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 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 51 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.

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 key governance forum for operational risk is the ERM Committee, described above. The Committee reviews significant operational risks from business unit 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 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.

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, quantifying, 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, an operational loss event database and economic capital quantification. 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. This data is combined with scenario analyses to quantify economic capital for operational risk. The capital methodology is intended to create incentives for business areas to improve their control environments.

8

Table of Contents

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.

Legal Risk Management

Legal risk represents the risk of loss related to (i) new and changed laws and regulations, (ii) interpretations of law, (iii) the Company’s legal entity structure and (iv) the drafting of contracts. The management of legal risk, domestically and internationally, 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 evolving 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 for 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 acquisitions or 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 of Corporate Reputation and Governance with the advice and guidance of the Corporate Reputation Committee, a committee of senior management. The Company currently utilizes qualitative criteria to assess 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 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

We leverage information technology to achieve our business objectives and to develop and deliver products and services that 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 and the development of new and diversified products. 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. As part of our continuous efforts to review and

9

Table of Contents

improve our technologies, we may either develop such capabilities internally or rely on third party outsourcers who have the ability to deliver technology that is of higher quality, lower cost, or both. Over time, we have increasingly relied on third party outsourcers to help us deliver systems and operational infrastructure.

Funding a nd 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 47-51.

Competi tion

Each of our credit card and other financial products is marketed to specific consumer populations across the credit spectrum. The terms of each product are actively managed to achieve a balance between risk and expected performance. For example, credit 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 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 interest rate strategies. Management believes the competition has put, and will continue to put, additional pressure on our pricing and general product feature 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. In addition, our industry has experienced substantial consolidation and may continue to do so; this consolidation continues to create competitors who are larger and have more resources than we do. In addition, such consolidated and/or larger competitors may have a more diversified product and customer base, operational efficiencies and more versatile technology platforms than we do. Consolidation has, and may continue, to increase competitive pressures on both us and other companies in our industry.

We compete with international, national, regional and local issuers of Visa ^® and MasterCard ^® credit cards. In addition, American Express ^® , Discover Card ^® 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, small business and other lending businesses. We believe that our 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, broad-based local distribution capabilities, lower cost funding and more versatile technology platforms. These competitors may also consolidate with other financial institutions in ways that enhance these advantages.

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

10

Table of Contents

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, 2004, we employed 14,481 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

On July 6, 2004, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System approved the Corporation’s application 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 made this change to allow for a more efficient corporate structure and rationalized funding base. On October 1, 2004, the Corporation registered as a BHC with the Federal Reserve and became 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 a significant change in its activities as a result of this change in legal structure.

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 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 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. The Corporation’s 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. The Corporation also faces regulation in the international jurisdictions in which it conducts business.

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.

11

Table of Contents

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, without first obtaining regulatory approval, 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. 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 Company, 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 pages 52-53 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Capital Adequacy” and pages 82-83 in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 15—Regulatory Matters”. The Bank and the Savings Bank were well capitalized under these guidelines as of December 31, 2004.

Basel Committee

On May 11, 2004, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Committee”) announced that it has achieved consensus on the new Basel Capital Accord (“Basel II”), which proposes establishment of a new framework of capital adequacy for banking organizations; the Committee published the text of the framework on July 26, 2004. Despite the release of the Basel II framework, it is not clear at this time whether and in what manner the new accord will be adopted by bank regulators with respect to banking organizations that they supervise and regulate. Although the Committee’s stated intent is that Basel II will not change the amount of overall capital in the global banking system, adoption of the proposed new accord could require individual banking organizations, including the Company, to increase the minimum level of capital held. The Company will continue to closely monitor regulatory action on this matter and assess the potential impact to the Company.

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”) with respect to 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, 2004, 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,

12

Table of Contents

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 with respect to 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, 2004, 81% of the Savings Bank’s portfolio assets were held in qualified thrift investments, and the Savings Bank was in compliance with the QTL Test.

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, 2004 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 requirement 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

13

Table of Contents

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 caution, however, that similar to the subprime 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, and such changes could have an adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operation.

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 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. 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 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 in 2004, 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

14

Table of Contents

institutions could face increased legislative/regulatory and litigation risks. In addition, federal regulators are still in the process of promulgating regulations under the FACT Act; there can be no assurance that such regulations, when enacted, will not have an adverse impact on the Company.

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.

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; require verification of customer identification, and require financial institutions to have in place an anti-money laundering program.

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.

