid the sharing of

15

nonpublic personal information about them with nonaffiliated third persons. The Corporation and the Bank each have a written privacy notice posted on the Corporation’s web site which is delivered to each of its customers when customer relationships begin, and annually thereafter, in compliance with the GLB Act. In accordance with that privacy notice, the Corporation and the Bank protect the security of information about their customers, educate their employees about the importance of protecting customer privacy, and allow their customers to remove their names from the solicitation lists they use and share with others. The Corporation and the Bank require business partners with whom they share such information to have adequate security safeguards and to abide by the redisclosure and reuse provisions of the GLB Act. The Corporation and the Bank have developed and implemented programs to fulfill the expressed requests of customers and consumers to opt out of information sharing subject to the GLB Act.

If the federal or state regulators of the financial subsidiaries establish further guidelines for addressing customer privacy issues, the Corporation and/or the Bank may need to amend their privacy policies and adapt their internal procedures. During the fourth quarter, the federal banking regulators indicated they will adopt the “Interagency Guidance on Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Customer Information and Customer Notice”, which will instruct financial institutions on how to notify their customers who are affected by a security breach at the financial institution that damages the integrity of customer information held by the financial institutions. This Guidance may encourage litigation when a security breach occurs, even if the financial institution is in compliance with security standards and follows the Guidance strictly. In addition to adopting federal requirements regarding privacy, the GLB Act also permits individual states to enact stricter laws relating to the use of customer information. California, Vermont and North Dakota have done so by statute, regulation or referendum, and other states may consider proposals which impose additional requirements or restrictions on the Corporation and/or the Bank. Like other lending institutions, the Bank utilizes credit bureau data in its underwriting activities. Use of such data is regulated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) on a uniform, nationwide basis, including credit reporting, prescreening, sharing of information between affiliates, and the use of credit data. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the “FACT Act”), which was enacted by Congress and signed into law this quarter, extends the federal preemption of the FCRA permanently, although the law authorizes states to enact identity theft laws that are not inconsistent with the conduct required by the provisions of the FACT Act. If financial institutions and credit bureaus fail to alleviate the costs and consumer frustration associated with the growing crime of identity theft, financial institutions could face increased legislative/regulatory and litigation risks.

Investment in the Corporation, the Bank and the Savings Bank

Certain acquisitions of capital stock may be subject to regulatory approval or notice under federal or Virginia law. Investors are responsible for ensuring that they do not, directly or indirectly, acquire shares of capital stock of the Corporation in excess of the amount which can be acquired without regulatory approval. The Bank and the Savings Bank are each “insured depository institutions” within the meaning of the Change in Bank Control Act. Consequently, federal law and regulations prohibit any person or company from acquiring control of the Corporation without, in most cases, prior written approval of the Federal Reserve or the OTS, as applicable. Control is conclusively presumed if, among other things, a person or company acquires more than 25% of any class of voting stock of the Corporation. A rebuttable presumption of control arises if a person or company acquires more than 10% of any class of voting stock and is subject to any of a number of specified “control factors” as set forth in the applicable regulations. Although the Bank is not a “bank” within the meaning of Virginia’s reciprocal interstate banking legislation (Chapter 15 of Title 6.1 of the Code of Virginia), it is a “bank” within the meaning of Chapter 13 of Title 6.1 of the Code of Virginia governing the acquisition of interests in Virginia financial institutions (the “Financial Institution Holding Company Act”). The Financial Institution Holding Company Act prohibits any person or entity from acquiring, or making any public offer to acquire, control of a Virginia financial institution or its holding company without making application to, and receiving prior approval from, the Bureau of Financial Institutions.

16

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”). The Patriot Act contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws as well as enhanced information collection tools and enforcement mechanics for the U.S. government, including: due diligence requirements for financial institutions that administer, maintain, or manage private bank accounts or correspondence accounts for non-U.S. persons; standards for verifying customer identification at account opening; rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering; reports by nonfinancial trades and businesses filed with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for transactions exceeding $10,000; and filing suspicious activities reports by brokers and dealers if they believe a customer may be violating U.S. laws and regulations.

The Department of Treasury in consultation with the Federal Reserve and other federal financial institution regulators has promulgated rules and regulations implementing the Patriot Act which: prohibit U.S. correspondent accounts with foreign banks that have no physical presence in any jurisdiction; require financial institutions to maintain certain records for correspondent accounts of foreign banks; require financial institutions to produce certain records relating to anti-money laundering compliance upon request of the appropriate federal banking agency; require due diligence with respect to private banking and correspondent banking accounts; facilitate information sharing between government and financial institutions, and require financial institutions to have in place an anti-money laundering program.

In addition, an implementing regulation under the Patriot Act regarding verification of customer identification by financial institutions became effective on May 30, 2003. The Corporation has implemented and will continue to implement the provisions of the Patriot Act as such provisions become effective. The Corporation currently maintains and will continue to maintain policies and procedures to comply with the Patriot Act requirements.

Interstate Taxation

Several states have passed legislation which attempts to tax the income from interstate financial activities, including credit cards, derived from accounts held by local state residents. Based on the volume of our business in these states and the nature of the legislation passed to date, we currently believe that this development will not materially affect our financial condition. The states may also consider legislation to tax income derived from transactions conducted through the Internet. We currently solicit accounts and take account information via the Internet. It is unclear at this time, however, whether and in what form any such legislation will be adopted, or if adopted, what its impact on us would be.

Legislation

Legislation has now been enacted requiring additional disclosures for credit cards and other types of consumer lending. Such legislation places additional restrictions on the practices of credit card issuers and consumer lenders generally. In addition to the FCRA and FACT Act provisions discussed above, proposals have been made to change existing federal bankruptcy laws, to expand the privacy protections afforded to customers of financial institutions, and to reform the federal deposit insurance system. It is unclear at this time whether and in what form any legislation will be adopted or, if adopted, what its impact on the Bank, the Savings Bank, COAF or the Corporation would be. Congress or individual states may in the future consider other legislation that would materially and/or adversely affect the banking or consumer lending industries.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Compliance

On July 30, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) was passed into law. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act applies to all companies that are required to file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and contains a number of significant changes relating to the responsibilities of

17

directors and officers and reporting and governance obligations of SEC reporting companies. Certain provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act were effective immediately without action by the SEC; however many provisions required the SEC to issue implementing rules and became, or will become, effective after their adoption. Following the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Company has taken steps which it believes place it in substantial compliance with the effective provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Company continues to monitor SEC rulemaking to determine if additional changes are needed to comply with provisions that will become effective in the future. Furthermore, the Company’s management has supervised the design of, or has designed, disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information regarding the Company is made known to them, particularly during the period in which this Annual Report on Form 10-K is being prepared and has evaluated the effectiveness of those controls as more fully set forth in “Controls and Procedures” below. During the course of its compliance efforts, the Company has identified changes to date, which have been made during the fourth quarter 2003 to its internal control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, as a result of this legislation and the currently effective rules issued by the SEC thereunder. The Company’s management also has disclosed to the Company’s auditors and the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board of Directors any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of its internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information, as well as any fraud, whether or not material, by those that have a significant role in these processes.

International Regulation

The Bank also faces regulation in foreign jurisdictions where it currently, and may in the future, operate. Those regulations may be similar to or substantially different from the regulatory requirements the Bank faces in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the Bank operates through the U.K. Bank, which was established in 2000. The U.K. Bank is regulated by the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) and licensed by the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”). The U.K. Bank is an “authorized deposit taker” and thus is able to take consumer deposits in the U.K. The U.K. Bank has also been granted a full license by the OFT to issue consumer credit under the U.K.’s Consumer Credit Act—1974. The FSA requires the U.K. Bank to maintain certain regulatory capital ratios at all times. The U.K. Bank obtains capital through earnings or through additional capital infusion from the Bank, subject to approval under Regulation K of the rules administered by the Federal Reserve. If the U.K. Bank is unable to generate sufficient capital in favorable terms, it may choose to restrict its growth to maintain its required capital levels. In addition, the U.K. Bank is limited by the U.K. Companies Act—1985 in its distribution of dividends to the Bank in that such dividends may only be paid out of the U.K. Bank’s “distributable profits.”

In Canada, the Bank operates a branch (the “Canadian Branch”) that is regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (“OSFI”). The Canadian Branch is a Schedule III Bank under the Canadian Bank Act, and it is subject to various banking and lending laws passed by the Canadian Parliament and various Canadian provinces. OSFI conducts periodic regulatory examinations of the Canadian Branch. The Canadian Branch may engage in the consumer lending activities conducted by the Bank, including credit card lending. The Canadian Branch is also authorized to accept deposits from Canadian customers, but does not currently do so.

As in the U.S., in non-U.S. jurisdictions where we operate, we face a risk that the laws and regulations that are applicable to us (or the interpretations of existing laws by relevant regulators) may change in ways that adversely impact our business. In December 2003, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom published a report entitled “Fair, Clear and Competitive: The Consumer Credit Market in the 21 ^st Century” which sets forth a number of government goals for reform to the consumer credit industry (which includes credit cards, loans and overdrafts.) This report sets out a recommended schedule for legislative and regulatory reform throughout 2004. At this time, we cannot predict the extent to which the recommendations would be implemented or, if implemented, how such changes would impact us. There can be no assurance that either the reforms, or the desired legislative reform schedule set forth in the report will be met. In addition, there is a

18

current examination by the OFT of whether the levels of interchange paid by retailers in respect of MasterCard credit and charge cards in the U.K. are too high. The preliminary conclusion of this examination is that they are too high which could, if not changed or if agreement is reached on a lower level of interchange, adversely affect the yield on U.K. credit card portfolios, including ours, and could therefore adversely impact our earnings. The European Commission has also concluded an examination of the level of cross-border interchange with the European Union in respect of VISA credit and charge cards and its findings will lead to a phased reduction in the rate of interchange to be paid by retailers in the future. Other U.K. legal developments include communications with the United Kingdom office of fair trading as to its interpretation of consumer credit law which could lead to changes in the lending agreements from time to time.

19

RISK FACTORS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. We also may make written or oral forward-looking statements in our periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Forms 10-Q and 8-K, in our annual report to shareholders, in our proxy statements, in our offering circulars and prospectuses, in press releases and other written materials and in statements made by our officers, directors or employees to third parties. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements about our beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include information relating to our future earnings per share, growth in managed loans outstanding, product mix, segment growth, managed revenue margin, funding costs, operations costs, employment growth, marketing expense, delinquencies and charge-offs. Forward-looking statements also include statements using words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “hope,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “estimate” or similar expressions. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current plans, estimates and projections, and you should not unduly rely on them.

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including the risks discussed below. Our future performance and actual results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Many of the factors that will determine these results and values are beyond our ability to control or predict. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. You should carefully consider the factors discussed below in evaluating these forward-looking statements.

This section highlights specific risks that could affect our business and us. Although we have tried to discuss key factors, please be aware that other risks may prove to be important in the future. New risks may emerge at any time and we cannot predict such risks or estimate the extent to which they may affect our financial performance. In addition to the factors discussed elsewhere in this report, among the other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially are the following:

We Face Strategic Risks in Sustaining Our Growth and Pursuing Diversification

Our growth strategy is threefold. First, we seek to continue to grow our domestic credit card business, and in particular to grow our upmarket business more quickly than our “subprime” business. Second, we desire to continue to build and grow our automobile finance business. Third, we hope to continue to diversify our business, both geographically and in product mix, by growing our lending business, including credit cards, internationally, principally in the United Kingdom and Canada, and by identifying, pursuing and expanding new business opportunities, such as installment lending. Our ability to grow is driven by the success of our fundamental business plan and our earnings may be adversely affected by our increased focus on upmarket growth (because of the potentially lower margins on such accounts), the level of our investments in new businesses or regions and our ability to successfully apply IBS to new businesses. This risk has many components, including:

20

We Face Intense Competition in All of Our Markets

We face intense competition from many other providers of credit cards and other consumer financial products and services. In particular, in our credit card activities, we compete with international, national, regional and local bank card issuers, with other general purpose credit or charge card issuers, and to a certain extent, issuers of smart cards and debit cards and providers of other types of financial services (such as home equity lines and other products). We face similar competitive markets in our auto financing and installment loan activities as well as in our international markets. Thus, the cost to acquire new accounts will continue to vary among product lines and may rise. In addition, the GLB Act, which permits greater affiliations between banks, securities firms and insurance companies, may increase competition in the financial services industry, including in the credit card business. Increased competition has resulted in, and may continue to cause, a decrease in credit card response rates and reduced productivity of marketing dollars invested in certain lines of business. Other credit card companies may compete with us for customers by offering lower interest rates and fees and/or higher credit limits. Because customers generally choose credit card issuers based on price (primarily interest rates and fees), credit limit and other product features, customer loyalty is limited. We may lose entire accounts, or may lose account balances, to competing card issuers. Our auto financing and installment products also face intense competition on the basis of price. Customer attrition from any or all of our products, together with any lowering of interest rates or fees that we might implement to retain customers, could reduce our revenues and therefore our earnings. We expect that competition will continue to grow more intense with respect to most of our products, including the products we offer internationally.

In addition, some of our competitors may be substantially larger than we are, which may give those competitors advantages, including a more diversified product and customer base, operational efficiencies and more versatile technology platforms. These competitors may also consolidate with other financial institutions in ways that enhance these advantages.

We Face Risk From Economic Downturns

Delinquencies and credit losses in the consumer finance industry generally increase during economic downturns or recessions. Likewise, consumer demand may decline during an economic downturn or recession. Accordingly, an economic downturn (either local or national), can hurt our financial performance as accountholders default on their loans or, in the case of credit card accounts, carry lower balances. Furthermore, because our business model is to lend across the credit spectrum, we make loans to lower credit quality customers. These customers generally have higher rates of charge-offs and delinquencies than do higher credit quality customers. Additionally, as we increasingly market our cards internationally, an economic downturn or recession outside the United States also could hurt our financial performance.

Reputational Risk and Social Factors May Impact our Results

Our ability to originate and maintain accounts is highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of our financial health and business practices. To this end, we carefully monitor internal and external developments for areas of

21

potential reputational risk and have established a Corporate Reputation Committee, a committee of senior management, to assist in evaluating such risks in our business practices and decisions. We have also aggressively pursued a campaign to enhance our brand image and awareness in recent years. Adverse developments in our brand campaign or in any of the areas described above, however, could damage our reputation in both the customer and funding markets, leading to difficulties in generating and maintaining accounts as well as in financing them. Adverse impacts on our reputation may also create difficulties with our regulators.

A variety of social factors may cause changes in credit card and other consumer finance use, payment patterns and the rate of defaults by accountholders and borrowers. These social factors include changes in consumer confidence levels, the public’s perception of the use of credit cards and other consumer debt, and changing attitudes about incurring debt and the stigma of personal bankruptcy and consumer concerns about the practices of certain lenders perceived as participating primarily in the “subprime” market. Our goal is to manage these risks through our underwriting criteria and product design, but these tools may not be sufficient to protect our growth and profitability during a sustained period of economic downturn or recession or a material shift in social attitudes.

We May Face Limited Availability of Financing, Variation in Our Funding Costs and Uncertainty in Our Securitization Financing

In general, the amount, type and cost of our funding, including financing from other financial institutions, the capital markets and deposits, directly impacts our expense in operating our business and growing our assets and therefore, can positively or negatively affect our financial results. A number of factors could make such financing more difficult, more expensive or unavailable on any terms both domestically and internationally (where funding transactions may be on terms more or less favorable than in the United States), including, but not limited to, financial results and losses, changes within our organization, specific events that adversely impact our reputation, changes in the activities of our business partners, disruptions in the capital markets, counter-party availability, changes affecting our assets, our corporate and regulatory structure, interest rate fluctuations, ratings agencies actions, general economic conditions and accounting and regulatory changes and relations. Our funding risks have been heightened, in particular, due to market perceptions of our lower unsecured debt rating compared to other credit card issuers and the proportion of certain accounts in our loan portfolio viewed by some as “subprime.” In addition, our ability to raise funds is strongly affected by the general state of the U.S. and world economies, and may become increasingly difficult due to economic and other factors.

The securitization of consumer loans, which involves the legal sale of beneficial interests in consumer loan balances, is one of our major sources of funding. The consumer asset-backed securitization market in the United States currently exceeds $1.4 trillion, with approximately $514.0 billion issued in 2003. We are a leading issuer in these markets, which have remained stable through adverse conditions. As of December 31, 2003, we had $44.2 billion of securitization funding outstanding, comprising 57% of our total managed liabilities. Despite the size and relative stability of these markets and our position as a leading issuer, if these markets experience difficulties we may be unable to securitize our loan receivables or to do so at favorable pricing levels. Factors affecting our ability to securitize our loan receivables or to do so at favorable pricing levels include the overall credit quality of our securitized loans, the stability of the market for securitization transactions, and the legal, regulatory, accounting and tax environments governing securitization transactions. If we were unable to continue to securitize our loan receivables at current levels, we would use our investment securities and money market instruments in addition to alternative funding sources to fund increases in loan receivables and meet our other liquidity needs. The resulting change in our current liquidity sources could potentially subject us to certain risks. These risks would include an increase in our cost of funds, an increase in the reserve for possible credit losses and the provision for possible credit losses as more loans would remain on our consolidated balance sheet, and lower loan growth, if we were unable to find alternative and cost-effective funding sources. Also, if we could not continue to remove the loan receivables from the balance sheet we would possibly need to raise additional capital to support loan and asset growth and potentially provide additional credit enhancement.

22

In addition, the occurrence of certain events may cause the securitization transactions to amortize earlier than scheduled, which would accelerate the need for additional funding. This early amortization could, among other things, have a significant effect on the ability of the Bank and the Savings Bank to meet the capital adequacy requirements as all off-balance sheet loans experiencing such early amortization would have to be recorded on the balance sheet. See page 52 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity Risk Management” of this form.

We May Experience Changes in Our Debt Ratings

In general, ratings agencies play an important role in determining, by means of the ratings they assign to issuers and their debt, the availability and cost of wholesale funding. We currently receive ratings from several ratings entities for our secured and unsecured borrowings. As private entities, ratings agencies have broad discretion in the assignment of ratings. A rating below investment grade typically reduces availability and increases the cost of market-based funding, both secured and unsecured. A debt rating of Baa3 or higher by Moody’s Investors Service, or BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, is considered investment grade. Currently, all three ratings agencies rate the unsecured senior debt of the Bank as investment grade. Two of the three ratings agencies rate the unsecured senior debt of the Corporation investment grade, with Standard & Poor’s assigning a rating of BB+, or one level below investment grade.

Because we depend on the capital markets for funding and capital, we could experience reduced availability and increased cost of funding if our debt ratings were lowered. This result could make it difficult for us to grow at or to a level we currently anticipate. The immediate impact of a ratings downgrade on other sources of funding, however, would be limited, as deposit funding and pricing is not generally determined by corporate debt ratings. The Savings Bank is authorized to engage in a full range of deposit-taking activities, but our ability to use deposits as a source of funding is generally regulated by federal laws and regulations. Likewise, our various credit facilities do not contain covenants that could be triggered by a ratings downgrade, although the pricing of any borrowings under these facilities is linked to these ratings.

We compete for funding with other banks, savings banks and similar companies. Some of these institutions are publicly traded. Many of these institutions are substantially larger, have more capital and other resources and have better debt ratings than we do. In addition, as some of these competitors consolidate with other financial institutions, these advantages may increase. Competition from these institutions may increase our cost of funds. Events that disrupt capital markets and other factors beyond our control could also make our funding sources more expensive or unavailable.

We Face Exposure from Our Unused Customer Credit Lines

Because we offer our customers credit lines, the full amount of which is most often not used, we have exposure to these unfunded lines of credit. These credit lines could be used to a greater extent than our historical experience would predict. If actual use of these lines were to materially exceed predicted line usage, we would need to raise more funding than anticipated in our current funding plans. It could be difficult to raise such funds, either at all, or at favorable rates.

Our Accounts and Loan Balances Can Be Volatile

Changes in our aggregate accounts or consumer loan balances and the growth rate and composition thereof, including changes resulting from factors such as shifting product mix, amount of actual marketing expenses and

23

attrition of accounts and loan balances, can have a material adverse effect on our financial results. The number of accounts and aggregate total of loan balances of our consumer loan portfolio (including the rate at which it grows) will be affected by a number of factors, including the level of our marketing investment, how we allocate such marketing investment among different products, the rate at which customers transfer their accounts and loan balances to us or away from us to competing lenders. Such accounts and loan balances are also affected by our desire to avoid unsustainable growth rates, and general economic conditions, which may increase or decrease the amount of spending by our customers and affect their ability to repay their loans, and other factors beyond our control.

We Face Risk Related to the Strength of our Operational and Organizational Infrastructure

Our ability to grow is also dependent on our ability to build or acquire the necessary operational and organizational infrastructure, manage expenses as we expand, and recruit management and operations personnel with the experience to run an increasingly complex business. Similar to other large corporations, operational risk can manifest itself at Capital One in many ways, such as errors related to failed or inadequate processes, faulty or disabled computer systems, fraud by employees or persons outside the Company and exposure to external events. We are subject to business interruptions arising from events either partially or completely beyond our control such as disruption in the U.S. Postal Service that could adversely impact our response rates and consumer payments. Failure to build and maintain the necessary operational infrastructure can lead to risk of loss of service to customers, legal actions or noncompliance with applicable laws or regulatory standards. Although we have devoted and will continue to devote resources to building and maintaining our operational infrastructure, including our system of internal control, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer losses from operational risks in the future.

We May Experience Increased Delinquencies and Credit Losses

Like other credit card lenders and providers of consumer financing, we face the risk that our customers will not repay their loans. A customer’s failure to repay is generally preceded by missed payments. In some instances, a customer may declare bankruptcy prior to missing payments, although this is not generally the case. Customers who declare bankruptcy frequently do not repay credit card or other consumer loans. Where we have collateral, we attempt to seize it when customers default on their loans. The value of the collateral may not equal the amount of the unpaid loan and we may be unsuccessful in recovering the remaining balance from our customers. Rising delinquencies and rising rates of bankruptcy are often precursors of future charge-offs. High charge-off rates may hurt our overall financial performance if we are unable to raise revenue to compensate for these losses, may adversely impact the performance of our securitizations, and may increase our cost of funds.

Our ability to assess the credit worthiness of our customers may diminish. We market our products to a wide range of customers including those with less experience with credit products and those with a history of missed payments. We select our customers, manage their accounts and establish prices and credit limits using proprietary models and other techniques designed to accurately predict future charge-offs. Our goal is to set prices and credit limits such that we are appropriately compensated for the credit risk we accept for both high and low risk customers. We face a risk that the models and approaches we use to select, manage, and underwrite our customers may become less predictive of future charge-offs due to changes in the competitive environment or in the economy. Intense competition, a weak economy, or even falling interest rates can adversely affect our actual charge-offs and our ability to accurately predict future charge-offs. These factors may cause both a decline in the ability and willingness of our customers to repay their loans and an increase in the frequency with which our lower risk customers defect to more attractive, competitor products. In our auto finance business, declining used-car prices reduce the value of our collateral and can adversely affect charge-offs. We attempt to mitigate these risks by adopting a conservative approach to our predictions of future charge-offs. Nonetheless, there can be no assurance that we will be able to accurately predict charge-offs, and our failure to do so may adversely affect our profitability and ability to grow.

24

The trends that have caused the reduction of charge-offs over the course of 2003 may not continue. In 2003, we increased the proportion of lower-risk borrowers in our portfolio and increased the proportion of lower risk asset classes, like auto loans, relative to credit cards. In addition, in 2003, our managed loan portfolio grew 19%. Especially in the credit card business, higher growth rates cause lower charge-offs. This is primarily driven by lower charge-offs in the first six to eight months of the life of a pool of new accounts. Finally, the U.S. economy improved over the course of the year. There can be no assurance that these trends will continue in the future.

We hold an allowance for expected losses inherent in our existing reported loan portfolio as provided for by the applicable accounting rules. There can be no assurance, however, that such allowances will be sufficient to account for actual losses. We record charge-offs according to accounting practices consistent with accounting and regulatory guidelines and rules. These rules could change and cause our charge-offs to increase for reasons unrelated to the underlying performance of our portfolio. Unless offset by other changes, this could reduce our profits. See “Credit Risk Management” above.

We Face Market Risk of Interest Rate and Exchange Rate Fluctuations

Like other financial institutions, we borrow money from institutions and depositors, which we then lend to customers. We earn interest on the consumer loans we make, and pay interest on the deposits and borrowings we use to fund those loans. Changes in these two interest rates affect the value of our assets and liabilities. If the rate of interest we pay on our borrowings increases more than the rate of interest we earn on our loans, our net interest income, and therefore our earnings, could fall. Our earnings could also be hurt if the rates on our consumer loans fall more quickly than those on our borrowings.

However, our goal is generally to maintain an interest rate neutral or “matched” position, where interest rates and exchange rates on loans and borrowings or foreign currencies go up or down by the same amount and at the same time so that interest rate and exchange rate changes for loans or borrowings or foreign currencies will not affect our earnings. The financial instruments and techniques we use to manage the risk of interest rate and exchange rate fluctuations, such as asset/liability matching and interest rate and exchange rate swaps and hedges and some forward exchange contracts, may not always work successfully or may not be available at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, if these techniques become unavailable or impractical, our earnings could be subject to volatility and decreases as interest rates and exchange rates change.

We also manage these risks partly by changing the interest rates we charge on our credit card accounts. The success of repricing accounts to match an increase or decrease in our borrowing rates depends on the overall product mix of such accounts, the actual amount of accounts repriced, the rate at which we are originating new accounts and our ability to retain accounts (and the related loan balances) after repricing. For example, if we increase the interest rate we charge on our credit card accounts and the accountholders close their accounts as a result, we may not be able to match our increased borrowing costs as quickly, if at all.

Changes in interest rates also affect the balances our customers carry on their credit cards and affect the rate of pre-payment for installment loan products. When interest rates fall, there may be more low-rate product alternatives available to our customers. Consequently, their credit card balances may fall and pre-payment rates may rise. We can mitigate this risk by reducing the interest rates we charge or by refinancing installment loan products. However, these changes can reduce the overall yield on our portfolio if we do not adequately provide for them in our interest rate hedging strategies. When interest rates rise, there are fewer low-rate alternatives available to customers. Consequently, credit card balances may rise (or fall more slowly) and pre-payment rates on installment lending products may fall. In this circumstance, we may have to raise additional funds at higher interest rates. In our credit card business, we can mitigate this risk by increasing the interest rates we charge, although such changes may increase opportunities for our competitors to offer attractive products to our customers and consequently increase customer attrition from our portfolio. See page 54 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Interest Rate Risk Management” of this form.

25

We Face the Risk of a Complex and Changing Regulatory and Legal Environment

Due to our significant reliance on certain contractual relationships, including our funding providers, as well as our unique corporate structure and heavily regulated industry, we face a risk of loss due to legal contracts, aspects of or changes in our legal structure, and changes in laws and regulations. We also are subject to an array of banking, consumer lending and deposit laws and regulations that apply to almost every element of our business. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in financial, structural and operational penalties, including receivership. In addition, efforts to comply with these laws and regulations may increase our costs and/or limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities. See “Supervision and Regulation” above.

Federal and state laws and rules, as well as accounting rules and rules to which we are subject in foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct business, significantly limit the types of activities in which we may engage. For example, federal and state consumer protection laws and rules, and laws and rules of foreign jurisdictions where we conduct business, limit the manner in which we may offer and extend credit. From time to time, the U.S. Congress, the states and foreign governments consider changing these laws and may enact new laws or amend existing laws to regulate further the consumer lending industry. Such new laws or rules could limit the amount of interest or fees we can charge, restrict our ability to collect on account balances, or materially affect us or the banking or credit card industries in some other manner. Additional federal, state and foreign consumer protection legislation also could seek to expand the privacy protections afforded to customers of financial institutions and restrict our ability to share or receive customer information.

The laws governing bankruptcy and debtor relief, in the U.S. or in foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct business, also could change, making it more expensive or more difficult for us to collect from our customers. Congress has recently considered, and the House of Representatives has passed, legislation that would change the existing federal bankruptcy laws. One intended purpose of this legislation is to increase the collectibility of unsecured debt; however, it is not clear whether or in what form Congress may adopt this legislation and we cannot predict how the final version of this legislation may affect us, if passed into law.

In addition, banking regulators possess broad discretion to issue or revise regulations, or to issue guidance, which may significantly impact us. In 2001, regulators restricted the ability of two of our competitors to provide further credit to higher risk customers due principally to supervisory concerns over rising charge-off rates and capital adequacy. We cannot, however, predict whether and how any new guidelines issued or other regulatory actions taken by the banking regulators will be applied to the Bank or the Savings Bank or the resulting effect on the Corporation, the Bank or the Savings Bank. In addition, certain state and federal regulators are considering or have approved rules affecting certain practices of “subprime” mortgage lenders. There can also be no assurance that these regulators will not also consider or approve additional rules with respect to “subprime” credit card lending or, if so, how such rules would be applied to or affect the Corporation, the Bank or the Savings Bank.

Furthermore, various federal and state agencies and standard-setting bodies may from time to time consider changes to accounting rules or standards that could impact our business practices or funding transactions.

In addition, existing laws and rules in the U.S., at the state level, and in the foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct operations, are complex. If we fail to comply with them, we may not be able to collect our loans in full, or we might be required to pay damages or penalties to our customers. For these reasons, new or changes in existing laws or rules could hurt our profits.

Fluctuations in Our Expenses and Other Costs May Hurt Our Financial Results

Our expenses and other costs, such as human resources and marketing expenses, directly affect our earnings results. Many factors can influence the amount of our expenses, as well as how quickly they grow. For example, further increases in postal rates or termination of our negotiated service arrangement with the United States Postal Service could raise our costs for postal service, which is a significant component of our expenses for

26

marketing and for servicing our 47.0 million accounts as of December 31, 2003. As our business develops, changes or expands, additional expenses can arise from asset purchases, structural reorganization, a reevaluation of business strategies and/or expenses to comply with new or changes laws or regulations. Other factors that can affect the amount of our expenses include legal and administrative cases and proceedings, which can be expensive to pursue or defend. In addition, changes in accounting policies can significantly affect how we calculate expenses and earnings.

Statistical Information

The statistical information required by Item 1 can be found in Item 6 “Selected Financial Data”, Item 7 “Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”, as follows: