Overview.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, advises, and originates, trades, manages and distributes capital for, governments, institutions and individuals. Morgan Stanley was originally incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 1981, and its predecessor companies date back to 1924. The Company is a financial holding company regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”). The Company conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S. and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other world financial centers. As of December 31, 2015, the Company had 56,218 employees worldwide. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “Morgan Stanley,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” mean Morgan Stanley together with its consolidated subsidiaries.

Financial information concerning the Company, its business segments and geographic regions for each of the 12 months ended December 31, 2015 (“2015”), December 31, 2014 (“2014”) and December 31, 2013 (“2013”) is included in the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto in “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” in Part II, Item 8.

Business Segments.

The Company is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments—Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company provides a wide variety of products and services to a large and diversified group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. Additional information related to the Company’s business segments, respective clients, and products and services provided is included under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7.

Competition.

All aspects of the Company’s businesses are highly competitive, and the Company expects them to remain so. The Company competes in the U.S. and globally for clients, market share and human talent. Operating within the financial services industry on a global basis presents, among other things, technological, risk management, regulatory and other infrastructure challenges that require effective resource allocation in order for the Company to remain competitive. The Company’s competitive position depends on its reputation and the quality and consistency of its long-term investment performance. The Company’s ability to sustain or improve its competitive position also depends substantially on its ability to continue to attract and retain highly qualified employees while managing compensation and other costs. The Company competes with commercial banks, brokerage firms, insurance companies, electronic trading and clearing platforms, financial data repositories, sponsors of mutual funds, hedge funds and private equity funds, energy companies and other companies offering financial or ancillary services in the U.S., globally and through the internet. In addition, restrictive laws and regulations applicable to certain U.S. financial services institutions, such as Morgan Stanley, which may prohibit the Company from engaging in certain transactions and impose more stringent capital and liquidity requirements, can put the Company at a competitive disadvantage to competitors in certain businesses not subject to these same requirements. See also “—Supervision and Regulation” below and “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A.

Institutional Securities and Wealth Management.

The Company’s competitive position for its Institutional Securities and Wealth Management business segments depends on innovation, execution capability and relative pricing. The Company competes directly in the U.S. and globally with other securities and financial services firms and broker-dealers and with others on a regional or product basis. Additionally, there is increased competition driven by established firms as well as the emergence of new firms and business models competing for the same clients and assets or offering similar products and services.

		1

Table of Contents

The Company’s ability to access capital at competitive rates (which is generally impacted by the Company’s credit ratings) and to commit capital efficiently, particularly in its capital-intensive underwriting and sales, trading, financing and market-making activities, also affects its competitive position. Corporate clients may request that the Company provide loans or lending commitments in connection with certain investment banking activities and such requests are expected to increase in the future.

It is possible that competition may become even more intense as the Company continues to compete with financial institutions that may be larger, or better capitalized, or may have a stronger local presence and longer operating history in certain areas. Many of these firms have the ability to offer a wide range of products and services that may enhance their competitive position and could result in pricing pressure on the Company’s businesses. In addition, the Company’s business is subject to increased regulation in the U.S. and abroad, while certain of its competitors may be subject to less stringent legal and regulatory regimes than the Company, thereby putting the Company at a competitive disadvantage.

The Company continues to experience intense price competition in some of its businesses. In particular, the ability to execute securities trades electronically on exchanges and through other automated trading markets has increased the pressure on trading commissions and comparable fees. The trend toward direct access to automated, electronic markets will likely increase as additional trading moves to more automated platforms. It is also possible that the Company will experience competitive pressures in these and other areas in the future as some of its competitors seek to obtain market share by reducing prices (in the form of commissions or pricing).

Investment Management.

Competition in the asset management industry is affected by several factors, including the Company’s reputation, investment objectives, quality of investment professionals, performance of investment strategies or product offerings relative to peers and an appropriate benchmark index, advertising and sales promotion efforts, fee levels, the effectiveness of and access to distribution channels and investment pipelines, and the types and quality of products offered. The Company’s investment products, including alternative investment products, may compete with investments offered by other investment managers who may be subject to less stringent legal and regulatory regimes than the Company.

Supervision and Regulation.

As a major financial services firm, the Company is subject to extensive regulation by U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies and securities exchanges and by regulators and exchanges in each of the major markets where it conducts its business. Moreover, in response to the 2007–2008 financial crisis, legislators and regulators, both in the U.S. and worldwide, have adopted, continue to propose or are in the process of implementing a wide range of reforms that have resulted or that will result in major changes to the way the Company is regulated and conducts its business. These reforms include the Dodd-Frank Act; risk-based capital, leverage and liquidity standards adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”), including Basel III, and the national implementation of those standards; capital planning and stress testing requirements; proposed requirements for total loss-absorbing capacity, including long-term debt; and new resolution regimes that are being developed in the U.S. and other jurisdictions. While certain portions of these reforms are effective, others are still subject to final rulemaking or transition periods.

It is likely that there will be further material changes in the way major financial institutions are regulated in both the U.S. and other markets in which the Company operates, although it remains difficult to predict the exact impact these changes will have on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows for a particular future period.

Financial Holding Company.

Consolidated Supervision.     The Company has operated as a bank holding company and financial holding company under the BHC Act since September 2008. As a bank holding company, the Company is subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision, regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve has heightened authority to examine, prescribe regulations and take action with respect to all of the Company’s subsidiaries. In particular, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company is, or will become, subject to (among other things): significantly revised and expanded regulation and supervision; more intensive scrutiny of its businesses and plans for expansion of those

		2

Table of Contents

businesses; new activities limitations; a systemic risk regime that imposes heightened capital and liquidity requirements; new restrictions on activities and investments imposed by a section of the BHC Act added by the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule;” and comprehensive derivatives regulation. In addition, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has primary rulemaking, enforcement and examination authority over the Company and its subsidiaries with respect to federal consumer protection laws, to the extent applicable.

Scope of Permitted Activities.     The BHC Act limits the activities of bank holding companies and financial holding companies and grants the Federal Reserve authority to limit the Company’s ability to conduct activities. The Company must obtain the Federal Reserve’s approval before engaging in certain banking and other financial activities both in the U.S. and internationally. Since becoming a bank holding company, the Company has disposed of certain nonconforming assets and conformed certain activities to the requirements of the BHC Act.

The BHC Act grandfathers “activities related to the trading, sale or investment in commodities and underlying physical properties,” provided that the Company was engaged in “any of such activities as of September 30, 1997 in the United States” and provided that certain other conditions that are within the Company’s reasonable control are satisfied. If the Federal Reserve were to determine that any of the Company’s commodities activities did not qualify for the BHC Act grandfather exemption, then the Company would likely be required to divest any such activities that did not otherwise conform to the BHC Act. At this time, the Company believes, based on its interpretation of applicable law, that (i) such commodities activities qualify for the BHC Act grandfather exemption or otherwise conform to the BHC Act and (ii) if the Federal Reserve were to determine otherwise, any required divestment would not have a material adverse impact on its financial condition. Additionally, the Federal Reserve has stated that it is considering the issuance of a formal notice of proposed rulemaking to address the risks associated with financial holding companies’ physical commodities activities and merchant banking investments in nonfinancial companies, including rules that may impose additional capital, risk management and reporting requirements.

Activities Restrictions under the Volcker Rule.     The Volcker Rule prohibits “banking entities,” including the Company and its affiliates, from engaging in certain “proprietary trading” activities, as defined in the Volcker Rule, subject to exemptions for underwriting, market-making-related activities, risk-mitigating hedging and certain other activities. The Volcker Rule also prohibits certain investments and relationships by banking entities with “covered funds,” as defined in the Volcker Rule, subject to certain exemptions and exclusions. Banking entities were required to bring all of their activities and investments into conformance with the Volcker Rule by July 21, 2015, subject to certain extensions. In addition, the Volcker Rule requires banking entities to have comprehensive compliance programs reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with the Volcker Rule.

The Volcker Rule also requires that deductions be made from a bank holding company’s Tier 1 capital for certain permissible investments in covered funds. Beginning with the three months ended September 30, 2015, the required deductions are reflected in the Company’s relevant regulatory capital tiers and ratios. Given its complexity, the full impact of the Volcker Rule is still uncertain and will ultimately depend on the interpretation and implementation by the five regulatory agencies responsible for its oversight.

Capital Standards.     The Federal Reserve establishes capital requirements for the Company and evaluates its compliance with such requirements. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) establishes similar capital requirements and standards for the Company’s U.S. bank subsidiaries, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. (“MSBNA”) and Morgan Stanley Private Bank, National Association (“MSPBNA”) (collectively, “U.S. Bank Subsidiaries”).

Basel III.     The current risk-based and leverage capital framework governing the Company and its U.S. Bank Subsidiaries is based on the Basel III capital standards established by the Basel Committee, as modified in certain respects by the U.S. banking agencies, and is referred to herein as “U.S. Basel III.” Under U.S. Basel III, on a fully phased-in basis, the Company will be subject to the following requirements:

		3

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve may require the Company and its peer financial holding companies to maintain risk- and leverage-based capital ratios substantially in excess of mandated minimum levels, depending upon general economic conditions and a financial holding company’s particular condition, risk profile and growth plans.

In order for the Company’s U.S. Bank Subsidiaries to qualify as “well-capitalized” under the higher capital requirements in U.S. Basel III, they must maintain a Total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 8%, a Common Equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6.5% and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5%. The Federal Reserve has not yet revised the “well-capitalized” standard for financial holding companies to reflect the higher capital standards in U.S. Basel III.

The Basel Committee is in the process of considering revisions to various provisions of the Basel III framework that, if adopted by the U.S. banking agencies, could result in substantial changes to U.S. Basel III.

For more information about the capital requirements applicable to the Company and its U.S. Bank Subsidiaries, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements” in Part II, Item 7.

Capital Planning, Stress Tests and Capital Distributions.     Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve has adopted capital planning and stress test requirements for large bank holding companies, including the Company. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires each of the Company’s U.S. Bank Subsidiaries to conduct an annual stress test. For more information about the capital planning and stress test requirements, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements” in Part II, Item 7.

In addition to capital planning requirements, the OCC, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) have the authority to prohibit or to limit the payment of dividends by the banking organizations they supervise, including the Company and its U.S. Bank Subsidiaries, if, in the banking regulator’s opinion, payment of a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice in light of the financial condition of the banking organization. All of these policies and other requirements could affect the Company’s ability to pay dividends and/or repurchase stock, or require it to provide capital assistance to its U.S. Bank Subsidiaries under circumstances which the Company would not otherwise decide to do so.

Liquidity Standards.     In addition to capital regulations, the U.S. banking agencies and the Basel Committee have adopted, or are in the process of considering, liquidity standards. The Basel Committee has developed two standards intended for use in liquidity risk supervision, the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”) and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (“NSFR”). The LCR requirements issued by the U.S. banking regulators (“U.S. LCR”) apply to the Company and its U.S. Bank Subsidiaries. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Liquidity Framework” in Part II, Item 7.

Systemic Risk Regime.     The Dodd-Frank Act established a systemic risk regime to which bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets, such as the Company, are subject. Under rules issued by the Federal Reserve to implement certain requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act’s enhanced prudential standards, such bank holding companies must conduct internal liquidity stress tests, maintain unencumbered highly liquid assets to meet projected net cash outflows for 30 days over the range of liquidity stress scenarios used in internal stress tests, and comply with various liquidity risk management requirements. Institutions also must comply with a range of risk management and corporate governance requirements.

The Federal Reserve has proposed rules that would establish single counterparty credit limits and create a new early remediation framework to address financial distress or material management weaknesses. The Federal Reserve also has the

		4

Table of Contents

ability to establish additional prudential standards, including those regarding contingent capital, enhanced public disclosures, and limits on short-term debt, including off-balance sheet exposures. For example, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements—Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity and Long-Term Debt Requirement” in Part II, Item 7.

Under the systemic risk regime, if the Federal Reserve or the Financial Stability Oversight Council determines that a bank holding company with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets poses a “grave threat” to U.S. financial stability, the institution may be, among other things, restricted in its ability to merge or offer financial products and required to terminate activities and dispose of assets.

See also “—Capital Standards” and “—Liquidity Standards” herein and “—Resolution and Recovery Planning” below.

Resolution and Recovery Planning.     Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company is required to submit to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC an annual resolution plan that describes its strategy for a rapid and orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the event of material financial distress or failure of the Company. The Company’s preferred resolution strategy, which is set out in its 2015 resolution plan, submitted on July 1, 2015, is a single-point-of-entry (“SPOE”) strategy. On August 5, 2014, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC notified the Company and 10 other large banking organizations that certain shortcomings in their 2013 resolution plans needed to be addressed in their 2015 resolution plans. If the Federal Reserve and the FDIC both were to determine that the Company’s 2015 resolution plan is not credible or would not facilitate an orderly resolution and the Company does not cure the plan’s deficiencies, the Company or any of its subsidiaries may be subjected to more stringent capital, leverage, or liquidity requirements or restrictions on its growth, activities, or operations, or, after a two-year period, the Company may be required to divest assets or operations.

Further, the Company is required to submit an annual recovery plan to the Federal Reserve that outlines the steps that management could take over time to generate or conserve financial resources in times of prolonged financial stress.

Certain of the Company’s domestic and foreign subsidiaries are also subject to resolution and recovery planning requirements in the jurisdictions in which they operate. For example, MSBNA must submit to the FDIC an annual resolution plan that describes MSBNA’s strategy for a rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure of MSBNA. The OCC has also proposed guidelines that would require insured national banks with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets, which include MSBNA, to submit an annual recovery plan to the OCC.

In addition, under the Dodd-Frank Act, certain financial companies, including bank holding companies such as the Company and certain covered subsidiaries, can be subjected to a resolution proceeding under the orderly liquidation authority in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act with the FDIC being appointed as receiver, provided that certain procedures are met, including certain extraordinary financial distress and systematic risk determinations by the U.S. Treasury Secretary in consultation with the U.S. President. The orderly liquidation authority rulemaking is proceeding in stages, with some regulations now finalized and others planned but not yet proposed. If the Company were subject to the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC would have considerable powers, including: the power to remove officers and directors responsible for the Company’s failure and to appoint new directors and officers; the power to assign the Company’s assets and liabilities to a third party or bridge financial company without the need for creditor consent or prior court review; the ability to differentiate among the Company’s creditors, including by treating certain creditors within the same class better than others, subject to a minimum recovery right on the part of disfavored creditors to receive at least what they would have received in bankruptcy liquidation; and broad powers to administer the claims process to determine distributions from the assets of the receivership. The FDIC has been developing an SPOE strategy that could be used to implement the orderly liquidation authority and in December 2013 issued a public notice inviting comments on the proposed strategy.

Regulators have taken and proposed various actions to facilitate an SPOE strategy under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the orderly liquidation authority or other resolution regimes. For example, the Federal Reserve has issued a proposed rule that would require top-tier bank holding companies of U.S. global systemically important banks (“G-SIBs”), including the Company, to maintain minimum amounts of equity and eligible long-term debt in order to ensure that such institutions have enough loss-absorbing resources to be recapitalized under an SPOE resolution strategy. (The proposed rule also imposes additional requirements. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—

		5

Table of Contents

Liquidity and Capital Resources—Regulatory Requirements—Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity and Long-Term Debt Requirements” in Part II, Item 7.) In addition, on November 12, 2015, in order to facilitate an SPOE resolution strategy, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, together with certain other G-SIBs, agreed to adhere to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol (the “Protocol”), which applies to over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivative transactions entered into among the adhering parties under ISDA Master Agreements and securities financing transactions governed by specified securities financing transaction agreements. The Protocol overrides certain cross-default rights and certain other default rights related to the entry of an adhering party or certain of its affiliates into certain resolution proceedings. The Federal Reserve is expected to promulgate regulations implementing and possibly expanding portions of, and the parties subject to, the Protocol.

U.S. Bank Subsidiaries.

U.S. Banking Institutions.     MSBNA, primarily a wholesale commercial bank, offers commercial lending and certain retail securities-based lending services in addition to deposit products. It also conducts certain foreign exchange activities.

MSPBNA offers certain mortgage and other secured lending products, including retail securities-based lending products, primarily for customers of its affiliate retail broker-dealer, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB LLC”). MSPBNA also offers certain deposit products, as well as prime brokerage custody services.

Both MSBNA and MSPBNA are FDIC-insured national banks subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the OCC. They are both subject to the OCC’s risk governance guidelines, which establish heightened standards for a large national bank’s risk governance framework and the oversight of that framework by the bank’s board of directors.

Prompt Corrective Action.     The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 provides a framework for regulation of depository institutions and their affiliates, including parent holding companies, by their federal banking regulators. Among other things, it requires the relevant federal banking regulator to take “prompt corrective action” (“PCA”) with respect to a depository institution if that institution does not meet certain capital adequacy standards. Current PCA regulations generally apply only to insured banks and thrifts such as MSBNA or MSPBNA and not to their parent holding companies. The Federal Reserve is, however, authorized to take appropriate action at the holding company level, subject to certain limitations. Under the systemic risk regime, as described above, the Company also would become subject to an early remediation protocol in the event of financial distress. In addition, bank holding companies, such as the Company, are required to serve as a source of strength to their U.S. bank subsidiaries and commit resources to support these subsidiaries in the event such subsidiaries are in financial distress.

Transactions with Affiliates.     The Company’s U.S. Bank Subsidiaries are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which impose restrictions on “covered transactions” with any affiliates. Covered transactions include any extension of credit to, purchase of assets from, and certain other transactions by insured banks with an affiliate. These restrictions limit the total amount of credit exposure that the Company’s U.S. Bank Subsidiaries may have to any one affiliate and to all affiliates. Other provisions set collateral requirements and require all such transactions to be made on market terms. Derivatives, securities borrowing and securities lending transactions between the Company’s U.S. Bank Subsidiaries and their affiliates are subject to these restrictions. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it will propose a rulemaking to implement these more recent restrictions.

In addition, the Volcker Rule generally prohibits covered transactions between (i) the Company or any of its affiliates and (ii) covered funds for which the Company or any of its affiliates serves as the investment manager, investment adviser, commodity trading advisor or sponsor or other covered funds organized and offered by the Company or any of its affiliates pursuant to specific exemptions in the Volcker Rule.

FDIC Regulation.     An FDIC-insured depository institution is generally liable for any loss incurred or expected to be incurred by the FDIC in connection with the failure of an insured depository institution under common control by the same bank holding company. As commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institutions, each of MSBNA and MSPBNA could be responsible for any loss to the FDIC from the failure of the other. In addition, both institutions are exposed to changes in the cost of FDIC insurance. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, some of the restoration of the FDIC’s reserve fund must be paid for

		6

Table of Contents

exclusively by large depository institutions, including MSBNA, and FDIC deposit insurance assessments are calculated using a methodology that generally results in a lower charge for banks that are mostly funded by deposits.

Institutional Securities and Wealth Management.

Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Regulation.     The Company’s primary U.S. broker-dealer subsidiaries, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”) and MSSB LLC, are registered broker-dealers with the SEC and in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and are members of various self-regulatory organizations, including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), and various securities exchanges and clearing organizations. Broker-dealers are subject to laws and regulations covering all aspects of the securities business, including sales and trading practices, securities offerings, publication of research reports, use of customers’ funds and securities, capital structure, risk management controls in connection with market access, recordkeeping and retention, and the conduct of their directors, officers, representatives and other associated persons. Broker-dealers are also regulated by securities administrators in those states where they do business. Violations of the laws and regulations governing a broker-dealer’s actions could result in censures, fines, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, revocation of licenses or registrations, the suspension or expulsion from the securities industry of such broker-dealer or its officers or employees, or other similar consequences by both federal and state securities administrators. Morgan Stanley’s broker-dealer subsidiaries are also members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, which provides certain protections for customers of broker-dealers against losses in the event of the insolvency of a broker-dealer.

MSSB LLC is also a registered investment adviser with the SEC. MSSB LLC’s relationship with its investment advisory clients is subject to the fiduciary and other obligations imposed on investment advisors under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder as well as various state securities laws. These laws and regulations generally grant the SEC and other supervisory bodies broad administrative powers to address non-compliance, including the power to restrict or limit MSSB LLC from carrying on its investment advisory and other asset management activities. Other sanctions that may be imposed include the suspension of individual employees, limitations on engaging in certain activities for specified periods of time or for specified types of clients, the revocation of registrations, other censures and significant fines.

The Company is subject to various regulations that affect broker-dealer sales practices and customer relationships. For example, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC is authorized to adopt a fiduciary duty applicable to broker-dealers when providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers, although the SEC has not yet acted on this authority. As a separate matter, in April 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a proposed rule under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that, when finalized, would subject broker-dealers to a fiduciary duty and may limit certain transactions and activities involving retirement accounts. These developments may impact the manner in which affected businesses are conducted, decrease profitability and increase potential liabilities.

Margin lending by broker-dealers is regulated by the Federal Reserve’s restrictions on lending in connection with customer and proprietary purchases and short sales of securities, as well as securities borrowing and lending activities. Broker-dealers are also subject to maintenance and other margin requirements imposed under FINRA and other self-regulatory organization rules. In many cases, the Company’s broker-dealer subsidiaries’ margin policies are more stringent than these rules.

As registered U.S. broker-dealers, certain subsidiaries of the Company are subject to the SEC’s net capital rule and the net capital requirements of various exchanges, other regulatory authorities and self-regulatory organizations. These rules are generally designed to measure general financial integrity and/or liquidity and require that at least a minimum amount of net and/or liquid assets be maintained by the subsidiary. See also “—Financial Holding Company—Consolidated Supervision” and “—Financial Holding Company—Liquidity Standards” above. Rules of FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations also impose limitations and requirements on the transfer of member organizations’ assets.

Compliance with regulatory capital requirements may limit the Company’s operations requiring the intensive use of capital. Such requirements restrict the Company’s ability to withdraw capital from its broker-dealer subsidiaries, which in turn may limit its ability to pay dividends, repay debt, or redeem or purchase shares of its own outstanding stock. Any change in such rules or the imposition of new rules affecting the scope, coverage, calculation or amount of capital requirements, or a

		7

Table of Contents

significant operating loss or any unusually large charge against capital, could adversely affect the Company’s ability to pay dividends or to expand or maintain present business levels. In addition, such rules may require the Company to make substantial capital infusions into one or more of its broker-dealer subsidiaries in order for such subsidiaries to comply with such rules.

Regulation of Futures Activities and Certain Commodities Activities.     MS&Co., as a futures commission merchant, and MSSB LLC, as an introducing broker, are subject to net capital requirements of, and their activities are regulated by, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”), the National Futures Association (the “NFA”), a registered futures association, CME Group, and various commodity futures exchanges. MS&Co. and MSSB LLC and certain of their affiliates are registered members of the NFA in various capacities. Rules and regulations of the CFTC, NFA and commodity futures exchanges address obligations related to, among other things, customer protections, the segregation of customer funds and the holding of secured amounts, the use by futures commission merchants of customer funds, recordkeeping and reporting obligations of futures commission merchants and introducing brokers, risk disclosure, risk management and discretionary trading.

The Company’s commodities activities are subject to extensive and evolving energy, commodities, environmental, health and safety and other governmental laws and regulations in the U.S. and abroad. Intensified scrutiny of certain energy markets by U.S. federal, state and local authorities in the U.S. and abroad and by the public has resulted in increased regulatory and legal enforcement and remedial proceedings involving companies conducting the activities in which we are engaged. See also “—Financial Holding Company—Scope of Permitted Activities” above.

Derivatives Regulation.     Under the U.S. regulatory regime for “swaps” and “security-based swaps” (collectively, “Swaps”) implemented pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company is subject to regulations including, among others, public and regulatory reporting, central clearing and mandatory trading on regulated exchanges or execution facilities for certain types of Swaps. While the CFTC has completed the majority of its regulations in this area, most of which are in effect, the SEC has not yet adopted a number of its Swaps regulations. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the registration of “swap dealers” with the CFTC and “security-based swap dealers” with the SEC (collectively, “Swaps Entities”). Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries have registered with the CFTC as swap dealers and will in the future be required to register with the SEC as security-based swap dealers. Swaps Entities are or will be subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime with new obligations for the Swaps activities for which they are registered, including capital requirements, margin requirements for uncleared Swaps and comprehensive business conduct rules.

The specific parameters of some of these requirements for Swaps have been and continue to be developed through the CFTC, SEC and bank regulator rulemakings. In October 2015, the federal banking regulators issued a final rule establishing minimum uncleared Swap margin requirements for Swaps Entities that they prudentially regulate, which includes MSBNA. The rule requires the exchange of initial and variation margin for uncleared Swaps with certain types of counterparties. Similarly, in December 2015, the CFTC issued a final rule establishing uncleared Swap margin requirements for swap dealers that are not subject to regulation by the federal banking regulators, which includes Morgan Stanley Capital Services LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc (“MSIP”).

Although the full impact of U.S. derivatives regulation on the Company remains unclear, the Company has already faced, and will continue to face, increased costs and regulatory oversight due to the registration and regulatory requirements indicated above. Complying with the Swaps rules also has required, and will in the future require, the Company to change its Swaps businesses and has required, and will in the future require, extensive systems and personnel changes. Compliance with Swaps-related regulatory capital requirements may require the Company to devote more capital to its Swaps business.

Research.     Both U.S. and non-U.S. regulators continue to focus on research conflicts of interest. Research-related regulations have been implemented in many jurisdictions. FINRA adopted amendments to its equity research rules (effective December 2015) and adopted new rules for debt research (to be effective April 2016). New and revised requirements resulting from these regulations and the global research settlement with U.S. federal and state regulators (to which the Company is a party) have necessitated the development or enhancement of corresponding policies and procedures.

Non-U.S. Regulation.     The Company’s Institutional Securities businesses also are regulated extensively by non-U.S. regulators, including governments, securities exchanges, commodity exchanges, self-regulatory organizations, central banks

		8

Table of Contents

and regulatory bodies, especially in those jurisdictions in which the Company maintains an office. Non-U.S. policy makers and regulators, including the European Commission and European Supervisory Authorities (among others the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority), continue to propose and adopt numerous market reforms, including those that may further impact the structure of banks, and formulate regulatory standards and measures that will be of relevance and importance to the Company’s European operations. Certain Morgan Stanley subsidiaries are regulated as broker-dealers under the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. Subsidiaries engaged in banking and trust activities outside the U.S. are regulated by various government agencies in the particular jurisdiction where they are chartered, incorporated and/or conduct their business activity. For instance, the Prudential Regulation Authority (“PRA”), the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) and several securities and futures exchanges in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”), including the London Stock Exchange and ICE Futures Europe, regulate the Company’s activities in the U.K.; the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) and the Deutsche Bôrse AG regulate its activities in the Federal Republic of Germany; the Financial Services Agency, the Bank of Japan, the Japanese Securities Dealers Association and several Japanese securities and futures exchanges, regulate its activities in Japan; the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited regulate its operations in Hong Kong; and the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Singapore Exchange Limited regulate its business in Singapore.

Regulators in the U.K., E.U. and other major jurisdictions have also finalized or are in the process of proposing or finalizing risk-based capital, leverage capital, liquidity, banking structural reforms and other regulatory standards applicable to certain Morgan Stanley subsidiaries that operate in those jurisdictions. For example, MSIP is subject to regulation and supervision by the PRA with respect to prudential matters. As a prudential regulator, the PRA seeks to promote the safety and soundness of the firms that it regulates and to minimize the adverse effects that such firms may have on the stability of the U.K. financial system. The PRA has broad legal authority to establish prudential and other standards to pursue these objectives, including approvals of relevant regulatory models, as well as to bring public and non-public disciplinary actions against regulated firms to address noncompliance with such standards. MSIP is also regulated and supervised by the FCA with respect to business conduct matters. European Market Infrastructure Regulation introduces new requirements regarding the central clearing and reporting of derivatives. In addition, the E.U. Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (“BRRD”) has established a recovery and resolution framework for E.U. credit institutions and investment firms, including MSIP. E.U. Member States were required to apply provisions implementing the BRRD as of January 1, 2015, subject to certain exemptions. New directives and regulations originally expected to apply from January 3, 2017 (currently with potential delay of one year) will introduce various trading and market infrastructure reforms in the E.U., subject to restrictions

Investment Management.

Many of the subsidiaries engaged in the Company’s asset management activities are registered as investment advisers with the SEC. Many aspects of the Company’s asset management activities are subject to federal and state laws and regulations primarily intended to benefit the investor or client. These laws and regulations generally grant supervisory agencies and bodies broad administrative powers, including the power to limit or restrict the Company from carrying on its asset management activities in the event that it fails to comply with such laws and regulations. Sanctions that may be imposed for such failure include the suspension of individual employees, limitations on the Company engaging in various asset management activities for specified periods of time or specified types of clients, the revocation of registrations, other censures and significant fines. In order to facilitate its asset management business, the Company owns a registered U.S. broker-dealer, Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc., which acts as distributor to the Morgan Stanley mutual funds and as placement agent to certain private investment funds managed by the Company’s Investment Management business segment. In addition, certain affiliates of the Company are registered as commodity trading advisors and/or commodity pool operators, or are operating under certain exemptions from such registration pursuant to CFTC rules and other guidance, and have certain responsibilities with respect to each pool they advise. Violations of the rules of the CFTC, the NFA or the commodity exchanges could result in remedial actions, including fines, registration restrictions or terminations, trading prohibitions or revocations of commodity exchange memberships. See also “—Institutional Securities and Wealth Management—Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Regulation” and “—Institutional Securities and Wealth Management—Regulation of Futures Activities and Certain Commodities Activities” above.

		9

Table of Contents

As a result of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company’s asset management activities are subject to certain additional laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements (including with respect to clients that are private funds) and restrictions on sponsoring or investing in, or maintaining certain other relationships with, “covered funds,” as defined in the Volcker Rule, subject to certain limited exemptions. Many of these new requirements may increase the expenses associated with the Company’s asset management activities and/or reduce the investment returns the Company is able to generate for its asset management clients. See also “—Financial Holding Company—Activities Restrictions under the Volcker Rule.”

The Company’s Investment Management business is also regulated outside the U.S. For example, the FCA is the primary regulator of the Company’s business in the U.K.; the Financial Services Agency regulates the Company’s business in Japan; the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission regulates the Company’s business in Hong Kong; and the Monetary Authority of Singapore regulates the Company’s business in Singapore. See also “—Institutional Securities and Wealth Management—Non-U.S. Regulation” herein.

Financial Crimes Program.

The Company’s Financial Crimes program is coordinated on an enterprise-wide basis and supports the Company’s financial crime prevention efforts across all regions and business units with responsibility for governance, oversight and execution of the Company’s Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”), economic sanctions (“Sanctions”) and anti-corruption programs.

In the U.S. the Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, imposes significant obligations on financial institutions to detect and deter money laundering and terrorist financing activity, including requiring banks, bank holding companies and their subsidiaries, broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers and mutual funds to implement AML programs, verify the identity of customers that maintain accounts, and monitor and report suspicious activity to appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authorities. Outside the U.S., applicable laws, rules and regulations similarly require designated types of financial institutions to implement AML programs. The Company has implemented policies, procedures and internal controls that are designed to comply with all applicable AML laws and regulations. Regarding Sanctions, the Company has implemented policies, procedures, and internal controls that are designed to comply with the regulations and economic sanctions programs administered by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which target foreign countries, entities and individuals based on external threats to U.S. foreign policy, national security or economic interests, and as applicable similar sanctions programs imposed by foreign governments or global or regional multilateral organizations such as the United Nations Security Council and the E.U. Council.

The Company is also subject to applicable anti-corruption laws, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the U.K. Bribery Act, in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Anti-corruption laws generally prohibit offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a government official or private party in order to influence official action or otherwise gain an unfair business advantage, such as to obtain or retain business. The Company has implemented policies, procedures, and internal controls that are designed to comply with such laws, rules and regulations.

Protection of Client Information.

Many aspects of the Company’s businesses are subject to legal requirements concerning the use and protection of certain customer information, including those adopted pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 in the U.S., the E.U. Data Protection Directive and various laws in Asia, including the Japanese Personal Information (Protection) Law, the Hong Kong Personal Data (Protection) Ordinance and the Australian Privacy Act. The Company has adopted measures designed to comply with these and related applicable requirements in all relevant jurisdictions.

Compensation Practices and Other Regulation.

The Company’s compensation practices are subject to oversight by the Federal Reserve. In particular, the Company is subject to the Federal Reserve’s guidance that is designed to help ensure that incentive compensation paid by banking organizations does not encourage imprudent risk-taking that threatens the organizations’ safety and soundness. The scope and content of

		10

Table of Contents

the Federal Reserve’s policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and may change based on findings from its peer review process, and the Company expects that these policies will evolve over a number of years.

The Company is subject to the compensation-related provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, which may impact its compensation practices. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, federal regulators, including the Federal Reserve, must prescribe regulations to require covered financial institutions, including the Company, to report the structures of all of their incentive-based compensation arrangements and prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking by providing employees, directors or principal shareholders with compensation that is excessive or that could lead to material financial loss to the covered financial institution. In April 2011, seven federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve, jointly proposed an interagency rule implementing this requirement. Further, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, in July 2015, the SEC proposed rules that would direct stock exchanges to require listed companies to implement clawback policies to recover incentive-based compensation from current or former executive officers in the event of certain financial restatements and would also require companies to disclose their clawback policies and their actions under those policies.

The Company’s compensation practices may also be impacted by regulations in other jurisdictions. The Company’s compensation practices with respect to certain employees whose activities have a material impact on the risk profile of the Company’s E.U. operations are subject to the CRD IV and related E.U. and Member State regulations, including, amongst others, a cap on the ratio of variable remuneration to fixed remuneration and clawback arrangements in relation to variable remuneration paid in the past. In the U.K., the remuneration of certain employees of banks and other firms is governed by the Remuneration Codes in the PRA and FCA Handbooks, including since January 1, 2014, provisions that implement the CRD IV as well as additional U.K. requirements.

For a discussion of certain risks relating to the Company’s regulatory environment, see “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A.

Executive Officers of Morgan Stanley.

The executive officers of Morgan Stanley and their ages and titles as of February 23, 2016 are set forth below. Business experience for the past five years is provided in accordance with SEC rules.

Jeffrey S. Brodsky (51) .    Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer of Morgan Stanley (since January 2016). Vice President and Global Head of Human Resources (January 2011 to December 2015). Co-Head of Human Resources (January 2010 to December 2011). Head of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Human Resources (June 2009 to January 2010).

James P. Gorman (57) .    Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley (since January 2012). President and Chief Executive Officer (January 2010 through December 2011) and member of the Board of Directors (since January 2010). Co-President (December 2007 to December 2009) and Co-Head of Strategic Planning (October 2007 to December 2009). President and Chief Operating Officer of Wealth Management (February 2006 to April 2008).

Eric F. Grossman (49) .    Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of Morgan Stanley (since January 2012). Global Head of Legal (September 2010 to January 2012). Global Head of Litigation (January 2006 to September 2010) and General Counsel of the Americas (May 2009 to September 2010). General Counsel of Wealth Management (November 2008 to September 2010). Partner at the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (June 2001 to December 2005).

Keishi Hotsuki (53) .    Executive Vice President (since May 2014) and Chief Risk Officer of Morgan Stanley (since May 2011). Interim Chief Risk Officer (January 2011 to May 2011) and Head of Market Risk Department (March 2008 to April 2014). Director of Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., Ltd. (since May 2010). Global Head of Market Risk Management at Merrill Lynch (June 2005 to September 2007).

Colm Kelleher (58) .    President of Morgan Stanley (since January 2016). Executive Vice President (October 2007 to January 2016). President of Institutional Securities (January 2013 to January 2016). Head of International (January 2011 to January 2016). Co-President of Institutional Securities (January 2010 to December 2012). Chief Financial Officer and Co-

		11

Table of Contents

Head of Strategic Planning (October 2007 to December 2009). Head of Global Capital Markets (February 2006 to October 2007). Co-Head of Fixed Income Europe (May 2004 to February 2006).

Jonathan M. Pruzan (47) .    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Morgan Stanley (since May 2015). Co-Head of Global Financial Institutions Group (January 2010 to April 2015). Co-Head of North American Financial Institutions Group M&A (September 2007 to December 2009). Head of the U.S. Bank Group (April 2005 to August 2007).

James A. Rosenthal (62) .    Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley (since January 2011). Head of Corporate Strategy (January 2010 to May 2011). Chief Operating Officer of Wealth Management (January 2010 to August 2011). Head of Firmwide Technology and Operations of Morgan Stanley (March 2008 to January 2010). Chief Financial Officer of Tishman Speyer (May 2006 to March 2008).

		12

Table of Contents