15

Table of Contents

Legislation

Legislation has 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, restrict certain consumer lending practices, expand the privacy protections afforded to customers of financial institutions, and 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 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, many of which have now been issued, and became, or will become, effective after their adoption. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”), a private sector, non-profit corporation whose mission is to oversee the auditors of public companies. The PCAOB recommends rulemaking to the SEC and sets certain standards for the auditors which it oversees. Since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Company has taken a variety of 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 and PCAOB activities to determine if additional changes are needed to comply with provisions that may become effective in the future. Furthermore, the Company’s management has supervised the design of, or has designed, internal controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurances regarding the reliability of its financial reporting and 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. The Company has, in compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, certified, in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K, that it did not discover, during the execution of its internal control processes, any material weaknesses. In addition, 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 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.”

16

Table of Contents

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 not authorized to accept retail deposits from Canadian customers.

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 the United Kingdom, in connection with the December 2003 Government report, “Fair, Clear and Competitive: The Consumer Credit Market in the 21 ^st Century”, the introduction of the Consumer Credit (Amendment) Bill in Parliament was confirmed on November 23, 2004. The Bill is likely to come into force in April 2006 and is expected to cover the following areas: the creation of an “unfair relationship” test for credit agreements, the creation of alternative dispute resolution options for credit agreements, a requirement on lenders to provide annual statements to borrowers outlining the full amount owed and warnings about making only minimum repayments, and a stricter licensing regime that would give the OFT new powers to fine lenders for their behavior. At this time, we cannot predict the extent to which the provisions of the draft bill will remain in the final statute, or, if implemented, how such changes would impact us. In addition, there is a 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 OFT has also launched a similar investigation into Visa interchange fees. The preliminary conclusion of the MasterCard examination is that the levels of interchange 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. Other U.K. legal developments include communications with the OFT as to its interpretation of consumer credit law which could lead to changes in the lending agreements from time to time. The OFT is carrying out an industry wide investigation into alleged unfair contract terms in lending agreements and questioning how the Company calculates default charges, such as late, overlimit and returned check fees, in the U.K. The OFT asserts that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 render unenforceable consumer lending agreement terms relating to default charges to the extent that the charge is disproportionately high in relation to the actual cost of the default to the Company. The OFT must seek an agreement with the Company to change its practice or, if this is not possible, obtain a court injunction to prevent the continued use of the alleged unfair term. In February 2005, the Company received a letter from the OFT indicating the OFT is challenging the basis on which the Company calculates its default charges in the U.K. In the event the OFT’s view prevails, the Company’s default charges in the U.K. could be significantly reduced. In addition, should the OFT prevail in its challenge, the Company may also be subject to claims from Customers seeking reimbursement of default charges. The Company is assessing the OFT challenge and cannot state what its eventual outcome will be. Any potential impact could vary based on business strategies or other actions the Company takes to attempt to limit the impact.

In December 2004 the U.K. Bank formally applied to the FSA and Banque de France for permission to close the French Branch as one step in a series of linked events comprising COBEP’s orderly and controlled exit from the French market. All regulatory requirements for the closure of the French Branch have now been met. The U.K. Bank sold its French loan assets to Médiatis SA (“Médiatis”) on 1st October 2004. Since ownership of the loan portfolio was transferred to Médiatis, the U.K. Bank is no longer responsible for portfolio. The U.K. Bank is now providing administrative services to Médiatis. The migration of these services is planned to be completed by the end of March 2005.

17

Table of Contents

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 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. We also compete with providers of other types of financial services and consumer loans such as home equity lines and other mortgage related products that offer consumers debt consolidation. We face similar competitive markets in our auto financing, small business lending, home loan lending 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. Other credit card companies may compete with us for customers by offering lower interest rates and fees, higher credit limits and/or customer services or product features that are more attractive than those we offer. Because customers generally choose credit card issuers (or other sources of financing) based on price (primarily interest rates and fees), credit limit and other product features, customer loyalty is limited. 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. Competition may also have an impact on customer attrition as our customers accept offers from other credit card lenders and/or providers of other consumer lending products, such as home equity financing.

Our diversified lending businesses, including auto lending, small business lending, home loan lending and installment loans business also compete on a similar variety of factors, including price, product features and customer service. These businesses may also experience a decline in marketing efficiency and/or customer attrition. 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, broad-based local distribution capabilities, lower-cost funding and more versatile technology platforms. These

18

Table of Contents

competitors may also consolidate with other financial institutions in ways that enhance these advantages and intensify our competitive environment. In addition, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”), which permits greater affiliations between banks, securities firms and insurance companies, may increase competition in the financial services industry.

In such a competitive environment, we may lose entire accounts, or may lose account balances, to competing financial institutions, or find it more costly to maintain our existing customer base. 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 our diversified products and the products we offer internationally.

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. 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 branch banking, small business lending and other consumer loan products, including home loan lending and installment lending. Our ability to grow is driven by the success of our fundamental business plan and our revenue may be adversely affected by our continuing diversification and bias toward lower loss assets (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:

We May Experience Increased Delinquencies and Credit Losses

Like other credit card lenders and providers of consumer and other 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 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

19

Table of Contents

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 and may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses. Higher charge-off rates and an increase in our allowance for loan losses 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 fairway 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.

The trends that caused the reduction of charge-offs over the course of 2004 may not continue. During that time, 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 2004, our managed loan portfolio continued to grow. Especially in the credit card business, higher growth rates cause lower charge-off rates in the near term. 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, although the U.S. economy has been improving, 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 guidelines and rules, including among other things, the FFIEC Account Management Guidance, 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.

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 and other external perceptions of our business practices or our financial health. Adverse perceptions regarding our business practices or our financial health could damage our reputation in both the customer and funding markets, leading to difficulties in

20

Table of Contents

generating and maintaining accounts as well as in financing them. Adverse developments with respect to the consumer or other external perceptions regarding the practices of our competitors, or our industry as a whole, may also adversely impact our reputation. In addition, adverse reputational impacts on third parties with whom we have important relationships, such as our independent auditors, may also adversely impact our reputation. Adverse impacts on our reputation, or the reputation of our industry, may also result in greater regulatory and/or legislative scrutiny, which may lead to laws or regulations that change or constrain the manner in which we engage with our customers and the products we offer them. Adverse reputational impacts or events may also increase our litigation risk. See “We face a Risk of a Complex and Changing Regulatory and Legal Environment”, below. To this end, we carefully monitor internal and external developments for areas of 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.

In addition, 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. Our goal is to manage these risks through a variety of tools such as 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 Face Risk Related to the Strength of our Operational, Technology 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. In addition, we outsource some of our operational functions to third parties; these third parties may experience similar errors or disruptions that could adversely impact us and over which we may have limited control. As we increase the amount of our operational infrastructure that we outsource to third parties, we increase our exposure to this risk. 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. In addition, to the extent we experience failures in our ability to build necessary infrastructure, we may experience financial losses related to the write-downs of infrastructure assets. Although we have devoted and will continue to devote resources to building and maintaining our operational infrastructure, including our system of internal controls, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer losses from operational risks in the future. In addition, although we take steps to retain our existing management talent and recruit new talent as needed, we face a competitive market for such talent and there can be no assurance that we will continue to be able to maintain and build a management team capable of running our increasingly large and complex business.

Our ability to grow and compete is also dependent on the strength and capability of our technology systems, which we use both to interface with our customers and to manage our internal financial and other systems. Our ability to develop and deliver new products that meet the needs of our existing customers and attract new ones depends on the functionality of our technology systems. In addition, our ability to develop and implement effective marketing campaigns also depends on our technology. Although we continuously assess and invest in the strength and capability of our technology to meet both our short and long-term needs, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully do so, or do so with sustainable costs.

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.

21

Table of Contents

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, specific events that adversely impact the financial services industry, counter-party availability, changes affecting our assets, our corporate and regulatory structure, interest rate fluctuations, ratings agencies actions, general economic conditions and the legal, regulatory, accounting and tax environments governing our funding transactions. 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. Also, we compete for funding with other banks, savings banks and similar companies, some of which 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.

In addition, we are substantially dependent on the securitization of consumer loans, which involves the legal sale of beneficial interests in consumer loan balances and is a unique funding market. 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. If we were unable to continue to securitize our loan receivables at current levels, we would use alternative funding sources to fund increases in loan receivables and meet our other liquidity needs. If we were unable to find cost-effective and stable alternatives, it could negatively impact our liquidity and potentially subject us to certain risks. These risks would include an increase in our cost of funds, an increase in the allowance for loan losses and the provision for possible credit losses as more loans would remain on our consolidated balance sheet, and lower loan growth.

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 pages 49-51 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity Risk Management” contained in the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

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 and the Corporation as investment grade. The following chart shows ratings for Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank as of December 31, 2004. As of that date, the ratings outlooks were as follows:

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

22

Table of Contents

to a level we currently anticipate. The immediate impact of a ratings downgrade on other sources of funding, however, would be limited, as our deposit funding and pricing, as well as some of our unsecured corporate borrowing, is not generally determined by corporate debt ratings.

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.

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.

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 for installment loan products 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 could, subject to legal and competitive constraints, 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. Rising interest rates across the industry may also lead to higher delinquencies as customers face increasing interest payments both on our products and on other loans they may hold. See pages 51-52 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Interest Rate Risk Management” contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

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

We operate in a heavily regulated industry and are therefore 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

23

Table of Contents

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 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. In addition, we are subject to a wide array of other laws and regulations that govern other aspects of how we conduct our business, such as in the areas of employment and intellectual property. 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 or companies in general. 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.

In addition, banking regulators possess broad discretion to issue or revise regulations, or to issue guidance, which may significantly impact us. For example, the Federal Trade Commission has issued, and will continue to issue, a variety of regulations under the FACT Act of 2003, and the Federal Reserve has also announced proposed rule-making, both of which may impact us. We cannot, however, predict whether and how any new guidelines issued or other regulatory actions taken by the banking or other regulators will be applied to the Bank or the Savings Bank, in what manner such regulations might be applied, or the resulting effect on the Corporation, the Bank or the Savings Bank. There can be no assurance that this kind of regulatory action will not have a negative impact on the Company and/or our financial results.

Finally, we face possible risks from the outcomes of certain industry litigation. In 1998, the United States Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against the MasterCard and Visa membership associations composed of financial institutions that issue MasterCard or Visa credit or debit cards (“associations”), alleging, among other things, that the associations had violated antitrust law and engaged in unfair practices by not allowing member banks to issue cards from competing brands, such as American Express (“American Express”) and Discover Financial Services, (“Discover”). In 2001, a New York district court entered judgment in favor of the Department of Justice and ordered the associations, among other things, to repeal these policies. The United States Second Court of Appeals affirmed the district court and on October 4, 2004, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case.

Immediately following the Supreme Court’s decision, Discover filed a lawsuit against the associations under United States federal antitrust law. The suit alleges, among other things, that the associations engaged in anticompetitive business practices aimed at monopolizing the bank card market. The complaint, among other things, requests civil monetary damages, which could be trebled. Neither the Corporation nor any of its entities is a named defendant in this lawsuit.

In addition, on November 15, 2004, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the associations and several member banks under the United States federal antitrust law. Capital One Bank; Capital One, F.S.B.; and Capital One Financial Corporation are named defendants. See Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 16” on pages 84-86 of this form for more information.

Also, several merchants have filed class action suits, which have been consolidated, against the associations under federal antitrust law relating to certain debit card products. In April 2003, the associations agreed to settle the suit in exchange for payments to plaintiffs by MasterCard of $1 billion and Visa of $2 billion, both over a ten-year period, and for changes in policies and interchange rates for debit cards. Certain merchant plaintiffs have opted out of the settlements and have commenced separate suits. Additionally, consumer class action suits with claims mirroring the merchants’ allegation have been filed in several courts. Finally, the associations, as well as member banks, continue to face additional lawsuits regarding policies, practices, products and fees.

24

Table of Contents

With the exception of the American Express civil antitrust lawsuit, the Company and its affiliates are not parties to the suits described above and therefore will not be directly liable for any amount related to any possible or known settlements, the suits filed by merchants who have opted out of the settlements of those suits, or the class action suits pending in state and federal courts. However, the banks are member banks of MasterCard and Visa and thus may be affected by settlements or suits relating to these issues. In addition, it is possible that the scope of these suits may expand and that other member banks, including the Company, may be brought into the suits or future suits. Given the complexity of the issues raised by these suits and the uncertainty regarding: (i) the outcome of these suits, (ii) the likelihood and amount of any possible judgment against the associations, (iii) the likelihood and the amount and validity of any claim against the associations’ member banks, including the Company, and (iv) the effects of these suits, in turn, on competition in the industry, member banks, and interchange and association fees, we cannot determine at this time the long-term effects of these suits on us.

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

Our expenses and other costs, such as operating and marketing expenses, directly affect our earnings results. In light of the extremely competitive environment in which we operate, and because the size and scale of many of our competitors provides them with increased operational efficiencies, it is important that we are able to successfully manage such expenses. 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. As our business develops, changes or expands, additional expenses can arise from management of outsourced services, asset purchases, structural reorganization, a reevaluation of business strategies and/or expenses to comply with new or changing 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 fluctuations can significantly affect how we calculate expenses and earnings.

Statistical Info rmation

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: