RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the following risks before investing in the notes. These risks could materially affect our business, results of operations or financial condition and cause the trading price of the notes to decline. You could lose part or all of your investment.

Risks Relating to Our Businesses

Macroeconomic conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and the price of the notes.

Key macroeconomic conditions historically have affected our business, results of operations and financial condition and are likely to affect them in the future. Consumer confidence, unemployment and housing indicators are among the factors that often impact consumer spending behavior. Poor economic conditions reduce the usage of our credit cards and other financing products and the average purchase amount of transactions on our credit cards and through our other products, which, in each case, reduces our interest and fee income. We rely primarily on interest and fee income to generate our net earnings. Our interest and fee income was $11.3 billion and $10.3 billion for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and $2.9 billion and $2.7 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Poor economic conditions also adversely affect the ability and willingness of customers to pay amounts owed to us, increasing delinquencies, bankruptcies, charge-offs and allowances for loan losses, and decreasing recoveries. For example, our over-30 day delinquency rate as a percentage of loan receivables was 8.2% at December 31, 2009 during the financial crisis, compared to 4.1% at March 31, 2014, and our full-year net charge-off rate was 11.3% for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to 4.7% for the year ended December 31, 2013. We believe the delinquency rate in our portfolio is at historically low levels and charge-off rates in our portfolio are back to pre-recession levels, and they both may increase and are likely to increase materially if economic conditions deteriorate.

While certain economic conditions in the United States have shown signs of improvement, economic growth has been slow and uneven as consumers continue to be affected by high unemployment rates, slowly recovering housing values, continuing concerns about the level of U.S. government debt and fiscal actions that may be taken to address this, as well as economic and political conditions in the global markets. A prolonged period of slow economic growth or a significant deterioration in economic conditions would likely affect consumer spending levels and the ability and willingness of customers to pay amounts owed to us, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Macroeconomic conditions may also cause net earnings to fluctuate and diverge from expectations of securities analysts and investors, who may have differing assumptions regarding the impact of these conditions on our business, and this may adversely impact the trading price of the notes.

Our results of operations and growth depend on our ability to retain existing partners and attract new partners.

Substantially all of our revenue is generated from the credit products we provide to customers of our partners pursuant to program agreements we enter into with our partners. As a result, our results of operations and growth depend on our ability to retain existing partners and attract new partners. Historically, there has been turnover in our partners, and we expect this will continue in the future. For example, five of our 40 largest program agreements measured by platform revenue for the year ended December 31, 2013 will not be extended beyond their contractual expiration dates in 2014 or 2015. These five program agreements represented, in the aggregate, 3.3% of our total platform revenue for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 3.7% of our total loan receivables at March 31, 2014. In addition, we recently extended our program agreement with PayPal, one of our ten largest partners, until October 2016 and do not expect it to extend beyond that date. The extension eliminated certain exclusivity provisions that previously existed in the program agreement, and we expect this will result in

23

Table of Contents

lower platform revenue and loan receivables from our PayPal program during the extended term of the agreement. The PayPal program agreement represented 3.1% of our total platform revenue for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2.6% of our total loan receivables at March 31, 2014.

Program agreements with our Retail Card partners and national and regional retailer and manufacturer Payment Solutions partners typically are for multi-year terms. These program agreements generally permit our partner to terminate the agreement prior to its scheduled termination date for various reasons, including, in some cases, if we fail to meet certain service levels or change certain key cardholder terms or our credit criteria, we fail to achieve certain targets with respect to approvals of new customers as a result of the credit criteria we use, we elect not to increase the program size when the outstanding loan receivables under the program reach certain thresholds or we are not adequately capitalized, or certain force majeure events or changes in our ownership occur or a material adverse change in our financial condition occurs. A few Payment Solutions programs with national and regional retailer and manufacturer partners also may be terminated at will by the partner on specified notice to us (e.g., several months). In addition, programs with manufacturers, buying groups and industry associations generally are made available to Payment Solutions partners such as individual retail outlets, dealers and merchants under dealer agreements, which typically may be terminated at will by the partner on short notice to us (e.g., 15 days).

There is significant competition for our existing partners, and our failure to retain our existing larger partner relationships upon the expiration or our earlier loss of a relationship upon the exercise of a partner’s early termination rights, or the expiration or termination of a substantial number of smaller partner relationships, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations (including growth rates) and financial condition to the extent we do not acquire new partners of similar size and profitability or otherwise grow our business. The competition for new partners is also significant, and our failure to attract new partners could adversely affect our ability to grow.

A significant percentage of our platform revenue comes from relationships with a small number of Retail Card partners, and the loss of any of these Retail Card partners could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our ten largest partner relationships are with Retail Card partners and accounted for an aggregate of 59.6% of our total platform revenue for the year ended December 31, 2013. Our five largest programs (Gap, JCPenney, Lowe’s, Sam’s Club and Walmart) accounted in aggregate for 48.4% of our total platform revenue for the year ended December 31, 2013. Sam’s Club is a subsidiary of Walmart that is a separate contracting entity with its own program agreement with us. Our programs with JCPenney and Walmart each accounted for more than 10% of our total platform revenue over the same period. We expect to have significant concentration in our largest relationships for the foreseeable future. Although we have multi-year program agreements with each of our ten largest partners, their current agreements expire at various times, and the agreement with one of these partners, which represented $1.2 billion, or 2.2%, of our total loan receivables at March 31, 2014, is scheduled to expire before the end of 2014 and is one of the five partners discussed in the preceding Risk Factor, whose program agreements will not be extended beyond their contractual expiration dates in 2014 or 2015. In addition, we recently extended our program agreement with PayPal, one of our ten largest partners, until October 2016 and do not expect it to extend beyond that date.

The program agreements generally permit us or our partner to terminate the agreement prior to its scheduled termination date under various circumstances as described in the preceding risk factor. Some of our program agreements also provide that, upon expiration or termination, our partner may purchase or designate a third party to purchase the accounts and loans generated with respect to its program and all related customer data. The loss of any of our largest partners or a material reduction in the interest and fees we receive from their customers could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

24

Table of Contents

Our results depend, to a significant extent, on the active and effective promotion and support of our products by our partners.

Our partners generally accept most major credit cards and various other forms of payment, and therefore our success depends on their active and effective promotion of our products to their customers. We depend on our partners to integrate the use of our credit products into their store culture by training their sales associates about our products, having their sales associates encourage their customers to apply for, and use, our products and otherwise effectively marketing our products. In addition, although our Retail Card programs and our Payment Solutions programs with national and regional retailer partners typically are exclusive with respect to the credit products we offer at that partner, some Payment Solutions programs and most CareCredit provider relationships are not exclusive to us, and therefore a partner may choose to promote a competitor’s financing over ours, depending upon cost, availability or attractiveness to consumers or other factors. Typically we do not have, or utilize, any recourse against these non-exclusive partners when they do not sufficiently promote our products. Partners may also implement changes in their systems and technologies that may disrupt the integration between their systems and technologies and ours, which could disrupt the use of our products. The failure by our partners to effectively promote and support our products or changes they make in their business models that negatively impact card usage could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, if our partners engage in improper business practices, do not adhere to the terms of our program agreements or other contractual arrangements or standards, or otherwise diminish the value of our brand, we may suffer reputational damage and customers may be less likely to use our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our results are impacted, to a significant extent, by the financial performance of our partners.

Our ability to generate new loans and the interest and fees and other income associated with them is dependent upon sales of merchandise and services by our partners. The retail and healthcare industries in which our partners operate are intensely competitive. Our partners compete with retailers and department stores in their own geographic areas, as well as catalog and internet sales businesses. Our partners in the healthcare industry compete with other healthcare providers. Our partners’ sales may decrease or may not increase as we anticipate for various reasons, some of which are in the partners’ control and some of which are not. For example, partner sales may be adversely affected by macroeconomic conditions having a national, regional or more local effect on consumer spending, business conditions affecting a particular partner or industry, or catastrophes affecting broad or more discrete geographic areas. If our partners’ sales decline for any reason, it generally results in lower credit sales, and therefore lower loan volume and associated interest and fees and other income for us from their customers. In addition, if a partner closes some or all of its stores or becomes subject to a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy proceeding (or if there is a perception that it may become subject to a bankruptcy proceeding), its customers who have used our financing products may have less incentive to pay their outstanding balances to us, which could result in higher charge-off rates than anticipated and our costs for servicing its customers’ accounts may increase. This risk is particularly acute with respect to our largest partners that account for a significant amount of our platform revenue. See “—A significant percentage of our platform revenue comes from relationships with a small number of Retail Card partners, and the loss of any of these Retail Card partners could adversely affect our business and results of operations.” Moreover, if the financial condition of a partner deteriorates significantly or a partner becomes subject to a bankruptcy proceeding, we may not be able to recover for customer returns, customer payments made in partner stores or other amounts due to us from the partner. A decrease in sales by our partners for any reason or a bankruptcy proceeding involving any of them could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

25

Table of Contents

We will need additional financing, and our borrowing costs are expected to be higher following the completion of the IPO; adverse financial market conditions or our inability to effectively manage our funding and liquidity risk could have a material adverse effect on our funding, liquidity and ability to meet our obligations, including on the notes.

We need to effectively manage our funding and liquidity in order to meet our cash requirements such as day to day operating expenses, extensions of credit to our customers, payments of principal and interest on our borrowings, including the notes, and payments on our other obligations. Historically, our primary sources of funding and liquidity have been, and following the IPO are expected to be, collections from our customers, deposits, funds from securitized financings and proceeds from unsecured borrowings. Historically, our unsecured borrowings have come from GECC and we believe our affiliation with GE has made it easier and less expensive for us to obtain some of our funding from third parties. Following completion of the IPO, we do not expect to receive funding from GECC (other than transitional financing we receive from GECC under the New GECC Term Loan Facility) and expect our borrowing costs from third parties will be higher than our historical costs from GECC. In addition, as a result of the IPO, it may be more difficult for us to securitize our loans because our credit rating from the rating agencies will be lower than GECC’s current credit rating, which may cause investors, and the credit rating agencies, to view us as a weaker sponsor. To compensate, our recent issuances of asset-backed securities have required, and future issuances likely will require, additional credit enhancements and may require higher interest rates and, even then, the credit ratings on our asset-backed securities may be lower than they have been historically. In addition, to maintain the current credit ratings of certain of our existing asset-backed securities in light of the IPO, we have amended the documentation for those securities to require us to maintain additional collateral (in the form of additional loan receivables) for those securities. We have also announced that we intend, based on currently available information, to provide additional credit enhancement (in the form of additional loan receivables collateral) that we believe will be sufficient to obtain confirmations of the current ratings of our public asset-backed securities after giving effect to the completion of the IPO. These factors and actions may increase the costs of securitizing our loans relative to our historical costs or otherwise adversely affect our financial flexibility.

If we do not have sufficient liquidity, we may not be able to meet our obligations, particularly during a liquidity stress event. If we maintain or are required to maintain too much liquidity, it could be costly and reduce our financial flexibility.

We will need additional financing in the future to refinance any existing debt (including the expected prepayment of part or substantially all of the outstanding debt under the New GECC Term Loan Facility in connection with our application to the Federal Reserve Board and the Separation) and finance growth of our business. The availability of additional financing will depend on a variety of factors such as financial market conditions generally, including the availability of credit to the financial services industry, consumers’ willingness to place money on deposit in the Bank, our performance and credit ratings and the performance of our securitized portfolios. Disruptions, uncertainty or volatility in the capital, credit or deposit markets, such as the uncertainty and volatility experienced in the capital and credit markets during the financial crisis and more recently arising from the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and other economic and political conditions in the global markets and concerning the level of U.S. government debt and fiscal measures that may be taken over the longer term to address these matters, may limit our ability to obtain additional financing or refinance maturing liabilities on desired terms (including funding costs) in a timely manner or at all. It may also be more difficult or costly for us to obtain funds following the Separation. As a result, we may be forced to delay obtaining funding or be forced to issue or raise funding on undesirable terms, which could significantly reduce our financial flexibility and cause us to contract or not grow our business, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial conditions.

In addition, we currently have an aggregate of approximately $5.6 billion of undrawn committed capacity from private lenders under two of our existing securitization programs. Our ability to draw on such commitments is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including the applicable securitization trust having sufficient

26

Table of Contents

collateral to support the asset-backed securities issuance and the absence of an early amortization event. Moreover, there are regulatory reforms that have recently been proposed or adopted in the United States and internationally that are intended to address certain issues that affected banks in the recent financial crisis. These reforms, generally referred to as “Basel III,” subject banks to more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements. To the extent that the Basel III requirements result in increased costs to the banks providing undrawn committed capacity under our securitization programs, these costs are likely to be passed on to us. In addition, in response to Basel III, some banks in the market have added provisions to their credit agreements

permitting them to delay disbursement of funding requests for 30 days or more. If our bank lenders require these delayed funding provisions and/or higher pricing for committing undrawn capacity to us, our cost of funding and access to liquidity could be adversely affected.

While financial market conditions have stabilized and, in many cases, improved since the financial crisis, there can be no assurance that significant disruptions, uncertainties and volatility will not occur in the future. If we are unable to continue to finance our business, access capital markets and attract deposits on favorable terms and in a timely manner, or if we experience an increase in our borrowing costs or otherwise fail to manage our liquidity effectively, our results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

A reduction in our credit ratings could materially increase the cost of our funding from, and restrict our access to, the capital markets.

We expect our senior unsecured debt to be rated BBB- (stable outlook) by Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”) and BBB- (stable outlook) by Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”). Although we have not requested that Moody’s Investor Services, Inc. (“Moody’s”) provide a rating for our senior unsecured debt, we believe that if Moody’s were to issue a rating on our unsecured debt, its rating would be lower than the comparable ratings issued by Fitch and S&P. The ratings for our unsecured debt are based on a number of factors, including our financial strength, as well as factors that may not be within our control, such as macroeconomic conditions and the rating agencies’ perception of the industries in which we operate and the products we offer. As a result of the IPO, we expect our unsecured debt credit rating from the rating agencies will be lower than GECC’s current unsecured debt credit rating. The ratings of our asset-backed securities are, and will continue to be, based on a number of factors, including the quality of the underlying loans and the credit enhancement structure with respect to each series of asset-backed securities, as well as the credit rating of GECC as the servicer of our publicly registered securitization trust and our credit rating as sponsor. These ratings also reflect the various methodologies and assumptions used by the rating agencies, which are subject to change (and Moody’s has indicated that certain of its methodologies and assumptions are currently under review) and could adversely affect our ratings. The rating agencies regularly evaluate our credit ratings and those of GECC, as well as the credit ratings of our asset-backed securities. We expect GECC will resign and assign its servicing obligations for our publicly registered securitization trust to us, and we intend to amend the program documents for this trust to enable that assignment. We expect the GECC resignation and assignment will occur on the earlier of: (i) the date all asset-backed securities outstanding at the effective time of the amendment have been redeemed or paid in full (which is expected to occur no later than 2019) and (ii) when the holders of such securities have consented to an assignment of such servicing obligations to us (the “Expected GECC Servicer Assignment Date”). There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain our unsecured debt or asset-backed securities credit ratings or that any of our credit ratings will not be lowered or withdrawn in the future, including as GE decreases its ownership in us or when GECC is no longer the servicer. We also cannot be sure that GECC’s credit ratings will not be lowered or what impact any such action would have on our credit ratings as well as those of our asset-backed securities. A downgrade in our unsecured debt or asset-backed securities credit ratings (or investor concerns that a downgrade may occur) could materially increase the cost of our funding from, and restrict our access to, the capital markets.

Neither we nor GE have any obligation to replace or supplement the credit enhancement or to take any other action to maintain any ratings of any asset-backed securities. However, we have announced that we intend, based on currently available information, to provide additional credit enhancement (in the form of additional loan

27

Table of Contents

receivables collateral) that we believe will be sufficient to obtain confirmations of the current ratings of our public asset-backed securities after giving effect to the completion of the IPO. If the ratings on our asset-backed securities are reduced, put on negative watch or withdrawn as a result of the IPO, the Separation, the GE SLHC Deregistration or otherwise, it may have an adverse effect on the liquidity or the market price of our asset-backed securities and on the cost of or our ability to continue using securitized financings to the extent anticipated.

Our inability to securitize our loans would have a material adverse effect on our business, liquidity, cost of funds and financial condition.

We use the securitization of loans, which involves the transfer of loans to a trust and the issuance by the trust of asset-backed securities to third-party investors, as a significant source of funding. Our average level of securitized financings from third parties was $16.2 billion and $15.2 billion for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. For a discussion of our securitization activities, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Funding Sources—Securitized Financings,” “Description of Certain Indebtedness—Securitized Financings” and Note 6.  Variable Interest Entities to our combined financial statements.

Although the securitization market for credit cards has been re-established since the financial crisis that began in 2008, there can be no assurance that the market will not experience future disruptions. The extent to which we will securitize our loans in the future will depend in part upon the conditions in the securities markets in general and the credit card asset-backed securities market in particular, the overall credit quality of our loans and the conformity of the loans and our securitization program to rating agency requirements, the costs of securitizing our loans, and the legal, regulatory, accounting and tax requirements governing securitization transactions. In the event we are unable to refinance existing asset-backed securities from our publicly registered securitization trust with new securities from the same trust, there are structural and regulatory constraints on our ability to refinance these asset-backed securities with Bank deposits or other funding at the Bank, and therefore we would be required to rely on sources outside of the Bank, which may not be available or may be available only at higher cost. A prolonged inability to securitize our loans on favorable terms, or at all, or to refinance our asset-backed securities would have a material adverse effect on our business, liquidity, cost of funds and financial condition.

The occurrence of an early amortization of our securitization facilities would have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and cost of funds.

Our liquidity would be materially adversely affected by the occurrence of events resulting in the early amortization of our existing securitized financings. For a description of these early amortization events, see “Description of Certain Indebtedness—Securitized Financings.” During an early amortization period, principal collections from the loans in our asset-backed securitization trusts would be applied to repay principal of the asset-backed securities rather than being available on a revolving basis to fund purchases of newly originated loans. This would negatively impact our liquidity, including our ability to originate new loans under existing accounts, and require us to rely on alternative funding sources, which might increase our funding costs or might not be available when needed.

Our loss of the right to service or subservice our securitized loans would have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and cost of funds.

GECC currently acts as servicer with respect to our publicly registered securitization trust and its related series of asset-backed securities, and the Bank acts as servicer with respect to our other two securitization trusts. If GECC or the Bank, as applicable, defaults in its servicing obligations, an early amortization event could occur with respect to the relevant asset-backed securities and/or GECC or the Bank, as applicable, could be replaced as servicer. Servicer defaults include, for example, the failure of the servicer to make any payment, transfer or deposit in accordance with the securitization documents, a breach of representations, warranties or agreements

28

Table of Contents

made by the servicer under the securitization documents, the delegation of the servicer’s duties contrary to the securitization documents and the occurrence of certain insolvency events with respect to the servicer. Such an amortization event would have the adverse consequences discussed in the immediately preceding risk factor.

We expect GECC will resign and assign its servicing obligations for our publicly registered securitization trust to us on or shortly after the Expected GECC Servicer Assignment Date and until that time, our ability to service the public securitization trust’s assets pursuant to the sub-servicing arrangement with GECC will be dependent on GECC not being terminated as servicer for a servicer default or resigning in accordance with the requirements specified in the trust’s program documents, as well as us not being terminated for a default under our sub-servicing arrangement with GECC. If GECC defaults or resigns (or if we default under our sub-servicing arrangement), a third party could be appointed servicer with respect to our publicly registered securitization trust, particularly if neither we nor the Bank have the required ratings to serve as successor servicer. Similarly, if we default in our servicing obligations with respect to either of our other two securitization trusts, a third party could be appointed as servicer of the related trust. If a third-party servicer is appointed, there is no assurance that the third-party will engage us as sub-servicer, in which event we would no longer be able to control the manner in which the related trust’s assets are serviced, and the failure of a third party to appropriately service such assets could lead to an early amortization event in the affected securitization trust, which would have the adverse consequences discussed in the immediately preceding risk factor.

Lower payment rates on our securitized loans could materially adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition.

Certain collections from our securitized loans come back to us through our subsidiaries, and we use these collections to fund our purchase of newly originated loans to collateralize our securitized financings. If payment rates on our securitized loans are lower than they have historically been, fewer collections will be remitted to us on an ongoing basis. Further, certain series of our asset-backed securities include a requirement that we accumulate principal collections in a restricted account for a specified number of months prior to the applicable security’s maturity date. We are required under the program documents to lengthen this accumulation period to the extent we expect the payment rates to be low enough that the current length of the accumulation period is inadequate to fully fund the restricted account by the applicable security’s maturity date. Lower payment rates, and in particular, payment rates that are low enough that we are required to lengthen our accumulation periods, could materially adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition.

Our inability to grow our deposits in the future could materially adversely affect our liquidity and ability to grow our business.

We obtain deposits directly from retail and commercial customers or through brokerage firms that offer our deposit products to their customers. At March 31, 2014, we had $13.0 billion in direct deposits (which includes deposits from banks and financial institutions) and $14.4 billion in deposits originated through brokerage firms (including network deposit sweeps procured through a program arranger who channels brokerage account deposits to us). A key part of our liquidity plan and funding strategy is to significantly expand our direct deposits. Although we expect to reduce the proportion of our funding provided by brokered deposits in connection with our application to the Federal Reserve Board, we also intend to continue to rely on brokered deposits as a source of funding.

The deposit business is highly competitive, with intense competition in attracting and retaining deposits. We compete on the basis of the rates we pay on deposits, features and benefits of our products, the quality of our customer service and the competitiveness of our digital banking capabilities. Our ability to originate and maintain retail deposits is also highly dependent on the strength of the Bank and the perceptions of consumers and others of our business practices and our financial health. Adverse perceptions regarding our reputation could lead to difficulties in attracting and retaining deposits accounts. Negative public opinion could result from actual or alleged conduct in a number of areas, including lending practices, regulatory compliance, inadequate protection

29

Table of Contents

of customer information or sales and marketing activities, and from actions taken by regulators or others in response to such conduct. In addition, our ability to originate and maintain deposits could be adversely affected by the loss of our association with GE’s brand and reputation as a result of the IPO or the Separation.

The demand for the deposit products we offer may also be reduced due to a variety of factors, such as demographic patterns, changes in customer preferences, reductions in consumers’ disposable income, regulatory actions that decrease customer access to particular products or the availability of competing products. Competition from other financial services firms and others that use deposit funding products may affect deposit renewal rates, costs or availability. Changes we make to the rates offered on our deposit products may affect our profitability and liquidity.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDIA”) prohibits an insured bank from accepting brokered deposits or offering interest rates on any deposits significantly higher than the prevailing rate in the bank’s normal market area or nationally (depending upon where the deposits are solicited), unless it is “well capitalized,” or it is “adequately capitalized” and receives a waiver from the FDIC. A bank that is “adequately capitalized” and accepts brokered deposits under a waiver from the FDIC may not pay an interest rate on any deposit in excess of 75 basis points over certain prevailing market rates. There are no such restrictions under the FDIA on a bank that is “well capitalized” and at March 31, 2014, the Bank met or exceeded all applicable requirements to be deemed “well capitalized” for purposes of the FDIA. However, there can be no assurance that the Bank will continue to meet those requirements. Limitations on the Bank’s ability to accept brokered deposits for any reason (including regulatory limitations on the amount of brokered deposits in total or as a percentage of total assets) in the future could materially adversely impact our funding costs and liquidity. Any limitation on the interest rates the Bank can pay on deposits could competitively disadvantage us in attracting and retaining deposits and have a material adverse effect on our business.

Changes in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our net earnings, funding and liquidity.

Changes in market interest rates cause our net interest income and our interest expense to increase or decrease, as certain of our assets and liabilities carry interest rates that fluctuate with market benchmarks. At March 31, 2014, 57.4% of our loans bore a fixed interest rate to the customer and we generally fund these assets with fixed rate certificates of deposit, securitized financing and unsecured debt. At March 31, 2014, 42.6% of our loans bore a floating interest rate to the customer, and we generally fund these assets with floating rate deposits, asset-backed securities and unsecured debt. The interest rate benchmark for our floating rate assets is the prime rate, and the interest rate benchmark for our floating rate liabilities is generally either the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) or the federal funds rate. The prime rate and LIBOR or the federal funds rate could reset at different times or could diverge, leading to mismatches in the interest rates on our floating rate assets and floating rate liabilities. To the extent we are unable to effectively match the interest rates on our assets and liabilities (including, in the future, potentially through the use of derivatives), our net earnings could be materially adversely affected.

Competitive and regulatory factors may limit our ability to raise interest rates, fixed or floating, on our loans. In addition, some of our program agreements limit the rate of interest we can charge to customers under those agreements. If interest rates were to rise materially over a sustained period of time, and we are unable to sufficiently raise our interest rates in a timely manner, or at all, our net interest margin could be adversely impacted, which could have a material adverse effect on our net earnings.

Interest rates may also adversely impact our customers’ spending levels and ability and willingness to pay amounts owed to us. Our floating rate credit products bear interest rates that fluctuate with the prime rate. Higher interest rates often lead to higher payment obligations by customers to us and other lenders under mortgage, credit card and other consumer loans, which may reduce our customers’ ability to remain current on their obligations to us and therefore lead to increased delinquencies, bankruptcies, charge-offs and allowances for loan losses, and decreasing recoveries, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our net earnings.

Changes in interest rates and competitor responses to these changes may also impact customer decisions to maintain deposits with us, and reductions in deposits could materially adversely affect our funding costs and liquidity.

30

Table of Contents

We assess our interest rate risk by estimating the effect on our net earnings of various scenarios that differ based on assumptions about the direction and the magnitude of interest rate changes. We take risk mitigation actions based on those assessments. Changes in interest rates could materially reduce our net interest income and our net earnings, and could also increase our funding costs and reduce our liquidity, especially if actual conditions turn out to be materially different from those we assumed. For a discussion of interest rate risk sensitivities, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

Our risk management processes and procedures may not be effective in mitigating our risks.

Our risk management processes and procedures seek to appropriately balance risk and return and mitigate risks. We have established processes and procedures intended to identify, measure, monitor and control the types of risk to which we are subject, including credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk, strategic risk and operational risk. Credit risk is the risk of loss that arises when an obligor fails to meet the terms of an obligation. We are exposed to both consumer credit risk, from our customer loans, and institutional credit risk, principally from our partners. Market risk is the risk of loss due to changes in external market factors such as interest rates. Liquidity risk is the risk that financial condition or overall safety and soundness are adversely affected by an inability, or perceived inability, to meet obligations and support business growth. Strategic risk is the risk from changes in the business environment, improper implementation of decisions or inadequate responsiveness to changes in the business environment. Operational risk is the risk of loss arising from inadequate or failed processes, people or systems, external events (i.e., natural disasters) or compliance, reputational or legal matters and includes those risks as they relate directly to our Company as well as to third parties with whom we contract or otherwise do business. See “Business—Credit Risk Management” and “Business—Risk Management” for additional information on the types of risks affecting our business.

We seek to monitor and control our risk exposure through a framework that includes our risk appetite statement, enterprise risk assessment process, risk policies, procedures and controls, reporting requirements, credit risk culture and governance structure. Management of our risks in some cases depends upon the use of analytical and/or forecasting models. If the models that we use to manage these risks are ineffective at predicting future losses or are otherwise inadequate, we may incur unexpected losses or otherwise be adversely affected. In addition, the information we use in managing our credit and other risk may be inaccurate or incomplete as a result of error or fraud, both of which may be difficult to detect and avoid. There may also be risks that exist, or that develop in the future, that we have not appropriately anticipated, identified or mitigated including when processes are changed or new products and services are introduced. If our risk management framework does not effectively identify and control our risks, we could suffer unexpected losses or be adversely affected, and that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We rely extensively on models in managing many aspects of our business, and if they are not accurate or are misinterpreted, it could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We rely extensively on models in managing many aspects of our business, including liquidity and capital planning (including stress testing), customer selection, credit and other risk management, pricing, reserving and collections management. The models may prove in practice to be less predictive than we expect for a variety of reasons, including as a result of errors in constructing, interpreting or using the models or the use of inaccurate assumptions (including failures to update assumptions appropriately or in a timely manner). Our assumptions may be inaccurate for many reasons including that they often involve matters that are inherently difficult to predict and beyond our control (e.g., macroeconomic conditions and their impact on partner and customer behaviors) and they often involve complex interactions between a number of dependent and independent variables, factors and other assumptions. The errors or inaccuracies in our models may be material, and could lead us to make wrong or sub-optimal decisions in managing our business, and this could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

31

Table of Contents

Our business depends on our ability to successfully manage our credit risk, and failing to do so may result in high charge-off rates.

Our success depends on our ability to manage our credit risk while attracting new customers with profitable usage patterns. We select our customers, manage their accounts and establish terms and credit limits using proprietary scoring models and other analytical techniques that are designed to set terms and credit limits to appropriately compensate us for the credit risk we accept, while encouraging customers to use their available credit. The models and approaches we use to manage our credit risk may not accurately predict future charge-offs for various reasons discussed in the preceding risk factor.

Our ability to manage credit risk and avoid high charge-off rates also may be adversely affected by economic conditions that may be difficult to predict, such as the recent financial crisis. Although delinquencies and charge-offs continued to decline through 2013, they both may increase in the future and are likely to increase materially if economic conditions deteriorate. We remain subject to conditions in the consumer credit environment. There can be no assurance that our credit underwriting and risk management strategies will enable us to avoid high charge-off levels or delinquencies, or that our allowance for loan losses will be sufficient to cover actual losses.

A customer’s ability to repay us can be negatively impacted by increases in their payment obligations to other lenders under mortgage, credit card and other loans (including student loans). These changes can result from increases in base lending rates or structured increases in payment obligations, and could reduce the ability of our customers to meet their payment obligations to other lenders and to us. In addition, a customer’s ability to repay us can be negatively impacted by the restricted availability of credit to consumers generally, including reduced and closed lines of credit. Customers with insufficient cash flow to fund daily living expenses and lack of access to other sources of credit may be more likely to increase their card usage and ultimately default on their payment obligations to us, resulting in higher credit losses in our portfolio. Our collection operations may not compete effectively to secure more of customers’ diminished cash flow than our competitors. In addition, we may not identify customers who are likely to default on their payment obligations to us and reduce our exposure by closing credit lines and restricting authorizations quickly enough, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. At March 31, 2014, 29.6% of our portfolio’s loan receivables were from consumers with a FICO score of 660 or less, which typically have higher delinquency and credits losses than consumers with higher FICO scores.

Our ability to manage credit risk also may be adversely affected by legal or regulatory changes (such as bankruptcy laws and minimum payment regulations) and collection regulations, competitors’ actions and consumer behavior, as well as inadequate collections staffing, techniques, models and performance of vendors such as collection agencies.

Our allowance for loan losses may prove to be insufficient to cover losses on our loans.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses (a reserve established through a provision for losses charged to expense) that we believe is appropriate to provide for incurred losses in our loan portfolio. In addition, for portfolios we may acquire when we enter into new partner program agreements, any deterioration in the performance of the purchased portfolios after acquisition results in incremental loss reserves. Growth in our loan portfolio generally would lead to an increase in the allowance for loan losses.

The process for establishing an allowance for loan losses is critical to our results of operations and financial condition, and requires complex models and judgments, including forecasts of economic conditions. Changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding our loans and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses. We may underestimate our incurred losses and fail to maintain an allowance for loan losses sufficient to account for these losses. In cases where we modify a loan, if the modified loans do not perform as anticipated, we may be required to establish additional allowances on these loans.

32

Table of Contents

We periodically review and update our methodology, models and the underlying assumptions, estimates and assessments we use to establish our allowance for loan losses to reflect our view of current conditions. Moreover, our regulators, as part of their supervisory function, periodically review the methodology, models and the underlying assumptions, estimates and assessments we use for calculating, and the adequacy of, our allowance for loan losses. Our regulators, based on their judgment, may conclude that we should modify our methodology, models or the underlying assumptions, estimates and assessments, increase our allowance for loan losses and/or recognize further losses. During 2012 and 2013, we enhanced our allowance for loan losses methodology. This enhancement resulted in a more granular portfolio segmentation analysis, by loss type, included a qualitative assessment of the adequacy of the portfolio’s allowance for loan losses, which compared the allowance for losses to projected net charge-offs over the next 12 months, in a manner consistent with regulatory guidance, and was designed to provide a better estimate of the date of a probable loss event and length of time required for a probable loss event to result in a charge-off. As a result, we recognized incremental provisions of $343 million and $642 million in 2012 and 2013, respectively. We continue to review and evaluate our methodology, models and the underlying assumptions, estimates and assessments we use and we will implement further enhancements or changes to them, as needed. We cannot assure you that our loan loss reserves will be sufficient to cover actual losses. Future increases in the allowance for loan losses or recognized losses (as a result of any review, update, regulatory guidance or otherwise) will result in a decrease in net earnings and capital and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If assumptions or estimates we use in preparing our financial statements are incorrect or are required to change, our reported results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

We are required to make various assumptions and estimates in preparing our financial statements under GAAP, including for purposes of determining allowances for loan losses, asset impairment, reserves related to litigation and other legal matters, valuation of income and other taxes and regulatory exposures and the amounts recorded for certain contractual payments to be paid to or received from partners and others under contractual arrangements. In addition, significant assumptions and estimates are involved in determining certain disclosures required under GAAP, including those involving the fair value of our financial instruments. If the assumptions or estimates underlying our financial statements are incorrect, the actual amounts realized on transactions and balances subject to those estimates will be different, and this could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) is currently reviewing or proposing changes to several financial accounting and reporting standards that govern key aspects of our financial statements, including the proposed standard on accounting for credit losses and other areas where assumptions or estimates are required. As a result of changes to financial accounting or reporting standards, whether promulgated or required by the FASB or other regulators, we could be required to change certain of the assumptions or estimates we previously used in preparing our financial statements, which could materially impact how we record and report our results of operations and financial condition generally. For additional information on the key areas for which assumptions and estimates are used in preparing our financial statements, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Estimates” and Note 2. Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to our combined financial statements.

We may not be able to offset increases in our costs with decreased payments under our retailer share arrangements, which could reduce our profitability.

Most of our Retail Card program agreements and certain other program agreements contain retailer share arrangements that provide for payments to our partners if the economic performance of the relevant program exceeds a contractually defined threshold. Although the share arrangements vary by partner, these arrangements are generally structured to measure the economic performance of the program, based typically on agreed upon program revenues (including interest income and certain other income) less agreed upon program expenses (including interest expense, provision for loan losses, retailer payments and operating expenses), and share

33

Table of Contents

portions of this amount above a negotiated threshold. These arrangements are typically designed to permit us to achieve an economic return before we are required to make payments to our partners based on the agreed contractually defined threshold. However, because the threshold and the economic performance of a program that are used to calculate payments to our partners may be based on, among other things, agreed upon measures of program expenses rather than our actual expenses, we may not be able to pass on increases in our actual expenses (such as funding costs or operating expenses) in the form of reduced payments under our retailer share arrangements, and our economic return on a program could be adversely affected.

Competition in the consumer finance industry is intense.

The success of our business depends on our ability to retain existing partners and attract new partners. The competition for partners is intense and becoming more competitive. Our primary competitors for partners include major financial institutions, such as Alliance Data, American Express, Capital One, Chase, Citibank, TD Bank and Wells Fargo, and to a lesser extent, potential partners’ own in-house financing capabilities. Some of our competitors are substantially larger, have substantially greater resources and may offer a broader range of products and services. We compete for partners on the basis of a number of factors, including program financial and other terms, underwriting standards, marketing expertise, service levels, product and service offerings (including incentive and loyalty programs), technological capabilities and integration, brand and reputation. In addition, some of our competitors for partners have a business model that allows for their partners to manage underwriting (e.g., new account approval), customer service and collections, and other core banking responsibilities that we retain but some partners may prefer to handle. As a result of competition, we may be unable to acquire new partners, lose existing relationships to competing companies or find it more costly to maintain our existing relationships.

Our success also depends on our ability to attract and retain customers and generate usage of our products by them. The consumer credit and payments industry is highly competitive and we face an increasingly dynamic industry as emerging technologies enter the marketplace. As a form of payment, our products compete with cash, checks, debit cards, general purpose credit cards (including Visa and MasterCard, American Express and Discover Card), other private-label card brands and, to a certain extent, prepaid cards. We also compete with non-traditional providers such as PayPal. In the future, we expect our products will face increased competition from new emerging payment technologies, such as Google Wallet, ISIS Mobile Wallet and Square, as well as consortia of merchants that are expected to combine payment systems to reduce interchange and other costs (e.g., MCX). We may also face increased competition from current competitors or others who introduce or embrace disruptive technology that significantly changes the consumer credit and payment industry. We compete for customers and their usage of our products, and to minimize transfers to competitors of our customers’ outstanding balances, based on a number of factors, including pricing (interest rates and fees), product offerings, credit limits, incentives (including loyalty programs) and customer service. Although we offer a variety of consumer credit products, some of our competitors provide a broader selection of services, including home and automobile loans, debit cards and bank branch ATM access, which may position them better among customers who prefer to use a single financial institution to meet all of their financial needs. Some of our competitors are substantially larger than we are, which may give those competitors advantages, including a more diversified product and customer base, the ability to reach out to more customers and potential customers, operational efficiencies, more versatile technology platforms, broad-based local distribution capabilities and lower-cost funding. In addition, some of our competitors, including new and emerging competitors in the digital and mobile payments space, are not subject to the same regulatory requirements or legislative scrutiny to which we are subject, which also could place us at a competitive disadvantage. Customer attrition from any or all of our credit products or any lowering of the pricing of our products by reducing interest rates or fees in order to retain customers could reduce our revenues and therefore our earnings.

In our retail deposits business, we have acquisition and servicing capabilities similar to other direct banking competitors. We compete for deposits with traditional banks and, in seeking to grow our direct banking business, we compete with other banks that have direct banking models similar to ours, such as Ally Financial, American

34

Table of Contents

Express, Capital One 360 (ING), Discover, Nationwide, Sallie Mae and USAA. Competition among direct banks is intense because online banking provides customers the ability to rapidly deposit and withdraw funds and open and close accounts in favor of products and services offered by competitors.

If we are unable to compete effectively for partners, customer usage or deposits, our business and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Our business is heavily concentrated in U.S. consumer credit, and therefore our results are more susceptible to fluctuations in that market than a more diversified company.

Our business is heavily concentrated in U.S. consumer credit. As a result, we are more susceptible to fluctuations and risks particular to U.S. consumer credit than a more diversified company. For example, our business is particularly sensitive to macroeconomic conditions that affect the U.S. economy and consumer spending and consumer credit. We are also more susceptible to the risks of increased regulations and legal and other regulatory actions that are targeted at consumer credit or the specific consumer credit products that we offer (including promotional financing). Due to our CareCredit platform, we are also more susceptible to increased regulations and legal and other regulatory actions targeted at elective healthcare related procedures or services, in contrast to other industries. Our business concentration could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

We may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize new or enhanced products and services.

Our industry is subject to rapid and significant changes in technologies, products and services. A key part of our financial success depends on our ability to develop and commercialize new products and services or enhancements to existing products and services, including with respect to loyalty programs, mobile and point of sale technologies, and new Synchrony-branded bank deposit and credit products. Realizing the benefits of those products and services is uncertain. We may not assign the appropriate level of resources, priority or expertise to the development and commercialization of these new products, services or enhancements. Our ability to develop, acquire or commercialize competitive technologies, products or services on acceptable terms or at all may be limited by intellectual property rights that third parties, including competitors and potential competitors, may assert. In addition, success is dependent on factors such as partner and customer acceptance, adoption and usage, competition, the effectiveness of marketing programs, the availability of appropriate technologies and business processes and regulatory approvals. Success of a new product, service or enhancement also may depend upon our ability to deliver it on a large scale, which may require a significant investment.

We also may select, utilize and invest in technologies, products and services that ultimately do not achieve widespread adoption and therefore are not as attractive or useful to our partners, customers and service partners as we anticipate, or partners may not recognize the value of our new products and services or believe they justify any potential costs or disruptions associated with implementing them. In addition, because our products and services typically are marketed through our partners, if our partners are unwilling or unable to effectively implement our new technologies, products, services or enhancements, we may be unable to grow our business. Competitors may also develop or adopt technologies or introduce innovations that change the markets we operate in and make our products less competitive and attractive to our partners and customers.

In any event, we may not realize the benefit of new technologies, products, services or enhancements for many years or competitors may introduce more compelling products, services or enhancements. Our failure to successfully develop and commercialize new or enhanced products, services or enhancements could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We may not realize the value of strategic investments that we pursue and such investments could divert resources or introduce unforeseen risks to our business.

We may execute strategic acquisitions or partnerships or make other strategic investments in businesses, products, technologies or platforms to enhance or grow our business. These strategic investments may introduce new costs or liabilities which could impact our ability to grow or maintain acceptable performance.

35

Table of Contents

We may be unable to integrate systems, personnel or technologies from our strategic investments. These strategic investments may also present unforeseen legal, regulatory or other challenges that we may not be able to manage effectively. The planning and integration of an acquisition, partnership or investment may shift employee time and other resources which could impair our ability to focus on our core business.

Strategic investments may not perform as expected due to lack of acceptance by partners, customers or employees, higher than forecasted costs, lengthy transition periods, synergies or savings not being realized and a variety of other factors. This may result in a delay or unrealized benefit, or in some cases, increased costs or other unforeseen risks to our business.

Reductions in interchange fees may reduce the competitive advantages our private label credit card products currently have by virtue of not charging interchange fees and would reduce our income from those fees.

Interchange is a fee merchants pay to the interchange network in exchange for the use of the network’s infrastructure and payment facilitation, and which are paid to credit card issuers to compensate them for the risk they bear in lending money to customers. We earn interchange fees on Dual Card transactions but we do not charge or earn interchange fees from our partners or customers on our private label credit card products.

Merchants, trying to decrease their operating expenses, have sought to, and have had some success at, lowering interchange rates. Several recent events and actions indicate a continuing increase in focus on interchange by both regulators and merchants. Beyond pursuing litigation, legislation and regulation, merchants are also pursuing alternate payment platforms as a means to lower payment processing costs. To the extent interchange fees are reduced, one of our current competitive advantages with our partners—that we typically do not charge interchange fees when our private label credit card products are used to purchase our partners’ goods and services—may be reduced. Moreover, to the extent interchange fees are reduced, our income from those fees will be lower. We received approximately $324 million of interchange fees for the year ended December 31, 2013 and $76 million of interchange fees for the three months ended March 31, 2014. As a result, a reduction in interchange fees could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, for our Dual Cards, we are subject to the operating regulations and procedures set forth by the interchange network, and our failure to comply with these operating regulations, which may change from time to time, could subject us to various penalties or fees, or the termination of our license to use the interchange network, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Fraudulent activity associated with our products and services could negatively impact our operating results, brand and reputation and cause the use of our products and services to decrease and our fraud losses to increase.

We are subject to the risk of fraudulent activity associated with partners, customers and third parties handling customer information. Our fraud-related losses have increased significantly from $72 million to $132 million to $134 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, fraud-related losses were $28 million and $33 million, respectively. Our fraud-related losses are due primarily to our Dual Card product, which has grown in recent years, and like the overall market for general purpose credit cards has experienced significant counterfeit and mail/phone fraud. Our private label credit card product is also susceptible to application fraud, because among other things, we provide immediate access to the credit line at the time of approval. In addition, sales on the internet and through mobile channels are becoming a larger part of our business and fraudulent activity is higher as a percentage of sales in those channels than in stores. Dual Cards and private label credit cards are susceptible to different types of fraud, and, depending on our product channel mix (including as a result of the introduction, if any, of a Synchrony-branded general purpose credit card), we may continue to experience variations in, or levels of, fraud-related expense that are different from or higher than that experienced by some of our competitors or the industry generally.

The risk of fraud continues to increase for the financial services industry in general, and credit card fraud, identity theft and related crimes are likely to continue to be prevalent, and perpetrators are growing more

36

Table of Contents

sophisticated. Our resources, technologies and fraud prevention tools may be insufficient to accurately detect and prevent fraud. For example, credit cards with embedded security chip technology (such as the so-called “EMV” chips) provide additional security against fraudulent activity and have been widely adopted in Europe and Asia but have not been widely accepted by merchants in the United States. As a result, although we are in the process of rolling out this technology with several of our partners, our credit cards continue to use the traditional magnetic stripes for card processing and therefore do not benefit from the embedded security chip feature, and our adoption of this technology would still require wider acceptance by merchants to reduce our risk. The level of our fraud charge-offs and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if fraudulent activity were to significantly increase. High profile fraudulent activity also could negatively impact our brand and reputation, which could negatively impact the use of our cards and thereby have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. In addition, significant increases in fraudulent activity could lead to regulatory intervention (such as increased customer notification requirements and mandatory issuance of cards with EMV chips), which could increase our costs and also negatively impact our operating results, brand and reputation and could lead us to take steps to reduce fraud risk, which could increase our costs.

Cyber-attacks or other security breaches could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In the normal course of business, we collect, process and retain sensitive and confidential information regarding our partners and our customers. We also have arrangements in place with our partners and other third parties through which we share and receive information about their customers who are or may become our customers. Although we devote significant resources and management focus to ensuring the integrity of our systems through information security and business continuity programs, our facilities and systems, and those of our partners and third-party service providers, are vulnerable to external or internal security breaches, acts of vandalism, computer viruses, misplaced or lost data, programming or human errors, or other similar events. We and our partners and third-party service providers have experienced all of these events in the past and expect to continue to experience them in the future. These events could interrupt our business or operations, result in significant legal and financial exposure, supervisory liability, damage to our reputation or a loss of confidence in the security of our systems, products and services. Although the impact to date from these events has not had a material adverse effect on us, we cannot be sure this will be the case in the future.

Information security risks for large financial institutions like us have increased recently in part because of new technologies, the use of the internet and telecommunications technologies (including mobile devices) to conduct financial and other business transactions and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, perpetrators of fraud, hackers, terrorists and others. In addition to cyber-attacks or other security breaches involving the theft of sensitive and confidential information, hackers recently have engaged in attacks against large financial institutions that are designed to disrupt key business services, such as consumer-facing web sites. The Separation and our emergence as a separately branded company could increase our profile and therefore risk of being targeted for cyber-attacks and other security breaches, including attacks targeting our key business services and websites. We are not able to anticipate or implement effective preventive measures against all security breaches of these types, especially because the techniques used change frequently and because attacks can originate from a wide variety of sources. We employ detection and response mechanisms designed to contain and mitigate security incidents, but early detection may be thwarted by sophisticated attacks and malware designed to avoid detection.

We also face risks related to cyber-attacks and other security breaches in connection with credit card transactions that typically involve the transmission of sensitive information regarding our customers through various third-parties, including our partners, merchant acquiring banks, payment processors, card networks (e.g., Visa and MasterCard) and our processors (e.g., First Data Corporation (“First Data”)). Some of these parties have in the past been the target of security breaches and cyber-attacks, and because the transactions involve third-parties and environments such as the point of sale that we do not control or secure, future security breaches or cyber-attacks affecting any of these third-parties could impact us through no fault of our own, and in some cases we may have exposure and suffer losses for breaches or attacks relating to them. We also rely on numerous other third party service providers, such as Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (“FIS”), to conduct other

37

Table of Contents

aspects of our business operations and face similar risks relating to them. While we regularly conduct security assessments of significant third party service providers, we cannot be sure that their information security protocols are sufficient to withstand a cyber-attack or other security breach.

The access by unauthorized persons to, or the improper disclosure by us of, confidential information regarding our customers or our own proprietary information, software, methodologies and business secrets could interrupt our business or operations, result in significant legal and financial exposure, supervisory liability, damage to our reputation or a loss of confidence in the security of our systems, products and services, all of which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, recently there have been a number of well-publicized attacks or breaches affecting others in our industry that have heightened concern by consumers generally about the security of using credit cards, which have caused some consumers, including our customers, to use our credit cards less in favor of alternative methods of payment and has led to increased regulatory focus on, and potentially new regulations relating to, these matters. Further cyber-attacks or other breaches in the future, whether affecting us or others, could intensify consumer concern and regulatory focus and result in reduced use of our cards and increased costs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The failure of third parties to provide various services that are important to our operations could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Some services important to our business are outsourced to third-party vendors. For example, our credit card transaction processing, production and related services (including the printing and mailing of customer statements) are handled by First Data, and the technology platform for our online retail deposits is managed by FIS. First Data and FIS and, in some cases other third-party vendors, are the sole source or one of a limited number of sources of the services they provide for us. It would be difficult and disruptive for us to replace some of our third-party vendors, particularly First Data and FIS, in a timely manner if they were unwilling or unable to provide us with these services in the future (as a result of their financial or business conditions or otherwise), and our business and operations likely would be materially adversely affected. First Data has publicly disclosed that it is highly leveraged and that it has incurred net losses of $869.1 million, $700.9 million and $516.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Our principal agreements with First Data expire under their existing terms (assuming we exercise our unilateral extension rights but the agreements are not otherwise renewed or extended by mutual agreement of the parties) at various times between 2016 and 2020. Our principal agreement with FIS expires under its existing terms (assuming we exercise our unilateral extension rights but the agreements are not otherwise renewed or extended by mutual agreement of the parties) in 2020. In addition, if a third-party provider fails to provide the services we require, fails to meet contractual requirements, such as compliance with applicable laws and regulations, or suffers a cyber-attack or other security breach, our business could suffer economic and reputational harm that could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Disruptions in the operation of our computer systems and data centers could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our ability to deliver products and services to our partners and our customers, service our loans and otherwise operate our business and comply with applicable laws depends on the efficient and uninterrupted operation of our computer systems and data centers, as well as those of our partners and third-party service providers. These computer systems and data centers may encounter service interruptions at any time due to system or software failure, natural disaster or other reasons. In addition, the implementation of technology changes and upgrades to maintain current and integrate new systems may also cause service interruptions, transaction processing errors and system conversion delays and may cause our failure to comply with applicable laws, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In connection with the Separation, we must migrate, and in some cases, establish with third parties, key parts of our technology infrastructure, including our data centers. When we migrate our data centers, our partners will

38

Table of Contents

also need to make changes to their networks to establish connectivity with us. These infrastructure changes, both the ones that we make and the ones required of our partners, may cause disruptions, systems interruptions, transaction processing errors and system conversion delays. In addition, we have entered into transitional services arrangements with GE pursuant to which it will provide certain services to us relating to technology and business processes. Some of these transitional services arrangements may remain in effect until 2016, and during the transitional period we will rely on GE to provide these services. The complexities of these arrangements and the services provided will increase the operational risk associated with the Separation, and this increased risk could result in unanticipated expenses, disruptions to our operations or other adverse consequences, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We expect that new technologies and business processes applicable to the consumer credit industry will continue to emerge, and these new technologies and business processes may be better than those we currently use. The pace of technology change is high and our industry is intensely competitive, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to sustain our investment in new technology as critical systems and applications become obsolete and better ones become available. A failure to maintain current technology and business processes could cause disruptions in our operations or cause our products and services to be less competitive, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have international operations that subject us to various international risks as well as increased compliance and regulatory risks and costs.

We have international operations, primarily in India, the Philippines and Canada, and some of our third party service providers provide services to us from other countries, all of which subject us to a number of international risks, including, among other things, sovereign volatility and socio-political instability. U.S. regulations also govern various aspects of the international activities of domestic corporations and increase our compliance and regulatory risks and costs. Any failure on our part or the part of our service providers to comply with applicable U.S. regulations, as well as the regulations in the countries and markets in which we or they operate, could result in fines, penalties, injunctions or other similar restrictions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We face risks from catastrophic events.

We are subject to catastrophes such as natural disasters, severe weather conditions, health pandemics and terrorist attacks, any of which could have a negative effect on our business and technology infrastructure (including our computer network systems and data centers), our partners and their business and our customers. Catastrophic events could prevent or make it more difficult for our customers to travel to our partners’ locations to shop, thereby negatively impacting consumer spending in the effected regions, or in severe cases, nationally, interrupt or disable local or national communications networks, including the payment systems network, which could prevent our partners and our customers from using our products to make purchases or make payments (temporarily or over an extended period). These events could also impair the ability of third parties to provide critical services to us. All of these adverse effects of catastrophic events could result in a decrease in the use of our products or payments to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

If we are alleged to have infringed upon the intellectual property rights owned by others or are not able to protect our intellectual property, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Competitors or other third parties may allege that we, or consultants or other third parties retained or indemnified by us, infringe on their intellectual property rights. We also may face allegations that our employees have misappropriated intellectual property of their former employers or other third parties. Given the complex, rapidly changing and competitive technological and business environment in which we operate, and the potential risks and uncertainties of intellectual property-related litigation, an assertion of an infringement claim against us

39

Table of Contents

may cause us to spend significant amounts to defend the claim (even if we ultimately prevail), pay significant money damages, lose significant revenues, be prohibited from using the relevant systems, processes, technologies or other intellectual property, cease offering certain products or services, or incur significant license, royalty or technology development expenses. Moreover, it has become common in recent years for individuals and groups to purchase intellectual property assets for the sole purpose of making claims of infringement and attempting to extract settlements from companies like ours. Even in instances where we believe that claims and allegations of intellectual property infringement against us are without merit, defending against such claims is time consuming and expensive and could result in the diversion of time and attention of our management and employees. In addition, although in some cases a third party may have agreed to indemnify us for such costs, such indemnifying party may refuse or be unable to uphold its contractual obligations.

Moreover, we rely on a variety of measures to protect our intellectual property and proprietary information, including copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets and controls on access and distribution. These measures may not prevent misappropriation or infringement of our intellectual property or proprietary information and a resulting loss of competitive advantage, and in any event, we may be required to litigate to protect our intellectual property and proprietary information from misappropriation or infringement by others, which is expensive, could cause a diversion of resources and may not be successful. Third parties may challenge, invalidate or circumvent our intellectual property, or our intellectual property may not be sufficient to provide us with competitive advantages. Our competitors or other third parties may independently design around or develop similar technology, or otherwise duplicate our services or products such that we could not assert our intellectual property rights against them. In addition, our contractual arrangements may not effectively prevent disclosure of our intellectual property or confidential and proprietary information or provide an adequate remedy in the event of an unauthorized disclosure.

We are launching our new brand, “Synchrony,” and expect to spend significant amounts over the next few years promoting the new brand. We recently filed trademark applications to protect our new name in the United States and certain other countries, but the registrations of these trademarks are not complete and they may ultimately not become registered. Our use of our new name (for our existing or any new products in the United States or other countries) may be challenged by third parties, and we may become involved in legal proceedings to protect or defend our rights with respect to our new name, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Litigation, regulatory actions and compliance issues could subject us to significant fines, penalties, judgments, remediation costs and/or requirements resulting in increased expenses.

Our business is subject to increased risks of litigation and regulatory actions as a result of a number of factors and from various sources, including the highly regulated nature of the financial services industry, the focus of state and federal prosecutors on banks and the financial services industry and the structure of the credit card industry.

In the normal course of business, from time to time, we have been named as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with our business activities. Certain of the legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages, or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In addition, while historically the arbitration provision in our customer agreements generally has limited our exposure to consumer class action litigation, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in enforcing our arbitration clause in the future. There may also be legislative, administrative or regulatory efforts to directly or indirectly prohibit the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses, including by the CFPB, or we may be compelled as a result of competitive pressure or reputational concerns to voluntarily eliminate pre-dispute arbitration clauses.

We are also involved, from time to time, in reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental agencies regarding our business (collectively, “regulatory matters”), which could subject us to significant fines, penalties, obligations to change our business practices or other requirements

40

Table of Contents

resulting in increased expenses, diminished earnings and damage to our reputation. The current environment of additional regulation, increased regulatory compliance efforts and enhanced regulatory enforcement has resulted in significant operational and compliance costs and may prevent or make it less attractive for us to continue providing certain products and services. There is no assurance that these regulatory matters or other factors will not, in the future, affect how we conduct our business and in turn have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We contest liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. The outcome of pending and future matters could be material to our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows depending on, among other factors, the level of our earnings for that period, and could adversely affect our business and reputation. For a discussion of certain legal proceedings, see “Regulation—Consumer Financial Services Regulation,” Note 16. Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Matters to our combined financial statements and Note 13. Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Matters to our condensed combined financial statements.

In addition to litigation and regulatory matters, from time to time, through our operational and compliance controls, we identify compliance issues that require us to make operational changes and, depending on the nature of the issue, result in financial remediation to impacted cardholders. These self-identified issues and voluntary remediation payments could be significant depending on the issue and the number of cardholders impacted. They also could generate litigation or regulatory investigations that subject us to additional adverse effects on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Damage to our reputation could negatively impact our business.

Recently, financial services companies have been experiencing increased reputational risk as consumers take issue with certain of their practices or judgments. Maintaining a positive reputation is critical to our attracting and retaining customers, partners, investors and employees. In particular, adverse perceptions regarding our reputation could also make it more difficult for us to execute on our strategy of increasing retail deposits at the Bank and may lead to decreases in deposits. Harm to our reputation can arise from many sources, including employee misconduct, misconduct by our partners, outsourced service providers or other counterparties, litigation or regulatory actions, failure by us or our partners to meet minimum standards of service and quality, inadequate protection of customer information, and compliance failures. Negative publicity regarding us (or others engaged in a similar business or activities), whether or not accurate, may damage our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business could be adversely affected if we are unable to attract, retain and motivate key officers and employees.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to retain, recruit and motivate key officers and employees. Our senior management team has significant industry experience and would be difficult to replace. Competition for senior executives in the financial services and payment industry is intense. Although we do not currently anticipate any significant changes to the management team following the completion of the IPO or the Separation, we may not be able to attract and retain qualified personnel to replace or succeed members of our senior management team or other key personnel following the completion of the IPO or the Separation (when we are no longer part of GE) or at any other time. Guidance issued by the federal banking regulators, as well as proposed rules implementing the executive compensation provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, may limit the type and structure of compensation arrangements that we may enter into with our most senior executives. In addition, proposed rules under the Dodd-Frank Act would prohibit the payment of “excessive” compensation to our executives. Compensation paid to officers of the Bank would be subject to comparable limitations. These restrictions could negatively impact our ability to compete with other companies in recruiting, retaining and motivating key personnel. Failure to retain talented senior leadership could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

41

Table of Contents

Tax legislation initiatives or challenges to our tax positions could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We operate in multiple jurisdictions and we are subject to tax laws and regulations of the U.S. federal, state and local governments, and of various foreign jurisdictions. From time to time, legislative initiatives may be proposed, such as proposals for fundamental tax reform in the United States and lowering the corporate tax rate, which may impact our effective tax rate and could adversely affect our deferred tax assets, tax positions and/or our tax liabilities. In addition, U.S. federal, state and local, as well as foreign, tax laws and regulations are extremely complex and subject to varying interpretations. There can be no assurance that our historical tax positions will not be challenged by relevant tax authorities or that we would be successful in defending our position in connection with any such challenge.

State sales tax rules and regulations, and their application and interpretation by the respective states, could change and adversely affect our results of operations.

State sales tax rules and regulations, and their application and interpretation by the respective states, could adversely affect our results of operations. Retailers collect sales tax from retail customers and remit those collections to the applicable states. When customers fail to repay their loans, including the amount of sales tax advanced by us to the merchant on their behalf, we are entitled, in some cases, to seek a refund of the amount of sales tax from the applicable state. Sales tax laws and regulations enacted by the various states are subject to interpretation, and our compliance with such laws is routinely subject to audit and review by the states. Audit risk is concentrated in several states, and these states are conducting on-going audits. The outcomes of ongoing and any future audits and changes in the states’ interpretation of the sales tax laws and regulations involving the recovery of tax on bad debts could materially adversely impact our results of operations.

Risks Relating to Regulation

Our business is subject to extensive government regulation, supervision, examination and enforcement, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business, including our relationships with our customers, is subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination under U.S. federal, state and foreign laws and regulations. These laws and regulations cover all aspects of our business, including lending practices, treatment of our customers, safeguarding deposits, customer privacy and information security, capital structure, liquidity, dividends and other capital distributions, transactions with affiliates and conduct and qualifications of personnel. As a unitary savings and loan holding company, Synchrony is subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve Board. As a large provider of consumer financial services, we are also subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by the CFPB. Until the GE SLHC Deregistration, we will be controlled by GECC, which is also subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve Board. The Bank is a federally chartered savings association. As such, the Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by the OCC, which is its primary regulator, and by the CFPB. In addition, the Bank, as an insured depository institution, is supervised by the FDIC. We, GECC and the Bank are regularly reviewed and examined by our respective regulators, which results in supervisory comments and directions relating to many aspects of our business that require response and attention. See “Regulation” for more information about the regulations applicable to us.

Banking laws and regulations are primarily intended to protect federally insured deposits, the federal Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) and the banking system as a whole, and not intended to protect our stockholders, noteholders or creditors. If we or the Bank, or until the GE SLHC Deregistration, GECC, fail to satisfy applicable laws and regulations, our respective regulators have broad discretion to enforce those laws and regulations, including with respect to the operation of our business, required capital levels, payment of dividends and other capital distributions, engaging in certain activities and making acquisitions and investments. Our regulators also have broad discretion with respect to the enforcement of applicable laws and regulations, including through

42

Table of Contents

enforcement actions that could subject us to civil money penalties, customer remediations, increased compliance costs, and limits or prohibitions on our ability to offer certain products and services or to engage in certain activities. In addition, to the extent we undertake actions requiring regulatory approval or non-objection, our regulators may make their approval or non-objection subject to conditions or restrictions that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Any other actions taken by our regulators could also have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation and brand, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, some of our competitors are subject to different, and in some cases less restrictive, legislative and regulatory regimes, which may have the effect of providing them with a competitive advantage over us.

New laws or regulations or policy or practical changes in enforcement of existing laws or regulations applicable to our businesses, or our own reexamination of our current practices, could adversely impact our profitability, limit our ability to continue existing or pursue new business activities, require us to change certain of our business practices or alter our relationships with customers, affect retention of our key personnel, or expose us to additional costs (including increased compliance costs and/or customer remediation). These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes and could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. For example, the CFPB has broad authority over the businesses in which we engage. See “—The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a new agency, and there continues to be uncertainty as to how the agency’s actions will impact our business; the agency’s actions have had and may continue to have an adverse impact on our business.”

We are also subject to potential enforcement and other actions that may be brought by state attorneys general or other state enforcement authorities and other governmental agencies. Any such actions could subject us to civil money penalties and fines, customer remediations and increased compliance costs, as well as damage our reputation and brand and limit or prohibit our ability to offer certain products and services or engage in certain business practices. For a discussion of risks related to actions or proceedings brought by regulatory agencies, see “Risks Relating to Our Business—Litigation, regulatory actions and compliance issues could subject us to significant fines, penalties, judgments, remediation costs and/or requirements resulting in increased expenses.”

The Dodd-Frank Act has had, and may continue to have, a significant impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted on July 21, 2010. While certain provisions in the Act were effective immediately, many of the provisions require implementing regulations to be effective. The Dodd-Frank Act and regulations promulgated thereunder have had, and may continue to have, a significant adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulations restrict certain business practices, impose more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage ratio requirements, as well as additional costs, on us (including increased compliance costs and increased costs of funding raised through the issuance of asset-backed securities), limit the fees we can charge for services and impact the value of our assets. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires us to serve as a source of financial strength for any insured depository institution we control, such as the Bank. Such support may be required by the Federal Reserve Board at times when we might otherwise determine not to provide it or when doing so is not otherwise in the interest of Synchrony or its stockholders, noteholders or creditors. We describe certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and other legislative and regulatory developments in “Regulation.” Federal agencies continue to promulgate regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act, and these regulations may continue to have a significant adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act require the adoption of additional rules to implement. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act mandates multiple studies, which could result in additional legislative or regulatory action. As a result, the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations remains unclear and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

43

Table of Contents

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a new agency, and there continues to be uncertainty as to how the agency’s actions will impact our business; the agency’s actions have had and may continue to have an adverse impact on our business.

The CFPB, which commenced operations in July 2011, has broad authority over the businesses in which we engage. This includes authority to write regulations under federal consumer financial protection laws and to enforce those laws against and examine large financial institutions, such as us and the Bank, for compliance. The CFPB is authorized to prevent “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices” through its regulatory, supervisory and enforcement authority. The Federal Reserve Board and the OCC and state government agencies may also invoke their supervisory and enforcement authorities to prevent unfair and deceptive acts or practices. These federal and state agencies are authorized to remediate violations of consumer protection laws in a number of ways, including collecting civil money penalties and fines and providing for customer restitution. The CFPB also engages in consumer financial education, requests data and promotes the availability of financial services to underserved consumers and communities. In addition, the CFPB maintains an online complaint system that allows consumers to log complaints with respect to various consumer finance products, including the products we offer. This system could inform future CFPB decisions with respect to its regulatory, enforcement or examination focus.

There continues to be uncertainty as to how the CFPB’s strategies and priorities, including in both its examination and enforcement processes, will impact our businesses and our results of operations going forward. Actions by the CFPB could result in requirements to alter or cease offering affected products and services, making them less attractive and restricting our ability to offer them. For example, in July 2012, the CFPB issued an industry bulletin regarding marketing practices with respect to credit card add-on products, including debt cancellation products. See “Regulation—Consumer Financial Services Regulation.” The Bank has made a number of changes, including changes in response to the CFPB bulletin, with respect to its marketing and sale of debt cancellation products to credit card customers, including ceasing all telesales of such products, and the Bank has also enhanced the disclosures associated with its website sales of such products. In addition, in October 2013, the CFPB published its first biennial report reviewing the impact of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the “CARD Act”) on the consumer credit card market. In the report, the CFPB identified practices that may warrant further scrutiny by it, including add-on products (such as debt protection, identity theft protection, credit score monitoring and other products that are supplementary to the extension of credit), cards that charge substantial application fees, and deferred interest offers and products (which could include our promotional financing products). The report further identified concerns regarding the adequacy of online disclosures, as well as of the disclosures associated with rewards products and grace periods. Separately, the CFPB is also studying pre-dispute arbitration clauses, and our litigation exposure could increase if the CFPB exercises its authority to limit or ban pre-dispute arbitration clauses.

Although we have committed significant resources to enhancing our compliance programs, changes by the CFPB in regulatory expectations, interpretations or practices or interpretations that are different or stricter than ours or those adopted in the past by other regulators could increase the risk of additional enforcement actions, fines and penalties. Actions by the CFPB could result in requirements to alter our products and services that may make them less attractive to consumers or less profitable to us. In this regard, on December 10, 2013, we entered into a consent order (the “2013 CFPB Consent Order”) with the CFPB relating to our CareCredit platform. See “—Changes to our methods of offering our CareCredit products could materially impact operating results.” In addition, on June 19, 2014, we entered into a consent order with the CFPB related to our debt cancellation product and sales practices and an unrelated issue that arose from the Bank’s self-identified omission of certain Spanish-speaking customers and customers residing in Puerto Rico from two offers that were made to certain delinquent customers. On June 19, 2014, we also entered into a consent order with the DOJ to resolve its coordinated investigation into issues related to such offers. For the year ended December 31, 2013, we had a $133 million increase in our expenses related to litigation and regulatory matters (primarily an increase to our reserves related to the various matters settled with the CFPB and one settled with the DOJ). See “Regulation—Consumer Financial Services Regulation.”

44

Table of Contents

Future actions by the CFPB (or other regulators) against us or our competitors that discourage the use of products we offer or suggest to consumers the desirability of other products or services could result in reputational harm and a loss of customers. If the CFPB changes regulations which were adopted in the past by other regulators and transferred to the CFPB by the Dodd-Frank Act, or modifies through supervision or enforcement past related regulatory guidance or interprets existing regulations in a different or stricter manner than they have been interpreted in the past by us, the industry or other regulators, our compliance costs and litigation exposure could increase materially. If future regulatory or legislative restrictions or prohibitions are imposed that affect our ability to offer promotional financing for certain of our products or require us to make significant changes to our business practices, and we are unable to develop compliant alternatives with acceptable returns, these restrictions or prohibitions could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes state officials to enforce regulations issued by the CFPB and to enforce the Act’s general prohibition against unfair, deceptive or abusive practices. This could make it more difficult than in the past for federal financial regulators to declare state laws that differ from federal standards to be preempted. To the extent that states enact requirements that differ from federal standards or state officials and courts adopt interpretations of federal consumer laws that differ from those adopted by the CFPB, we may be required to alter or cease offering products or services in some jurisdictions, which would increase compliance costs and reduce our ability to offer the same products and services to consumers nationwide, and we may be subject to a higher risk of state enforcement actions.

Changes to our methods of offering our CareCredit products could materially impact operating results.

The 2013 CFPB Consent Order relating to our CareCredit platform requires us to pay up to $34.1 million to qualifying customers, and among other things, to provide additional training and monitoring of our CareCredit partners, to include provisions in agreements with our CareCredit partners prohibiting charges for certain services not yet rendered, to make changes to certain consumer disclosures, application procedures and procedures for resolution of customer complaints, and to terminate CareCredit partners that have chargeback rates in excess of certain thresholds. Some of the changes required by the 2013 CFPB Consent Order are similar to requirements in an assurance of discontinuation (the “Assurance”) that we entered with the Attorney General for the State of New York on June 3, 2013. The Bank expects to be in full compliance with the business practice changes required by the 2013 CFPB Consent Order and the Assurance by the third quarter of 2014, subject to ongoing reporting obligations, and will complete the additional provider training by the fourth quarter of 2015. In addition to the costs of remediation, which were not material for the Assurance and will be up to $34.1 million for the 2013 CFPB Consent Order, we estimate we will incur one-time costs of approximately $3 million to implement these changes, and ongoing annual costs of approximately $3 million. We have only recently implemented certain of the process changes required by the 2013 CFPB Consent Order and the Assurance, and will continue to actively monitor and assess their impact on our CareCredit program. Although at this time we do not believe that the 2013 CFPB Consent Order and the Assurance will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations going forward, we cannot be sure this will be the case (particularly as providers become acclimated to the required changes) and we cannot be sure whether the settlement will have an adverse impact on our reputation or whether the new requirements imposed by the 2013 CFPB Consent Order or the Assurance will adversely affect providers’ or customers’ use of our programs or our business. Moreover, we may elect or be required to make changes with respect to these and other deferred interest products in the future, and those changes may adversely affect customers’ use of our credit cards or our business. In addition, our resolutions with the CFPB and the New York Attorney General do not preclude other regulators or state attorneys general from seeking additional monetary or injunctive relief with respect to CareCredit, and any such relief could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Failure by Synchrony, the Bank and, until the GE SLHC Deregistration, GECC to meet applicable capital adequacy rules could have a material adverse effect on us.

Synchrony and the Bank must meet rules for capital adequacy as discussed in “Regulation.” As a savings and loan holding company, Synchrony historically has not been required to maintain minimum capital.

45

Table of Contents

Beginning as early as 2015, however, we expect that Synchrony will be subject to capital requirements similar to those that apply to the Bank. In addition, as discussed below, until the GE SLHC Deregistration, we will be controlled by GECC, which itself is expected to be subject to capital requirements similar to those that apply to the Bank. See “—As long as we are controlled by GECC for bank regulatory purposes, regulation and supervision of GECC could adversely affect us.” These capital requirements have recently been substantially revised, including as a result of Basel III and the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. Moreover, these requirements are supplemented by outstanding regulatory proposals by the federal banking agencies, based on, and in addition to, changes recently adopted by the Basel Committee to increase the amount and scope of the supplemental leverage capital requirement by increasing the assets included in the denominator of the leverage ratio calculation. Although we cannot predict the final form or the effects of these leverage ratio regulatory proposals under the Dodd-Frank Act and the newly adopted rules implementing Basel III (even independent of any potentially increased and expanded supplemental leverage capital requirement), Synchrony, the Bank and GECC expect to be subject to increasingly stringent capital adequacy standards in the future.

In connection with applicable capital adequacy standards, Synchrony, the Bank and GECC also will be required to conduct stress tests on an annual basis. Under the Federal Reserve Board’s and the OCC’s stress test regulations, Synchrony, the Bank and GECC will each be required to use stress-testing methodologies providing for results under at least three different sets of conditions, including baseline, adverse and severely adverse conditions. In addition, as part of meeting our minimum capital requirements, we and GECC may be required to comply with the Federal Reserve Board’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (“CCAR”) process or some modified version of the CCAR process, which would measure our minimum capital requirement levels under various stress scenarios. In connection with this process, we and GECC may be required to develop for the Federal Reserve Board’s review and approval a capital plan that will include how we and GECC will each meet our minimum capital requirements under specified stress scenarios.

If Synchrony, the Bank or, until the GE SLHC Deregistration, GECC fails to meet current or future minimum capital, leverage or other financial requirements, its operations, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. Among other things, failure by Synchrony, the Bank or, until the GE SLHC Deregistration, GECC to maintain its status as “well capitalized” (or otherwise meet current or future minimum capital, leverage or other financial requirements) could compromise our competitive position and result in restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Board or the OCC, including, potentially, on the Bank’s ability to engage in certain activities. These could include restrictions on the Bank’s ability to enter into transactions with affiliates, accept brokered deposits, grow its assets, engage in material transactions and extend credit in certain highly leveraged transactions, amend or change its charter, bylaws or accounting methods, pay interest on its liabilities without regard to regulatory caps on the rates that may be paid on deposits and pay dividends or repurchase stock. In addition, failure to maintain the well capitalized status of the Bank could result in our having to invest additional capital in the Bank, which could in turn require us to raise additional capital. The market and demand for, and cost of, our asset-backed securities also could be adversely affected by failure to meet current or future capital requirements.

We may pay dividends or repurchase our common stock, which may reduce the amount of funds available to satisfy the notes; the Bank is subject to restrictions that limit its ability to pay dividends to us, which could limit our ability to make payments on the notes.

In connection with our application to the Federal Reserve Board described above and the Separation, we expect to continue to increase our capital and liquidity levels by, among other things, retaining net earnings and by not paying a dividend or returning capital through stock repurchases until our application to the Federal Reserve Board is approved. Thereafter, our board of directors intends to consider our policy regarding the payment and amount of dividends and may consider stock repurchases, in each case consistent with maintaining capital ratios well in excess of minimum regulatory requirements. The declaration and amount of any future dividends to holders of our common stock or stock repurchases will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on many factors, including the financial condition, earnings, capital and liquidity requirements

46

Table of Contents

of us and the Bank, applicable regulatory restrictions (including any restrictions that may be imposed in connection with the Separation), corporate law and contractual restrictions (including restrictions contained in the New Bank Term Loan Facility and the New GECC Term Loan Facility) and other factors that our board of directors deems relevant. However, any future payment of dividends or repurchases of our capital stock will be for the benefit of our holders of common stock, not the holders of our debt, and will reduce the amount of funds available to satisfy the notes.

We rely significantly on dividends and other distributions and payments from the Bank for liquidity, including to pay our obligations under the notes and other indebtedness as they become due, and federal law limits the amount of dividends and other distributions and payments that the Bank may pay to us. For example, OCC regulations limit the ability of savings associations to make distributions of capital, including payment of dividends, stock redemptions and repurchases, cash-out mergers and other transactions charged to the capital account. The Bank must obtain the OCC’s approval prior to making a capital distribution in certain circumstances, including if the Bank proposes to make a capital distribution when it does not meet certain capital requirements (or will not do so as a result of the proposed capital distribution) or certain net income requirements. In addition, the Bank must file a prior written notice of a planned or declared dividend or other distribution with the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board or the OCC may object to a capital distribution if, among other things, the Bank is, or as a result of such dividend or distribution would be, undercapitalized or the Federal Reserve Board has safety and soundness concerns. Additional restrictions on bank dividends may apply if the Bank fails the qualified thrift lender (“QTL”) test. The application of these restrictions on the Bank’s ability to pay dividends involves broad discretion on the part of our regulators. The Bank must also meet certain conditions to declare or pay a dividend under the Bank’s Operating Agreement with the OCC entered into in connection with its acquisition of the deposit business of MetLife. Limitations on the Bank’s payments of dividends and other distributions and payments that we receive from the Bank could reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to pay our obligations under the notes and our other indebtedness. See “Regulation—Savings Association Regulation—Dividends and Stock Repurchases” and “—Activities.”

Regulations relating to privacy, information security and data protection could increase our costs, affect or limit how we collect and use personal information and adversely affect our business opportunities.

We are subject to various privacy, information security and data protection laws, including requirements concerning security breach notification, and we could be negatively impacted by them. For example, in the United States, certain of our businesses are subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) and implementing regulations and guidance. Among other things, the GLBA: (i) imposes certain limitations on the ability of financial institutions to share consumers’ nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third parties, (ii) requires that financial institutions provide certain disclosures to consumers about their information collection, sharing and security practices and affords customers the right to “opt out” of the institution’s disclosure of their personal financial information to nonaffiliated third parties (with certain exceptions) and (iii) requires financial institutions to develop, implement and maintain a written comprehensive information security program containing safeguards that are appropriate to the financial institution’s size and complexity, the nature and scope of the financial institution’s activities, and the sensitivity of customer information processed by the financial institution as well as plans for responding to data security breaches.

Moreover, various United States federal banking regulatory agencies, states and foreign jurisdictions have enacted data security breach notification requirements with varying levels of individual, consumer, regulatory and/or law enforcement notification in certain circumstances in the event of a security breach. Many of these requirements also apply broadly to our partners that accept our cards. In many countries that have yet to impose data security breach notification requirements, regulators have increasingly used the threat of significant sanctions and penalties by data protection authorities to encourage voluntary notification and discourage data security breaches.

Furthermore, legislators and/or regulators in the United States and other countries in which we operate are increasingly adopting or revising privacy, information security and data protection laws that potentially could

47

Table of Contents

have a significant impact on our current and planned privacy, data protection and information security-related practices, our collection, use, sharing, retention and safeguarding of consumer and/or employee information, and some of our current or planned business activities. This could also increase our costs of compliance and business operations and could reduce income from certain business initiatives. In the United States, this includes increased privacy-related enforcement activity at the Federal level, by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as at the state level, such as with regard to mobile applications.

Compliance with current or future privacy, data protection and information security laws (including those regarding security breach notification) affecting customer and/or employee data to which we are subject could result in higher compliance and technology costs and could restrict our ability to provide certain products and services (such as products or services that involve us sharing information with third parties or storing sensitive credit card information), which could materially and adversely affect our profitability. Our failure to comply with privacy, data protection and information security laws could result in potentially significant regulatory investigations and government actions, litigation, fines or sanctions, consumer or partner actions and damage to our reputation and our brand, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our use of third-party vendors and our other ongoing third-party business relationships are subject to increasing regulatory requirements and attention.

We regularly use third-party vendors and subcontractors as part of our business. We also have substantial ongoing business relationships with our partners and other third-parties. These types of third-party relationships are subject to increasingly demanding regulatory requirements and attention by our federal bank regulators (the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC) and our consumer regulator (the CFPB). Regulatory guidance requires us to enhance our due diligence, ongoing monitoring and control over our third-party vendors and subcontractors and other ongoing third-party business relationships, including with our partners. In certain cases we may be required to renegotiate our agreements with these vendors and/or their subcontractors to meet these enhanced requirements, which could increase our costs. We expect that our regulators will hold us responsible for deficiencies in our oversight and control of our third-party relationships and in the performance of the parties with which we have these relationships. As a result, if our regulators conclude that we have not exercised adequate oversight and control over our third-party vendors and subcontractors or other ongoing third-party business relationships or that such third parties have not performed appropriately, we could be subject to enforcement actions, including civil money penalties or other administrative or judicial penalties or fines as well as requirements for customer remediation.

Anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing laws could have significant adverse consequences for us.

We maintain an enterprise-wide program designed to enable us to comply with all applicable anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing laws and regulations, including the Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act. This program includes policies, procedures, processes and other internal controls designed to identify, monitor, manage and mitigate the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing posed by our products, services, customers and geographic locale. These controls include procedures and processes to detect and report suspicious transactions, perform customer due diligence, respond to requests from law enforcement, and meet all recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to particular transactions involving currency or monetary instruments. We cannot be sure our programs and controls will be effective to ensure our compliance with all applicable anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing laws and regulations, and our failure to comply could subject us to significant sanctions, fines, penalties and reputational harm, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

As long as we are controlled by GECC for bank regulatory purposes, regulation and supervision of GECC could adversely affect us.

GECC is a regulated savings and loan holding company and therefore is subject to all of the regulation and supervision to which we are subject. Until the GE SLHC Deregistration, regulation and supervision of GECC as

48

Table of Contents

a savings and loan holding company may, for reasons related or unrelated to us, materially and adversely affect us, including restricting our ability to pay dividends or repurchase our stock, initiate or continue various business activities or practices, grow our assets or complete the Separation.

As a nonbank SIFI, GECC, our indirect parent company, is subject to enhanced prudential standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve Board, which is expected to include regulatory capital requirements. Nonbank SIFIs, such as GECC, currently are subject to some, but not all, of the enhanced prudential standards under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Federal Reserve Board has issued regulations implementing certain of the enhanced prudential standards of the Dodd-Frank Act for bank holding companies and foreign banking organizations, but not for nonbank SIFIs. In connection with these regulations, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that it will apply enhanced prudential standards to an individual nonbank SIFI, such as GECC, by rule or order. Although the enhanced prudential standards currently applicable to GECC in its capacity as a nonbank SIFI do not have the effect of imposing direct regulatory obligations or restrictions on us, we cannot be certain that standards imposed by rule or order on GECC as a nonbank SIFI by the Federal Reserve Board in the future will not have the effect of directly or indirectly imposing obligations or restrictions on us so long as we are controlled by GECC for bank regulatory purposes and those could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. For example, capital plan and stress-testing requirements to which GECC may be made subject as a nonbank SIFI could affect, among other things, our ability to pay dividends or repurchase our stock, our ability to redeem the notes or GECC’s ability to complete the Separation.

Risks Relating to Our Separation from GE

GE may not complete the Separation as planned or at all.

On November 15, 2013, GE announced that it planned a staged exit from our business, consistent with its strategy of reducing GECC’s percentage of GE’s total earnings and increasing GECC’s focus on its commercial lending and leasing businesses. The IPO was the first step in that exit. As a result of the IPO, GE currently beneficially owns 84.9% of our outstanding common stock (and will own 83.1% if the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares of common stock from us in the IPO is exercised in full).

GE has indicated that it currently is targeting to complete its exit from our business in late 2015 through the Separation. The Separation would be subject to various conditions, including receipt of any necessary bank regulatory and other approvals, the existence of satisfactory market conditions, and, in the case of a tax-free transaction, a private letter ruling from the IRS as to certain issues relating to, and an opinion of counsel confirming, the tax-free treatment of the transaction to GE and its stockholders. In addition, since GE’s exit from our business will not be completed until GE has obtained the GE SLHC Deregistration, GE’s willingness to proceed with the Separation may be conditioned on its obtaining the necessary determination by the Federal Reserve Board that the GE SLHC Deregistration is effective (i.e., that, following the Separation, GE, along with GECC and GECFI, no longer controls us and therefore GE, GECC and GECFI are released from savings and loan holding company registration).

The conditions related to the Separation and the GE SLHC Deregistration may not be satisfied in late 2015 or thereafter, or GE may decide for any other reason not to consummate the Separation in late 2015 or thereafter. Also, satisfying the conditions related to the Separation and the GE SLHC Deregulation may require actions that GE has not anticipated. Any delay by GE in completing, or uncertainty about its ability or intent to complete, the Separation and the GE SLHC Deregistration on the planned timetable and the contemplated terms (including at the contemplated capital and liquidity levels), or at all, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If GE is unable to obtain the GE SLHC Deregistration, it will continue to have significant control over us.

If the GE SLHC Deregistration is not obtained (and until it is obtained), GE will continue to have significant control over us. GE’s degree of control will depend on, among other things, its level of ownership of our common

49

Table of Contents

stock, the number of persons it is entitled to designate for nomination for election to our board of directors under the Master Agreement and the requirement under the Master Agreement that we obtain GECC’s prior written approval before undertaking (or permitting or authorizing the Bank or any of our other subsidiaries to undertake) various significant corporate actions. This may mean that GE, through GECC, may not always exercise control of us in a way that benefits our public stockholders or noteholders. Conflicts of interest may arise between us and GE and GECC that could be resolved in a manner unfavorable to us. We will also continue to be subject to the regulation and supervision applicable to GE, GECC and companies under their control, and such regulation and supervision may, for reasons related or unrelated to us, adversely affect us until the GE SLHC Deregistration is obtained. All of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on us. See “—GE has significant control over us and may not always exercise its control in a way that benefits our public stockholders or noteholders” and “—Risks Relating to Regulation—As long as we are controlled by GECC for bank regulatory purposes, regulation and supervision of GECC could adversely affect us.”

We need Federal Reserve Board approval to continue to be a savings and loan holding company following the GE SLHC Deregistration. We may not receive this approval in a timely manner or at all, and additional approval conditions beyond what we are anticipating may be imposed that prevent or delay the Separation or the GE SLHC Deregistration or require us to incur significant additional expense.

The Savings and Loan Holding Company Act generally requires Federal Reserve Board approval before a company acquires a savings association and becomes a savings and loan holding company. We were exempt from this requirement when we initially acquired the Bank and became a savings and loan holding company, because we were a subsidiary of GE, GECC and GECFI, existing savings and loan holding companies. We do not expect this exemption to continue to apply to us following the GE SLHC Deregistration. As a result, we will be required to file an application with, and receive approval from, the Federal Reserve Board to continue to be a savings and loan holding company and to retain ownership of the Bank following the GE SLHC Deregistration. See “Regulation—Savings and Loan Holding Company Regulation.”

We expect that the Federal Reserve Board will not act on our application to continue to be a savings and loan holding company and to retain ownership of the Bank following the GE SLHC Deregistration until, among other things, it has completed an in-depth review of our preparedness to operate on a standalone basis, independently of GE, and is satisfied with the results. We cannot predict when this review will begin but expect it to be some period of time after the completion of the IPO. In connection with the Federal Reserve Board’s review and prior to our filing an application with the Federal Reserve Board to continue to be a savings and loan holding company and to retain ownership of the Bank following the GE SLHC Deregistration, we will continue to establish and expand our operations and infrastructure and take other steps to allow us to operate as a fully standalone public company, independently of GE. See “Prospectus Summary—GE Ownership and Our Separation from GE.”

Once the Federal Reserve Board begins its review of our preparedness to operate on a standalone basis, we cannot predict how long such review will take. We expect, however, that the review will require a considerable period of time. In addition, to obtain approval of our application to continue to be a savings and loan holding company and retain ownership of the Bank following the GE SLHC Deregistration, we may have to take additional actions beyond the significant operations and infrastructure expansion and other steps we are already planning. For example, we may have to increase our capital and liquidity levels beyond what we are anticipating; restrict our payment of dividends, or not make any payment of dividends, for a longer period than what we anticipate; make further changes to, among other things, our corporate governance, risk management, capital planning, treasury, information technology, compliance, regulatory, internal audit and other control operations and infrastructure; stop receiving any transitional services from GE; repay all related party debt owed to GECC; or further diversify our funding sources, such as by reducing the amount of our brokered deposits or increasing the amount of our unsecured debt beyond what we are anticipating. Those actions may involve significant additional expenses for us and require significant time to implement beyond what we now anticipate.

50

Table of Contents

Even after taking any such actions, there is no assurance that our application to continue to be a savings and loan holding company following the GE SLHC Deregistration will be approved. The Federal Reserve Board will consider a range of factors and has significant discretion in reviewing our application, and its action on our application may be affected by circumstances we do not know or cannot predict at this time, including factors identified in the Federal Reserve Board’s in-depth review of us, changes in our current condition or changes in general economic and market conditions relevant to our operations. The Federal Reserve Board will also seek the views of the OCC and FDIC as regulators of the Bank, and their views may have a significant effect on the Federal Reserve Board’s action on the application. If the application is not approved, GE will not be able to obtain the GE SLHC Deregistration as currently planned. GE may be unwilling to proceed with the Separation unless or until it is able to obtain the GE SLHC Deregistration.

Even if our application is approved, we cannot be certain when such approval will be granted, or what conditions or restrictions, if any, will be imposed for such approval. The Federal Reserve Board’s approval could include conditions or restrictions that are more onerous than those generally applicable to savings and loan holding companies and that require additional actions or impose additional limitations beyond those we may already have taken or assumed in order to obtain approval and achieve the Separation as described above. Any such conditions or restrictions (including restrictions on our ability to pay dividends or repurchase our stock after the Separation) or additional required actions could be significant, involve significant additional expense for us and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. GE’s ability or willingness to proceed with the Separation as currently planned could be affected by the nature and effect of any such conditions, restrictions or additional required actions.

Prior to the Separation and the GE SLHC Deregistration, we need to establish and significantly expand many aspects of our operations and infrastructure, and our failure to do so in a timely manner, within anticipated costs and without disrupting our ongoing business, could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations and could delay or prevent the Separation and the GE SLHC Deregistration.

Although historically we have operated as a largely standalone business within GECC with our own sales, marketing, risk management, operations, collections, customer service and compliance functions, we need to establish and significantly expand many aspects of our operations and infrastructure prior to the Separation to enable us to operate as a standalone public company after our transitional services with GE terminate (for most services, within 24 months after the completion of the IPO) and to enable GE to obtain the GE SLHC Deregistration in connection with the Separation or thereafter. The operations and infrastructure to be established or expanded relate to, among other areas, corporate governance, risk management, capital planning, treasury, information technology, compliance, regulatory, internal audit and other control operations and infrastructure.

Establishing and expanding our operations and infrastructure will involve substantial costs, the hiring and integration of a large number of new employees (including a number at senior levels), and integration of the new and expanded operations and infrastructure with our existing operations and infrastructure, and in some cases, the operations and infrastructure of our partners and other third parties. It will also require significant time and attention from our senior management and others throughout the Company, in addition to their day-to-day responsibilities running the business. We expect that our operations and infrastructure will need to be more extensive and robust in many respects than those currently in place at our Company and GECC. We cannot be sure we will be able to establish and expand the operations and infrastructure to the extent required, in the time, or at the costs, anticipated, or at the costs anticipated, and without disrupting our ongoing business operations in a material way, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Moreover, we do not expect that the Federal Reserve Board will act on our application to continue to be a savings and loan holding company and to retain ownership of the Bank following the GE SLHC Deregistration until, among other things, it has completed an in-depth review of our preparedness to operate on a standalone basis, which we expect to involve a review of the new operations and infrastructure we will be adding. As a result, delays in establishing and expanding our operations and infrastructure may delay the review of our preparedness by the Federal Reserve Board, which could delay the Separation and the GE SLHC Deregistration. Moreover, the

51

Table of Contents

Federal Reserve Board may require substantial additions or changes to our operations and infrastructure, including the operations and infrastructure we anticipate adding, all of which could significantly increase our costs and further delay the Separation and the GE SLHC Deregistration. See “—GE may not complete the Separation as planned or at all.”

Even if the GE SLHC Deregistration is obtained, we also will need Federal Reserve Board agreement that we meet the criteria for a savings and loan holding company to be treated as a financial holding company, and we cannot be certain the Federal Reserve Board will provide such agreement or what additional conditions or restrictions it may impose if it does so.

We currently are a grandfathered unitary savings and loan holding company, but do not expect to continue to qualify as such a grandfathered unitary savings and loan holding company following the GE SLHC Deregistration. As a result, in connection with our application to continue to be a savings and loan holding company, we will need to submit to the Federal Reserve Board a request to become a financial holding company in order to engage in activities that are permissible only for savings and loan holding companies that are treated as financial holding companies (including to continue to obtain financing through our securitization programs).

We believe that we will meet the criteria for a savings and loan holding company to be treated as a financial holding company. However, we cannot assure you that the Federal Reserve Board will agree, or that the Federal Reserve Board will not, in order for us to be treated as a financial holding company, impose additional conditions or restrictions, which may be similar to or different from those otherwise imposed in connection with the Separation. GE’s ability or willingness to proceed with the Separation as currently planned could be affected by the nature of any such conditions or restrictions required by the Federal Reserve Board in order for us to be treated as a financial holding company.

The IPO and Separation could adversely affect our business and profitability due to GE’s strong brand and reputation.

As a subsidiary of GE, we market many of our products using the “GE” brand name and logo, and we believe the association with GE has provided many benefits, including:

The IPO and the Separation could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain partners. We may be required to provide more favorable pricing and other terms to our partners and take other action to maintain our relationship with existing, and attract new, partners, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Although we do not expect a material loss of customers or usage following the IPO or the Separation (or more difficulty attracting new customers and increasing their usage) because our product will continue to be closely associated with our partners and their brands, we cannot be sure this will be the case. In addition, although our capital at the Bank was increased in connection with the IPO and the customer-facing aspects of our business will remain largely unchanged following the IPO and the Separation, we cannot be sure that we will not lose deposits or have more difficulty attracting new deposits following the IPO or the Separation because of depositor concerns that we will no longer be part of GE and benefitting from its brand and financial strength.

52

Table of Contents

We cannot predict the effect that the IPO and the Separation will have on our partners, customers, depositors or employees. The risks relating to the IPO and the Separation could materialize at various times, including:

We will have the right to use the GE brand name and logo for only a limited period of time and if we fail to establish a new, independently recognized brand name, we could be adversely affected.

In March 2014 we changed our corporate name to “SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL” and in June 2014 the Bank changed its corporate name to “Synchrony Bank,” although we, the Bank and our other subsidiaries may continue to use the GE brand name and logo in marketing our products and services for a limited period of time. Pursuant to a transitional trademark license agreement, GE will grant us the right to use certain “GE,” “GE Capital,” “GE Capital Retail Bank,” “GE Money” and “GECAF” marks and related GECAF logos and the GE monogram in connection with our products and services until such time as GE ceases to beneficially own more than 50% of our outstanding common stock, subject to certain exceptions (e.g., we generally will have a right to use those marks and related logos and the monogram on our credit cards for a period of three and a half years after the completion of the IPO). Development of a new brand is an expensive, uncertain and long-term process. When our right to use the GE brand name and logo expires, we may not be able to maintain or enjoy comparable name recognition or status under our new brand. If we are unable to successfully manage the transition of our business to our new brand in a timely manner, our reputation among, and relationship with, our partners, customers, depositors and employees could be adversely affected.

The terms of our arrangements with GE may be more favorable than we will be able to obtain from an unaffiliated third party. We may be unable to replace the services GECC provides us in a timely manner or on comparable terms.

We and GECC have entered into a Transitional Services Agreement (as defined under “Arrangements Among GE, GECC and Our Company—Relationship with GE and GECC—Transitional Services Agreement”), and other agreements. Pursuant to the Transitional Services Agreement, GECC and its affiliates agreed to provide us with transitional services after the IPO, including treasury, payroll, tax and other financial services, human resources and employee benefits services, information systems and network access, application and support related services, and procurement and sourcing support.

We negotiated these arrangements with GECC in the context of a parent-subsidiary relationship. Although GECC is contractually obligated to provide us with services during the term of the Transitional Services Agreement, we cannot assure you that these services will be sustained at the same level after the expiration of that agreement, or that we will be able to replace these services in a timely manner or on comparable terms. When GECC ceases to provide services pursuant to those arrangements, our costs of procuring those services from third parties may increase. Other agreements with GE and GECC also govern the relationship between us and GE after the IPO and provide for the allocation of employee benefits, tax and other liabilities and obligations attributable or related to periods or events prior to the IPO. They also contain terms and provisions that may be more favorable than terms and provisions we might have obtained in arm’s length negotiations with unaffiliated third parties. See “Arrangements Among GE, GECC and Our Company—Relationship with GE and GECC.”

53

Table of Contents

GE has significant control over us and may not always exercise its control in a way that benefits our public stockholders or noteholders.

As a result of the IPO, GE currently beneficially owns approximately 84.9% of our outstanding common stock (and will own 83.1% if the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares of common stock from us in the IPO is exercised in full). GE has indicated that, following completion of the IPO, it intends to divest its remaining interest in us. However, so long as GE continues to beneficially own more than 50% of our outstanding voting stock, GE generally will be able to determine the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, GE will have the voting power to elect the board of directors and GE will have significant influence over, and in some cases, the right to approve certain compensation paid to our executive officers.

The Master Agreement gives GECC certain significant rights until such time, if any, as the GE SLHC Deregistration occurs. Some of GECC’s rights under the Master Agreement will not terminate until the GE SLHC Deregistration occurs, and therefore it is possible that GE will exercise some or all of such rights at a time when it does not own any of our common stock. Under the Master Agreement, GECC has the right to designate five persons for nomination for election to our nine-member board of directors so long as GE beneficially owns more than 50% of our outstanding common stock and to designate a lesser number as GE’s percentage ownership decreases until the GE SLHC Deregistration. In addition, subject to certain exceptions and ownership thresholds, until the GE SLHC Deregistration, we will be required to obtain GECC’s prior written approval before undertaking (or permitting or authorizing the Bank or any of our other subsidiaries to undertake) various significant corporate actions. These include (subject to certain agreed exceptions):

54

Table of Contents

GE’s interests may differ from your interests and the interests of our stockholders, and therefore actions GE takes with respect to us, as a controlling or significant stockholder or under the Master Agreement, may not be favorable to you or our stockholders.

As long as GE owns a majority of our common stock, we will rely on certain of the exemptions from the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE available for “controlled companies”.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the corporate governance listing standards of the NYSE because GE continues to own more than 50% of our outstanding common stock. A “controlled company” may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of the NYSE. Consistent with this, the Master Agreement provides that, so long as we are a “controlled company,” we will elect not to comply with the requirements to have a majority of independent directors or to have the Nominating and Corporate Governance and Management Development and Compensation Committees of our board of directors consist entirely of independent directors. Six of our nine directors, including one member of the board of directors’ Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and one member of the board of directors’ Management Development and Compensation Committee, do not qualify as “independent directors” under the applicable listing standards of the NYSE. As a result, you will not benefit from certain of the protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE.

Our historical combined and pro forma financial information do not reflect the results we would have achieved as a standalone company and may not be a reliable indicator of our future results.

The historical combined and pro forma financial information included in this prospectus does not reflect the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows we would have achieved as a standalone company during the periods presented and may not be a reliable indicator of our future results. The pro forma financial information depends on various assumptions that may be incorrect. For example, the actual weighted average funding cost for additional debt incurred in connection with the Transactions may be higher than that assumed for purposes of preparing the pro forma financial information, or interest earned on additional assets may be lower than assumed. The pro forma financial information also does not give effect to or make any adjustment for various factors including anticipated increases in our operating expense as a result of the IPO and increases in payments under recently extended program agreements.

In addition, the historical combined and pro forma financial information does not reflect the impact of any conditions or restrictions that may be imposed by the Federal Reserve Board in connection with the GE SLHC Deregistration and the Separation, including requiring higher capital or liquidity levels or restricting our business activities or growth. Accordingly, our historical combined and pro forma financial information should not be relied upon as representative or indicative of what our financial condition or results of operations would have been had the Transactions occurred on the dates indicated. This information also should not be relied upon as representative or indicative of our future financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. For additional information relating to our historical combined and pro forma financial information, see “Selected Historical and Pro Forma Financial Information.”

The obligations associated with being a public company will require significant resources and management attention.

As a result of the IPO, we became subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) and SEC rules under that act. The Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and SEC rules thereunder require, among other things, that we establish and maintain effective internal controls and procedures for financial reporting. We have established all of the procedures and practices required as a subsidiary of GE but we will have additional procedures and practices to establish as a separate, standalone public company. As a result, we

55

Table of Contents

will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not previously incur. Furthermore, the need to establish the corporate infrastructure necessary for a standalone public company may divert some of management’s attention from operating our business and implementing our strategy. We have made, and will continue to make, changes to our internal controls and procedures for financial reporting and accounting systems to meet our reporting obligations. However, the measures we take may not be sufficient to satisfy our obligations as a public company. In addition, we cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur in order to comply with these requirements.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and SEC rules require annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, starting with the second annual report that we file with the SEC, and, in the annual report for the next succeeding year, a report by our independent auditors addressing such assessments. Failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could have a material adverse effect on our business and the trading prices of the notes.

GE could engage in business and other activities that compete with us.

GE has agreed that, subject to certain exceptions, for two years after the GE SLHC Deregistration, it will not engage in the business of providing credit to consumers through: (i) private label credit cards or dual cards in conjunction with programs with retailers, merchants or healthcare providers primarily for the purchase of goods and services from the applicable retailer, merchant or healthcare provider or (ii) general purpose credit cards, in each case, in the United States and Canada. See “Arrangements Among GE, GECC and Our Company—Relationship with GE and GECC—Master Agreement—Noncompetition Agreement.” Our certificate of incorporation provides that, other than that non-compete agreement and any other contractual provisions to the contrary, GE will have no obligation to refrain from:

GE has significant financial services businesses, including owning a bank that takes deposits (in addition to the Bank), providing consumer financing outside the United States and Canada (including private label credit cards) and providing commercial financing (including inventory, floorplan and other financing to small and medium-sized businesses). Following the IPO, GE will continue to engage in these businesses. To the extent that GE engages in the same or similar business activities or lines of business as us, or engages in business with any of our partners, customers or vendors, our ability to successfully operate and expand our business may be hampered.

Conflicts of interest may arise between us and GE that could be resolved in a manner unfavorable to us.

Questions relating to conflicts of interest may arise between us and GE in a number of areas relating to our past and ongoing relationships. Six of our directors (one of whom is our Chief Executive Officer) and many of our senior executive officers are also officers of GE and/or GECC. These directors and officers own GE stock and options to purchase GE stock, and all of them participate in GE pension plans. Ownership interests of our directors or officers in GE stock, or service as both a director of our Company and a director, officer and/or employee of GE and/or GECC, could give rise to potential conflicts of interest when a director or officer is faced with a decision that could have different implications for the two companies. These potential conflicts could arise, for example, over matters such as the desirability of changes in our business and operations, funding and capital matters, regulatory matters, matters arising with respect to the Master Agreement and other agreements with GE, employee retention or recruiting, or our dividend policy.

The corporate opportunity policy set forth in our certificate of incorporation addresses certain potential conflicts of interest between our Company, on the one hand, and GE and its officers who are directors of our Company, on the other hand. Although these provisions are designed to resolve certain conflicts between us and GE fairly, we cannot assure you that any conflicts will be so resolved. The principles for resolving these potential

56

Table of Contents

conflicts of interest are described under “Description of Capital Stock—Provisions of Our Certificate of Incorporation Relating to Corporate Opportunities.”

If GE distributes our stock to its stockholders in exchange for its common stock in a transaction that is intended to be tax-free to GE, we could have a material indemnification obligation to GE under the TSSA if we cause the distribution or certain related preliminary internal transactions to fail to qualify for tax-free treatment or in the case of certain significant transfers of our stock following such distribution.

GE has indicated that it currently intends to complete its exit from its investment in us by making a distribution of all of its remaining shares of our stock to its stockholders in exchange for GE’s common stock in a transaction that would be designed to qualify for tax-free treatment to GE and its stockholders under Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). Completion by GE of any such distribution is conditioned on, among other things, a private letter ruling from the IRS regarding certain issues relating to, and an opinion from tax counsel confirming, the tax-free treatment under Section 355 of the Code of the distribution and the tax-free treatment of a series of preliminary transactions that would be required prior to implementing the distribution. The IRS ruling and the opinion of tax counsel will rely on certain facts, assumptions, representations and undertakings from GE and us regarding the past and future conduct of GE’s and our businesses and other matters. If any of these facts, assumptions, representations or undertakings is incorrect or not otherwise satisfied, GE may not be able to rely on the IRS ruling or the opinion of tax counsel. Accordingly, notwithstanding the IRS ruling and the opinion of tax counsel, the IRS could determine that the distribution (or any of the preliminary transactions) is taxable if it determines that any of these facts, assumptions, representations or undertakings are not correct or have been violated or if it disagrees with the conclusions in the opinion that are not covered by the IRS ruling, or for other reasons, including as a result of certain significant changes in the stock ownership of GE or us after the distribution. If the distribution (or any of the preliminary transactions) is determined to be taxable, GE could incur significant tax liabilities, and under the tax sharing and separation agreement (the “TSSA”) we entered into with GE at the completion of the IPO, we may be required to indemnify GE for any such liabilities if the liability is caused by any action or inaction undertaken by us following the completion of the IPO or as a result of any direct or indirect transfers of our stock following the distribution.

In order to preserve the tax-free status of the distribution and the preliminary transactions to GE, the TSSA includes a provision generally prohibiting us from taking action after the completion of the IPO that would cause the distribution (or the preliminary transactions) to become taxable. As a result, and given our indemnity obligation to GE under the TSSA for tax liabilities incurred by GE as a result of a breach of these provisions by us or as a result of any direct or indirect transfers of our stock following the distribution, we may be required to forgo certain significant transactions that would otherwise have been advantageous to us for a period of time following the distribution, such as certain dispositions of our assets or issuances of our stock. For a discussion of the TSSA, see “Arrangements Among GE, GECC and Our Company—Relationship with GE and GECC—Tax Sharing and Separation Agreement.”

Risks Relating to This Offering

We are a holding company and will rely significantly on dividends, distributions and other payments from the Bank to fund payments on the notes.

As a holding company, we will rely significantly on dividends, distributions and other payments from the Bank to fund any payments on the notes and our other obligations, as well as to fund any dividends to our stockholders and repurchases of our stock. Accordingly, our ability to make payments on the notes depends upon the earnings of and the distribution of funds from our subsidiaries, including the Bank. Restrictions on our subsidiaries’ ability to distribute cash to us could materially affect our ability to pay principal and interest on our indebtedness, including the notes.

The ability of the Bank to make dividends and other distributions and payments to us is subject to regulation by the OCC and the Federal Reserve Board. Limitations on the amounts we receive from the Bank could impact

57

Table of Contents

our liquidity and our ability to fund payments on the notes when due. See “—Risks Relating to Regulation—We may pay dividends or repurchase our common stock, which may reduce the amount of funds available to satisfy the notes; the Bank is subject to restrictions that limit its ability to pay dividends to us, which could limit our ability to make payments on the notes.”

In addition, the terms of our indebtedness do not restrict the ability of our subsidiaries to incur indebtedness or enter into other agreements that may restrict or prohibit our subsidiaries from distributing cash to us. We cannot assure you that the indebtedness of our subsidiaries or other agreements to which our subsidiaries are a party will permit our subsidiaries to distribute sufficient cash to us to fund payments on the notes when due.

The notes will be effectively subordinated to any secured debt we may incur.

The notes are unsecured unsubordinated obligations of Synchrony and will rank equally in right of payment with all its other unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness. As a result, the indebtedness represented by the notes will effectively be subordinated to any secured indebtedness Synchrony may incur, to the extent of the value of the assets securing such indebtedness. As of March 31, 2014, on a pro forma basis after giving effect to the Transactions, Synchrony had no secured indebtedness outstanding, and $9,500 million of indebtedness that ranked equally with the notes.

In the event of any distribution or payment of our assets in any foreclosure, dissolution, winding up, liquidation or reorganization, or other bankruptcy proceeding, any secured creditors would have a superior claim to the extent of their collateral. If any of the foregoing occur, we cannot assure you that there will be sufficient assets to pay amounts due on the notes.

The notes will not be guaranteed by any of our subsidiaries and will be effectively subordinated to the debt and other liabilities of our subsidiaries.

We are a holding company and conduct substantially all of our operations through subsidiaries. However, the notes will be obligations exclusively of Synchrony and will not be guaranteed by any of our subsidiaries. As a result, the notes will be structurally subordinated to all debt and other liabilities of our subsidiaries (including deposit liabilities of the Bank), as well as the indebtedness and other liabilities of our securitization entities, which means that creditors of our subsidiaries (including depositors of the Bank) and our securitization entities will be paid from their assets before holders of the notes would have any claims to those assets. As of March 31, 2014, our subsidiaries and securitization entities had outstanding $45,317 million of total liabilities, including $42,195 million of indebtedness and deposit liabilities (excluding, in each case, intercompany liabilities).

In the event of the dissolution, winding up, liquidation or reorganization, or other bankruptcy proceeding of a subsidiary or securitization entity, creditors of that subsidiary or securitization entity would generally have the right to be paid in full before any distribution is made to us or the holders of the notes. If any of the foregoing occur, we cannot assure you that there will be sufficient assets to pay amounts due on the notes.

There are no covenants in the indenture governing the notes relating to our ability to incur future indebtedness or pay dividends, and there are limited restrictions on our ability to engage in other activities, any of which could adversely affect our ability to pay our obligations under the notes.

The indenture governing the notes does not prohibit us from incurring substantial additional indebtedness in the future. We are also permitted to incur additional secured indebtedness that would be effectively senior to the notes. The indenture governing the notes also permits unlimited additional borrowings by our subsidiaries or securitization entities that are effectively senior to the notes and, subject to certain exceptions, permits our subsidiaries to issue equity interests that have priority over our interests in the subsidiaries. If we incur additional indebtedness or liabilities, our ability to pay our obligations on the notes could be adversely affected. We expect that we will from time to time incur additional debt and other liabilities.

58

Table of Contents

In addition, the indenture does not contain any restrictive covenants limiting our ability to issue or repurchase securities, pay dividends or make any payments on junior or other indebtedness. Our ability to use our funds for numerous purposes may limit the funds available to pay our obligations under the notes.

There are no financial covenants in the indenture. You are not protected under the indenture in the event of a highly leveraged transaction, reorganization, change of control, restructuring, merger or similar transaction that may adversely affect you, except to the extent described under “Description of the Notes—Consolidation, Merger and Sale of Assets.”

We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness, including the notes.

Our ability to make scheduled payments of principal and interest or to satisfy our obligations in respect of our indebtedness or to refinance our indebtedness will depend on our future operating performance. Prevailing economic conditions (including interest rates), regulatory constraints, including, among other things, on distributions to us from the Bank and required capital levels with respect to the Bank, and financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, will also affect our ability to meet these needs. We may not be able to generate sufficient cash flows from operations, or obtain future borrowings in an amount sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness, or to fund our other liquidity needs. We may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. We may not be able to refinance any of our indebtedness when needed on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Our credit ratings may not reflect all risks of an investment in the notes.

The credit ratings of a series of notes may not reflect the potential impact of all risks related to structure and other factors on any trading market for, or trading value of, such notes. However, actual or anticipated changes in our credit ratings will generally affect any trading market for, or trading value of, each series of notes.

Agency credit ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security, and may be revised or withdrawn at any time by the issuing organization. Each agency’s rating should be evaluated independently of any other agency’s rating.

An active trading market for the notes may not develop.

Each series of notes constitutes a new issue of securities, for which there is no existing market. We do not intend to apply for listing of any series of the notes on any securities exchange or for quotation of any series of the notes in any automated dealer quotation system. We cannot provide you with any assurance regarding whether a trading market for any series of notes will develop, the ability of holders of any series of notes to sell their notes or the price at which holders may be able to sell their notes. The underwriters have advised us that they currently intend to make a market in each series of the notes. However, the underwriters are not obligated to do so, and any market-making with respect to any series of notes may be discontinued at any time without notice. If no active trading market develops, you may be unable to resell your notes at any price or at their fair market value.

Changes in our credit ratings or the debt markets could adversely affect the trading price of the notes.

The trading price of each series of notes depends on many factors, including:

59

Table of Contents

The condition of the financial markets and prevailing interest rates have fluctuated in the past and are likely to fluctuate in the future. Such fluctuations could have an adverse effect on the trading price of the notes. In addition, credit rating agencies continually review their ratings for the companies that they follow, including us. The credit rating agencies also evaluate the consumer finance industry as a whole and may change their credit rating for us based on their overall view of our industry. A negative change in our rating or that of other peer companies could have an adverse effect on the trading price of the notes.

60

Table of Contents