PART I

4

The median exchange rate quotation by SMBC for buying and selling spot dollars by telegraphic transfer against yen on June 15, 2018 was ¥110.73 = $1.00.

These exchange rates are reference rates and are neither necessarily the rates used to calculate ratios nor the rates used to convert dollars to yen in the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.

3.B.    CAPITALIZATION AND INDEBTEDNESS

Not applicable.

3.C.    REASONS FOR THE OFFER AND USE OF PROCEEDS

Not applicable.

3.D.    RISK FACTORS

Investing in our securities involves risks. You should carefully consider the risks described below as well as all the other information in this annual report, including, but not limited to, our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this annual report and “Item 11. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Credit, Market and Other Risk.” Our business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected by any factors, including, but not limited to, those discussed below. The trading prices of our securities could also decline due to any of these factors including, but not limited to, those discussed below. Moreover, this annual report contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could also differ from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including, but not limited to, the risks faced by us described below and elsewhere in this annual report. See “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Forward-looking statements in this section are made only as of the filing date of this annual report.

5

Risks Related to the Economic and Financial Environment

We may be adversely affected if Japanese and global economic conditions and financial markets deteriorate.

Our financial condition and results of operations are materially affected by general economic conditions and financial markets in Japan and foreign countries, which would be influenced by the changes of various factors. These include fiscal and monetary policies, and laws, regulations and policies on financial markets. Those factors include, for example, the Japanese consumption tax rate. The Japanese consumption tax rate was scheduled to increase from 8% to 10% in April 2017. However, the increase in the consumption tax rate to 10% was postponed until October 2019. Furthermore, geopolitical instability in various parts of the world, including North Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Eastern Europe and material changes in regional economic or political unions or associations between countries, including, for example, the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, could also contribute to economic instability in those and other regions, which could adversely affect Japanese and global economic conditions.

The deterioration of Japanese and global economic conditions, or financial market turmoil, could result in a worsening of our liquidity and capital conditions, an increase in our credit costs, and an increase in impairment of our investment securities and, as a result, adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Future declines of securities prices on Japanese stock markets or other global markets could cause us to experience realized and unrealized losses on our equity securities portfolio, which could negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations and regulatory capital position.

The reported value of our available-for-sale equity instruments accounted for 3.0% of our total assets at March 31, 2018, approximately 88.4% of which were Japanese equity securities. This value depends mainly on prices of the instruments in the stock market. In addition, the reported value, gross unrealized gains and losses, and cost of those available-for-sale equity instruments at March 31, 2018 are described in “Item 5.A. Operating Results—Investment Securities.”

The value of a listed equity security is measured at its market price. Declines in the Japanese stock markets or other global markets could result in realized and unrealized losses on the securities in our equity securities portfolio, adversely affecting our results of operations and financial condition.

Our regulatory capital position and that of SMBC depend in part on the fair value of our equity securities portfolio. Substantial declines in the Japanese stock markets or other global markets would negatively affect our and SMBC’s capital positions, and limit SMBC’s ability to make distributions to us.

We will further reduce our holdings of strategic equity investments in order to reduce financial risks. Any disposal by us of equity holdings of our customers’ shares could adversely affect our relationships with those customers.

Changes in the levels or volatility of market rates or prices could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We engage in trading and investing activities dealing with various kinds of financial instruments such as bonds, equities, currencies, derivatives and funds. For example, we have substantial investments in debt securities. At March 31, 2018, we had ¥8 trillion of Japanese government bonds classified as available-for-sale financial assets, which accounted for approximately 4.0% of our total assets.

Our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected by actual changes or volatility in interest rates, foreign exchange rates and market prices of other investment securities. Increases in interest

6

rates could substantially decrease the value of our fixed income portfolio, and any unexpected changes in yield curves could adversely affect the value of our bond and interest rate derivative positions, resulting in lower-than-expected revenues from trading and investment activities. Market volatility may also result in significant unrealized losses or impairment losses on such instruments. Furthermore, the downgrading of investment securities by credit rating agencies may also cause declines in the value of our securities portfolio.

Risks Related to Our Business

Failure to satisfy capital adequacy requirements could constrain our and SMBC’s operations.

We and SMBC are subject to capital adequacy requirements established by the Financial Services Agency of Japan (“FSA”). The current requirements reflect the principal risk-weighted capital measures of the Basel III rules text published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“BCBS”) in December 2010 and are being phased in from March 2013 to March 2019. Compared to the previous requirements, the current requirements increase both the quality and quantity of the risk-weighted capital base.

With respect to the quality of the capital base, certain capital instruments, including existing preferred securities and subordinated debt, are eligible for inclusion as Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 capital only for the phase-out period. Preferred stocks convertible into common stocks no longer qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 capital but would qualify as Additional Tier 1 capital if they satisfy certain requirements including the requirement of loss absorbency at the point of non-viability under the Basel III rules. In addition, securities with step-up clauses will no longer qualify as Additional Tier 1 capital, and if the relevant security is classified as a liability for accounting purposes, it must satisfy the requirement of loss absorbency at a pre-specified trigger point, which must be 5.125% or more of Common Equity Tier 1 risk-weighted capital ratio as well as the aforementioned requirement of loss absorbency at the point of non-viability to qualify as Additional Tier 1 capital. With respect to Tier 2 capital, under the Basel III rules, the relevant security must satisfy the requirement of loss absorbency at the point of non-viability to qualify as Tier 2 capital, and subordinated debt securities callable at the initiative of the issuer within five years or with step-up clauses can no longer qualify as Tier 2 capital.

With respect to the quantity of the capital base, the minimum Common Equity Tier 1 risk-weighted capital ratios applicable to us and SMBC have been 4.5% since March 2015. Moreover, we are required to hold a capital conservation buffer to withstand future periods of stress and a countercyclical buffer as additional capital to reduce the buildup of systemic risk in periods and locations of excessive credit growth. The capital conservation buffer started to be phased in from March 2016, with the initial ratio of 0.625% reaching 2.5% by March 2019. Under the phase-in arrangement, we are currently required to maintain 1.875% of Common Equity Tier 1 risk-weighted capital as a percentage of risk weighted assets. As a result, the total minimum Common Equity Tier 1 risk-weighted capital ratio will be increased to 7%, and the total minimum risk-weighted capital ratio will be increased to 10.5% in March 2019. The countercyclical buffer, which started to be phased in from March 2016, is calculated as the weighted average of the buffers in effect in the jurisdictions to which we have credit exposure, with a maximum of 2.5% when fully implemented in March 2019.

In addition, the requirements for additional capital, in the form of a capital surcharge above the Basel III minimum requirement, have been applied from 2016 to those financial institutions identified by the Financial Stability Board (“FSB”) as Global Systemically Important Banks (“G-SIBs”), including us. This requirement is commonly referred to as the G-SIB capital surcharge. Based on the list, we will be required to maintain an additional 1% of Common Equity Tier 1 capital as a percentage of risk-weighted assets when the requirement is fully applied from 2019. Under the phase-in requirements, we are currently required to maintain 0.75% of Common Equity Tier 1 capital as a percentage of risk-weighted assets. G-SIBs will also be subject to a global standard for Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (“TLAC”), which defines certain minimum requirements for total loss-absorbing capacity so that if G-SIBs fail, they will have sufficient loss absorbing and recapitalization capacity available in resolution. In November 2015, the FSB published the final TLAC standard. As a G-SIB, we will be subject to the final TLAC standard, as implemented in Japan.

7

At March 31, 2018, on a consolidated basis, our total risk-weighted capital ratio, Tier 1 risk-weighted capital ratio and Common Equity Tier 1 risk-weighted capital ratio were 19.36 %,16.69 % and 14.50 %, compared to the minimum required ratios of 10.655%, 8.655% and 7.155%, respectively. All the minimum required ratios stated above include the capital conservation buffer of 1.875%, the G-SIB capital surcharge of 0.75% and the countercyclical buffer of 0.03%.

Our and SMBC’s capital ratios could decline as a result of decreases in Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital or increases in risk-weighted assets. The following circumstances, among others, could reduce our risk-weighted capital ratio and that of SMBC:

We and SMBC have adopted the advanced internal rating-based (“IRB”) approach for measuring exposure to credit risk and the advanced measurement approach (“AMA”) to measure exposure to operational risk. If the FSA revokes its approval of such implementation or otherwise changes its approach to measure capital adequacy ratios, our and SMBC’s ability to maintain capital at the required levels may be adversely affected.

On December 7, 2017, the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (the “GHOS”) endorsed the outstanding Basel III regulatory reforms. The endorsed reforms include the following elements:

We will be subject to the final Basel III reform, as implemented in Japan.

If our or SMBC’s capital ratios fall below required levels, the FSA may require us or SMBC to take a variety of corrective actions, including withdrawal from all international operations or suspension of all or part of our operations, which may indirectly affect our ability to fulfill our contractual obligations or may result in restrictions on our businesses. Failure to maintain capital levels under the capital buffer requirements under Basel III and the requirement for the G-SIB capital surcharge will result in restrictions on capital distributions, such as dividends, share buybacks, discretionary payments on other Tier 1 capital instruments and bonuses. In addition, some of our and SMBC’s domestic and overseas subsidiaries are also subject to local capital ratio requirements. Failure of those subsidiaries to meet local requirements may result in administrative actions or sanctions imposed by local regulatory authorities.

We may incur losses as a result of financial difficulties of counterparties and other financial institutions.

We regularly execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of deterioration of creditworthiness of a counterparty or client. With respect to secured transactions, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral cannot be foreclosed on or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or other exposures due to us.

8

Losses from our investments in and loans to other financial institutions could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We may also be requested to participate in providing assistance to distressed financial institutions that are not our subsidiaries. In addition, if the funds collected by the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan (“DIC”) are insufficient to insure the deposits of failed Japanese banks, the insurance premiums that we pay to the DIC will likely be increased, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Adverse regulatory developments or changes in government policies could have a negative impact on our results of operations.

Our businesses are subject to extensive regulation and associated regulatory risks, including the effects of changes in the laws, regulations, policies, voluntary codes of practice and interpretations in Japan and the other jurisdictions in which we operate. Those changes and their effects on us are unpredictable and beyond our control.

Changes in the regulatory environment may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In particular, the financial crisis in 2008 has led to calls for significant financial reform measures, and various governments are at different stages of enacting or implementing legislation that affects financial institutions.

In response to the turmoil following the financial crisis, regulatory authorities reviewed and revised capital adequacy guidelines, particularly in relation to quality of capital and accounting standards; such revisions could adversely affect our capital ratios. In December 2010, the BCBS published the Basel III rules text, setting out certain changes to capital requirements which include raising the quality of banks’ capital bases, enhancing risk coverage, inhibiting leverage, reducing pro-cyclicality and introducing liquidity regulation, many of which have been fully applied or phased-in in Japan based on the Basel III implementation schedule.

The FSA’s Financial Inspection Manual for financial institutions and related guidelines are revised or amended from time to time. On December 15, 2017, the FSA issued a plan to repeal the FSA’s Financial Inspection Manual after April 1, 2019, and published a report outlining its new supervisory approaches. Our compliance with changes in the FSA’s inspection process under the new supervisory approaches could result in an increase in our administrative expenses, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The FSA and regulatory authorities in the United States and other jurisdictions, along with the United Nations, have in recent years made the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing a focus of governmental policy relating to financial institutions. Any adverse regulatory action or change in regulatory focus, whether as a result of inspections or regulatory developments, may negatively affect our banking operations and may require expensive remediation.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) provides a broad framework for significant regulatory changes across most areas of U.S. financial regulations. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses, among other issues, systemic risk oversight, bank capital standards, the resolution of failing systemically significant financial institutions, over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives, the ability of banking entities to engage in proprietary trading activities and invest in hedge funds and private equity funds, consumer and investor protection, and securitization. The Dodd-Frank Act as well as other post-financial crisis regulatory reforms in the United States have increased costs, imposed limitations on activities and resulted in an increased intensity in regulatory enforcement and fines across the banking and financial services sector. The current U.S. Presidential administration has expressed different policy goals with respect to regulation of the U.S. financial system, but the impact that the U.S. Presidential administration’s policy goals or any new or proposed legislation could have on the regulatory requirements currently imposed on us remains uncertain.

9

Significant regulatory developments could adversely affect our capital ratios and results of operations. For further details, see “Item 4.B. Business Overview—Regulations in Japan, Regulations in the United States, and Regulations in Other Jurisdictions.” Since changes in regulation or fiscal or other policies and their effects are unpredictable and beyond our control, we may not be able to comply with those changes at all times, despite our efforts, or may have to incur increased costs or make changes to our operations in order to do so. Any such failures to comply with those changes could result in administrative or judicial proceedings against us, including suspension of our business and financial penalties, which could materially and adversely affect our business, reputation, results of operations and financial condition.

Changes in the competitive and financial environment and financial systems could have a negative effect on the financial services industry and us.

Deregulation of the financial system, consolidation among financial institutions, diversification within the financial services industry, and the expanded presence of foreign financial institutions and investors have made the Japanese financial services market highly competitive. Moreover, competition in overseas markets has intensified due to global consolidation, convergence and alliances among financial institutions. We compete with various types of financial services companies, including:

Increased competition in Japan may put downward pressure on prices for our financial services, cause us to lose market share or require us to incur additional expenses in order to remain competitive. Internationally, various forms of financial support provided by foreign governments to foreign banks and other financial institutions may reduce the cost of capital to those institutions and otherwise give them competitive advantages. In addition, the development of new technologies in the “Fintech” and other sectors, along with the corresponding rise of new entrants from these sectors into the financial services industry, may further intensify competition in the business environments in which we operate, and as a result, we may be forced to adapt our business to compete more effectively. There can be no assurance that we will be able to respond effectively to current or future competition.

The changes in the financial environment in Japan may also have a negative effect on the Japanese financial services industry. For example, prolonged monetary easing by the Bank of Japan (“BOJ”) may continue to lower the domestic interest spreads. This may significantly affect the businesses of commercial banks in Japan, including us. For further information on the BOJ’s monetary policy measures, see “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Overview—Factors Affecting Results of Operation.”

Adverse economic conditions and deterioration of the financial conditions of our customers could increase our credit costs.

Our non-performing loans (“NPLs”) and credit costs for corporate and individual customers may increase significantly if:

10

We have substantial exposure to corporate customers in the following sectors: real estate and goods rental and leasing, manufacturing, transportation, communications and public enterprises, wholesale and retail, and services, including electric utilities, and to individual customers mainly through housing loans. The financial conditions of those customers may be subject to changes in the industry-specific economic conditions, including, for example, fluctuations in the prices of oil, gas and other natural resources, as well as general economic conditions. In addition, adverse region-specific economic conditions could worsen our customers’ financial conditions or could decrease the value of our collateral provided to us in such regions. As a result, we may be required to record increases in our allowance for loan losses.

Moreover, for certain borrowers, we may choose to engage in debt-for-equity swaps or provide partial debt write-offs, additional financing or other forms of assistance as an alternative to exercising our full legal rights as a creditor if we believe that doing so may increase our ultimate recoverable amount of the loan. We may be required to, or choose to, provide new or additional financing to customers who may incur unexpected liabilities, have difficulty in the future in continuing operations, encounter difficulties or need to devote significant resources to repair their infrastructures, as a result of natural disasters or other calamities.

In addition, changes in laws or government policies may have an adverse impact on the rights of creditors. For example, the Government of Japan has provided or may provide in the future government guarantees and other government support measures in response to the financial crisis or other unexpected incidents such as large-scale natural disasters and any subsequent collateral events. Even if our current or future loans to borrowers have received or will receive any government support measures, it is unclear to what extent those loans will benefit, directly or indirectly, from the current or any future government guarantees or support measures.

In addition, our NPLs may increase and there may be additional credit costs if we fail to accurately estimate the incurred losses in our loan portfolio. These estimates require difficult, subjective and complex judgments such as credit evaluation of our borrowers, valuation of collateral and forecasts of economic conditions.

The ratio of impaired loans and advances to the total loans and advances, both net of allowance for loan losses, were 0.6%, 0.7% and 0.8% at March 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. For further information, see “Item 5.A. Operating Results—Loans and Advances.”

A significant downgrade of our credit ratings could have a negative effect on us.

At the date of this annual report, the Company has the issuer ratings of A1/P-1 from Moody’s Japan K.K., (“Moody’s”), the issuer credit rating of A- from S&P Global Ratings Japan Inc. (“S&P”) and the foreign and local currency issuer default ratings of A/F1 from Fitch Ratings Japan Limited (“Fitch”). There can be no assurance that these ratings will be maintained.

A material downgrade of our credit ratings may have various effects including, but not limited to, the following:

Any of these or other effects of a downgrade of our credit ratings could have a negative impact on the profitability of our treasury and other operations, and could adversely affect our regulatory capital position, liquidity position, financial condition and results of operations. For more information about our credit ratings, see “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

11

We face significant challenges in achieving the goals of our business strategy, and our business may not be successful.

In May 2017, we announced a new medium-term management plan through March 2020. We believe that we have targeted appropriate business areas. However, our initiatives to offer new products and services and to increase sales of our existing products and services may not succeed, if market conditions do not stabilize, market opportunities develop more slowly than expected, our initiatives have less potential than we envisioned originally or the profitability of these products and services is undermined by competitive pressures. Consequently, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability in our targeted business areas.

In order to implement our business strategy successfully, we need to hire and train qualified personnel continuously and in a proactive manner, as well as to attract and retain employees with professional experience and specialized product knowledge. However, we face competition from other commercial banks, investment banks, consumer finance companies and other financial services providers in hiring highly competent employees. There can be no assurance that we will succeed in attracting, integrating and retaining appropriately qualified personnel.

We are exposed to new risks as we expand our businesses, the range of our products and services, and geographic scope of our businesses overseas.

As part of our business strategies we have expanded and may continue to expand our businesses or our range of products and services beyond our core business, commercial banking. This could expose us to new risks, such as adverse regulatory changes, more competition or deterioration in the operating environments that affect those businesses, products and services. Some of those risks could be types with which we have no or only limited experience. As a result, our risk management systems may prove to be insufficient and may not be effective in all cases or to the degree required.

In accordance with our strategy to further increase our presence in the international financial markets, we may continue to expand the scale of our overseas businesses, especially in emerging economies, notably Asian countries and regions. The expansion of our overseas businesses may further increase our exposure to risks of adverse developments in foreign economies and markets, including interest rate and foreign exchange rate risk, regulatory risk and political risk. Our overseas expansion also exposes us to the compliance risks and the credit and market risks specific to the countries and regions in which we operate, including the risk of deteriorating conditions in the credit profile of overseas borrowers.

Failure of our business strategies through our subsidiaries, affiliates and other business alliance partners could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations, including impairment losses on goodwill or investments.

Aligned with our business strategies, we have made and may undertake acquisition of a subsidiary, investments in affiliates and other business alliance partners, and reorganization within SMBC Group companies. It is uncertain whether we will receive the expected benefits from those business strategies, due to any adverse regulatory changes, worsening of economic conditions, increased competition or other factors that may negatively affect the related business activities. Furthermore, unanticipated costs and liabilities may be incurred in connection with those business strategies, including liabilities from the claims related to the businesses prior to our business alliances, and cost from actions by regulatory authorities.

When we acquire a subsidiary, we may recognize goodwill and intangible assets. Impairment losses on goodwill or intangible assets in connection with acquisitions must be recognized when the recoverable amount of goodwill or intangible assets of the business is lower than the carrying amount at the time of impairment testing, which is performed annually or whenever there is an indication that the goodwill or intangible assets may be impaired.

12

We account for some of our investments in affiliates under the equity method. Therefore, net losses incurred by equity method investees may cause us to record our share of the net losses. Furthermore, we may lose the capital which we have invested in business alliances or may incur impairment losses on securities acquired in such alliances. We may also be required under contractual or other arrangements to provide financial support, including credit support and equity investments, to business alliance partners in the future. Additionally, we may also incur credit costs from our credit exposure to such partners.

We are exposed to the industry specific risks of the consumer finance industry.

Changes in the legal environment have severely and adversely affected the business performance of consumer lending and credit card companies. We have exposures to the risks specific to the consumer finance industry through our subsidiaries, including Cedyna Financial Corporation (“Cedyna”) and SMBC Consumer Finance Co., Ltd. (“SMBC Consumer Finance”).

Consumer lending and credit card companies had offered unsecured personal loans, which included loans with so-called “gray zone” interest in excess of the maximum rate prescribed by the Interest Rate Restriction Act (ranging from 15% to 20%) up to the 29.2% maximum rate permitted under the Act Regulating the Receipt of Contributions, Receipt of Deposits and Interest Rates (“Contributions Act”). However, amendments to laws regulating moneylenders, which increased the authority of government regulators, prohibited gray zone interest and introduced an upper limit on aggregate credit extensions to an individual by moneylenders at one-third of the borrower’s annual income, were promulgated in 2006 and became fully effective in June 2010. After the promulgation of such amendments, Cedyna, SMBC Consumer Finance and other companies engaged in related business reduced their interest rates on loans in preparation for the prohibition of gray zone interest. As a consequence, margins earned by those companies, as well as the amounts of loans extended, decreased.

In addition, as a result of court decisions unfavorable to those companies, claims for refunds of amounts paid in excess of the applicable maximum allowed rate by the Interest Rate Restriction Act have increased substantially. Although Cedyna, SMBC Consumer Finance and other subsidiaries have each recorded a provision for claims for refunds of gray zone interest on loans, we may be required to recognize additional losses if such provisions are determined to be insufficient, and the additional losses could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Inability to generate sufficient future taxable profits or adverse changes to tax laws, regulatory requirements or accounting standards could have a negative impact on the recoverability of certain deferred tax assets.

We recognize deferred tax assets relating to tax losses carried forward and deductible temporary differences only to the extent that it is probable that future taxable profit will be available against which the tax losses carried forward and the temporary differences can be utilized. The deferred tax assets are quantified on the basis of currently enacted tax rates and accounting standards and are subject to change as a result of future changes to tax laws or the rules for computing taxable profits and allowable losses. Failure to generate sufficient future taxable profits or changes in tax laws or accounting standards may reduce our estimated recoverable amount of net deferred tax assets. Such a reduction could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Declines in returns on our plan assets or revised actuarial assumptions for retirement benefits may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

SMBC and some of our other subsidiaries have various defined benefit plans. We have experienced in the past, and may experience in the future, declines in returns on plan assets and changes in the discount rates and other actuarial assumptions. If returns on plan assets decrease, or if we revise the discount rates and other assumptions, the deficit of the impacted defined benefit plan may increase and adversely affect our financial

13

condition and results of operations. Because more than half of our plan assets are composed of equity instruments, the plan assets are greatly affected by volatility in the prices of equity securities. Substantial declines in the prices for publicly traded Japanese stocks would negatively affect our plan assets. For further information, see Note 23 “Retirement Benefits” to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.

Our liquidity could be adversely affected by actual or perceived weaknesses in our businesses and by factors we cannot control, such as a general decline in the level of business activity in the financial services sector.

We need liquidity to maintain our lending activities, meet deposit withdrawals, pay our operating expenses and pay interest on and principal of debt and dividends on capital stock. Adverse market and economic conditions in the domestic and global economies may limit or adversely affect our access to liquidity required to operate our business. If our counterparties or the markets are reluctant to finance our operations due to factors including actual or perceived weaknesses in our businesses as a result of large losses, changes in our credit ratings, or a general decline in the level of business activity in the financial services sector, we may be unable to meet our payment obligations when they become due or only be able to meet them with funding obtained on unfavorable terms. Circumstances unrelated to our businesses and outside of our control, such as, but not limited to, adverse economic conditions, disruptions in the financial markets or negative developments concerning other financial institutions perceived to be comparable to us, may also limit or adversely affect our ability to replace maturing liabilities in a timely manner. Without sufficient liquidity, we will be forced to curtail our operations, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Sales of our shares by us may have an adverse effect on the market price of our shares and may dilute existing shareholders.

We may issue shares from the unissued portion of our authorized share capital and sell shares held as treasury stock, generally without a shareholder vote. Sales of shares in the future may be at prices below prevailing market prices and may be dilutive.

Our business relies on our information technology systems, which are at risk of being damaged or failing as a result of various incidents including cyberattacks, and their failure could harm our relationships with customers or adversely affect our provision of services to customers.

In all aspects of our business, we use information technology systems to deliver services to and execute transactions on behalf of our customers as well as for back-office operations. We therefore depend on the capacity and reliability of the electronic and information technology systems supporting our operations. We may encounter service disruptions in the future, owing to failures of these information technology systems. Our information technology systems are at risk of being damaged or failing as a result of quality problems, human errors, natural disasters, power losses, sabotage, acts of terrorism, cyberattacks and similar events.

In particular, cybersecurity risks for financial institutions have significantly increased in recent years. This is partly because of the continuous introduction of new technologies and the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies as well as the elaboration of the cyberattacks, which include computer viruses, malicious code, phishing attacks or other security breaches. As we rely on information technology systems in our business and our receipt and handling of confidential personal information from our customers, any impairment, compromise or destruction of such systems may interfere with, or temporarily prevent us from, continuing our operations. In addition, we also face indirect cybersecurity risks relating to our customers and other third parties, including counterparties in the financial services industry. As a result of increasing consolidation, interdependence and complexity of financial entities and technology systems, a technology failure or cyberattack could have a material impact on counterparties or other market participants, including us. Any third-party technology failure or cyberattack could adversely affect our ability to execute transactions or deliver services to our clients effectively. For example, vulnerabilities in third-party technology systems may be exploited in ways that increase the risk our information technology systems are exposed to cyberattacks.

14

Accordingly, we have taken steps to protect information technology systems from these risks, including by establishing data recovery capability and functionality, and to address all contingencies that could arise in the event of a major disruption of services. Particularly, we have adopted our “Declaration of Cyber Security Management” in order to further strengthen our cybersecurity capabilities. In this declaration, our management recognizes cybersecurity as a major management issue and takes a leadership role in implementing measures such as allocating appropriate resources based on discussions at the meetings of the Management Committee and the board of directors, establishing a special department and manual for emergencies and enhancing security measures for our services including internet banking services.

However, these measures may not be sufficient, especially considering the increasing frequency and sophistication of recent cyberattacks. In addition, we may not be prepared to address all contingencies that could arise in the event of a major disruption of services. The failure to address such contingencies could harm our relationships with customers or adversely affect our provision of services to customers.

We handle personal information obtained from our individual and corporate customers in relation to our banking, securities, consumer lending, credit card, asset management and other businesses. The systems we have implemented to protect the confidentiality of personal information, including those designed to meet the strict requirements of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, may not be effective in preventing disclosure of personal information by unauthorized access from a third party. Leakage of personal information could expose us to demands for compensation or lawsuits for ensuing economic losses or emotional distress, administrative actions or sanctions, additional expenses associated with making necessary changes to our systems and reputational harm. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Fraud, misconduct or other unlawful behavior by directors, officers and employees or third parties could subject us to losses and regulatory sanctions.

We are exposed to potential losses resulting from fraud, misconduct and other unlawful behavior by directors, officers and employees. Directors, officers and employees may bind us to transactions that exceed authorized limits or present unacceptable risks, hide from us and from our customers unauthorized activities, improperly use confidential information or otherwise abuse customer confidences. Third parties may engage in fraudulent activities, including fraudulent use of bank accounts or the use of false identities to open accounts for money laundering, tax evasion or other illegal purposes. Third parties could also use stolen or forged ATM cards, engage in credit card fraud or transfer funds illegally through online banking fraud, and we may be required to indemnify victims of such fraud for related losses. In the broad range of businesses in which we engage, fraud, misconduct and other unlawful behavior are difficult to prevent or detect. In addition, with or without actual fraud, misconduct and other unlawful behavior by directors, officers and employees, investigations, administrative actions or litigation could commence in relation to them. Furthermore, we may not be able to recover the losses caused by these activities, including possible deterioration of our reputation.

Transactions involving Iran and other countries and targets that are subject to U.S. or other financial sanctions may lead some potential customers and investors to avoid doing business with us or investing in our securities or may limit our business operations.

U.S. law generally prohibits or substantially restricts U.S. persons from doing business with countries, a region and persons that are the subject of sanctions administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) or other agencies (“Restricted Targets” which include Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and the Crimea region of Ukraine). Other applicable financial sanctions are administered by the Ministry of Finance of Japan and authorities in other countries.

We maintain a SMBC Group-wide policy designed to ensure compliance with U.S. and other applicable sanctions laws and regulations. Our non-U.S. offices engage in transactions relating to the Restricted Targets in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. These activities include remittance of Japanese yen with

15

respect to our customers’ export or import transactions, maintenance of correspondent banking accounts with Iranian banks, including the Central Bank of Iran, and the payment of fees in Japanese yen to certain Iranian banks in connection with performance bonds issued in the past by SMBC through these Iranian banks related to our customers’ projects in Iran. The performance bonds expired and have not been renewed, but SMBC continues to be obligated to pay certain fees to the Iranian banks. In addition, we maintain a representative office in Iran that mainly performs an information-collecting function and liaising with non-SDN Iranian parties on behalf of our non-U.S. offices.

We do not believe that our operations relating to the Restricted Targets materially affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. A limited number of potential violations of U.S. economic sanctions by SMBC have been identified and voluntarily disclosed to OFAC. These transactions resulted from the inherent limitation on information about underlying transactions that can be obtained in the course of normal banking operations, inadvertent operational errors, or from the lack of familiarity of some personnel of SMBC with the requirements of the relevant regulations in the past. We have continuously strengthened our SMBC Group-wide OFAC and other financial sanctions compliance program in an effort to prevent the recurrence of such potential violations. We settled some of the voluntarily disclosed potential violations with OFAC and the others were closed without a penalty. However, in light of the inadvertent nature of such potential violations and the degree to which our strengthened compliance program aims to mitigate the risk of potential violations, we do not believe that our settlement with OFAC, or any possible penalties that OFAC may impose with respect to the other potential violations that remain unsettled, will have a material impact on our reputation, financial condition or results of operations, or on the prices of our securities.

We are aware of initiatives by U.S. states and U.S. institutional investors, such as pension funds, to adopt laws, regulations or policies prohibiting transactions with or investment in, or requiring divestment from, entities engaged in certain business with Iran and other Restricted Targets. It is possible that such laws and initiatives may result in our inability to enter into transactions with those entities that are subject to such prohibitions or to retain or acquire such entities as customers or investors in our securities.

In recent years, the U.S. government implemented a number of sanctions targeting non-U.S. persons for activities undertaken outside the United States (“secondary sanctions”) that involve specific sanctions targets or certain activities including, among other things, certain transactions related to Iran’s energy, petrochemical, shipping or shipbuilding sectors. Pursuant to the July 14, 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) agreed to by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany and Iran, with the European Union, on January 16, 2016 (“Implementation Day”), the United States lifted U.S. nuclear-related secondary sanctions targeting Iran. Even after Implementation Day, certain secondary sanctions remained in effect, including those targeting significant transactions involving Iranian or Iran-related Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDNs”). However, on May 8, 2018, President Trump announced that he was terminating the United States’ participation in the JCPOA and that all nuclear-related secondary sanctions authorities targeting Iran would be reinstated after specified wind down periods. In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, SMBC intends to provide certain services, including settlement services in connection with customers’ trade transactions between Japan and Iran, to the extent that such activities are not targeted by remaining secondary sanctions. For more details of relevant laws and regulations, see “Item 4.B. Business Overview—Regulations in the United States—Laws Prohibiting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing.”

In addition, the U.S. government and authorities in other countries have enacted a series of Ukraine-related sanctions, including those under the U.S. Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations, the U.S. Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 and “sectoral” sanctions on the financial, energy and defense sectors of the Russian economy.

The laws, regulations and sanctions referenced above or similar legislative or regulatory developments in the U.S., Japan or other jurisdictions where applicable, may further limit our business operations. If we were determined to have engaged in activities targeted by certain U.S. statutes, Executive Orders or regulations, we

16

could lose our ability to open or maintain correspondent or payable-through accounts with U.S. financial institutions, among other potential sanctions. In addition, depending on sociopolitical developments, even though we take measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, our reputation may suffer due to our association with the Restricted Targets. The above circumstances could have a significant adverse effect on our business or the prices of our securities.

Our business operations are exposed to risks of natural disasters, terrorism, pandemics and other calamities.

Our business operations are subject to the risks of natural disasters, terrorism, pandemics, blackouts, geopolitical incidents and other calamities, any of which could impair our business operations. Despite our preparation of operation manuals and other backup measures and procedures, such calamities could cause us to suspend operations and could adversely affect our businesses, financial condition and results of operations. Large-scale natural disasters such as the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 2011 and any subsequent collateral events, may adversely affect economic conditions in general, the financial conditions of our corporate and individual customers and stock market prices, or cause other negative effects, any or all of which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations owing to, for example, an associated increase in the amount of credit-related costs or an increase in losses related to our holdings of securities.

Our risk management policies and procedures may not adequately address unidentified or unanticipated risks.

We are exposed to a variety of operational, legal and regulatory risks throughout our organization. Management of these risks requires, among other things, policies and procedures to properly record and verify large numbers of transactions and events. However, these policies and procedures may not be fully effective or sufficient. We have devoted significant resources to strengthening our risk management policies and procedures and expect to continue doing so in the future. Nevertheless, particularly in light of the continuing evolution of our operations and expansion into new areas, our policies and procedures designed to identify, monitor and manage risks may not be fully effective. Some of our methods of managing risks are based upon our use of observed historical market behavior and thus may not accurately predict future risks. Violations of laws including the Japanese antitrust and fair trade laws by us or by SMBC may result in administrative sanctions. Furthermore, investigations, administrative actions or litigation could commence in relation to violations, which may involve costs and may result in deterioration of our reputation.

Our business could be adversely affected by litigation and regulatory proceedings globally.

We conduct business in many locations in and outside of Japan. We face the risk of litigation and regulatory proceedings in connection with our operations. For example, if we engage in activities targeted by certain U.S. sanctions, this could result in the imposition of monetary penalties or other restrictions by the U.S. government against us. Lawsuits and regulatory actions may result in penalties or settlements of very large indeterminate amounts or limit our operations, and costs to defend either could be substantial. Moreover, SMBC and one of its subsidiaries contribute to financial benchmarks such as the Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (“TIBOR”) and the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) for certain specific currencies. These benchmarks are widely referenced in jurisdictions in which we operate and do not operate. We face or may face some investigations, litigation and regulatory proceedings, and an adverse regulatory decision, judgment or ruling, including in jurisdictions we do not operate in, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Damage to our reputation may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Maintaining our reputation is vital to our ability to attract and maintain customers, investors and employees. Our reputation could be damaged through a variety of circumstances, including, among others, fraud or other

17

misconduct or unlawful behavior by directors, officers or employees, systems failures, compliance failures, investigations, adverse litigation judgments or regulatory decisions, or unfavorable outcomes of governmental inspections. Negative media coverage of Japan’s financial services industry or us, even if inaccurate or not applicable to us, may have a materially adverse effect on our brand image and may undermine depositor confidence, thereby affecting our businesses and results of operations. For example, actual or rumored investigations of us or our directors, officers or employees, or actual or rumored litigation or regulatory proceedings, or media coverage of the same, may have a material adverse effect on our reputation and could negatively affect the prices of our securities. Actions by the financial services industry generally or by certain members in the industry can also adversely affect customers’ confidence on the financial services industry. Such reputational harm could also lead to a decreased customer base, reduced revenues and higher operating costs.

Our failure to establish, maintain and apply adequate internal controls over financial reporting could negatively impact investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

In order to operate as a global financial institution, it is essential for us to have effective internal controls, corporate compliance functions, and accounting systems to manage our assets and operations.

As a New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”)-listed company and a registrant with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under section 404 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, our management is required to assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and disclose whether such internal controls are effective. Our independent registered public accounting firm has to conduct an audit to evaluate and then render an opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan (“FIEA”) also requires companies listed on a Japanese stock exchange, such as us, to file, together with their annual securities reports required by the FIEA, audited internal control reports assessing the effectiveness of their internal controls over financial reporting.

We have established internal controls over financial reporting, as well as rules for evaluating those controls, in order to provide reasonable assurance of the reliability of our financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements. However, these controls may not prevent or detect errors. Any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods is subject to the risks that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. To the extent any issues are identified through the foregoing processes, there can be no assurance that we will be able to resolve them in a timely manner or at all. If this occurs, our reputation may be damaged, which could lead to a decline in investor confidence in us.

Other Risks

It may not be possible for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon us or our directors or senior management, or to enforce against us or those persons judgments obtained in U.S. courts predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal or state securities laws.

We are a joint stock corporation incorporated under the laws of Japan. Almost all of our directors and senior management reside outside the United States. Many of our assets and the assets of these persons are located in Japan and elsewhere outside the United States. It may not be possible, therefore, for U.S. investors to affect service of process within the United States upon us or these persons or to enforce, against us or these persons, judgments obtained in U.S. courts predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal or state securities laws. We believe that there is doubt as to the enforceability in Japan, in original actions or in actions to enforce judgments of U.S. courts, of claims predicated solely upon the U.S. federal or state securities laws mainly because the Civil Execution Act of Japan requires Japanese courts to deny requests for the enforcement of judgments of foreign courts if foreign judgments fail to satisfy the requirements prescribed by the Civil Execution Act, including requirements that:

18

Judgments obtained in U.S. courts, predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal or state securities laws, may not satisfy these requirements.

As a holder of our American Depositary Shares (“ADSs”), you have fewer rights than a shareholder of record in our shareholder register because you must act through the depositary to exercise these rights.

The rights of our shareholders under Japanese law to take actions such as voting their shares, receiving dividends and distributions, bringing derivative actions, examining our accounting books and records and exercising appraisal rights are available only to our shareholders of record. Because the depositary, through its custodian, is the record holder of the shares underlying the ADSs, only the depositary can exercise shareholder rights relating to the deposited shares. ADS holders will not be able to directly bring a derivative action, examine our accounting books and records or exercise appraisal rights.

Pursuant to the deposit agreement among us, the depositary and the holders and beneficial owners of ADSs, the depositary will endeavor to exercise voting and other rights associated with shares underlying ADSs in accordance with instructions given by ADS holders, and the depositary will also pay to ADS holders dividends and distributions collected from us. However, the depositary is permitted under the deposit agreement to exercise reasonable discretion in carrying out those instructions or in making distributions, and is not liable for failure to carry out instructions or make distributions as long as it acts in good faith. Therefore, ADS holders may not be able to exercise voting or other rights associated with the shares underlying ADSs in the manner that they intend, or may lose some or all of the value of dividends or distributions collected from us. Moreover, the deposit agreement may be amended or terminated by us and the depositary without any reason, or consent from or notice to ADS holders. As a result, ADS holders may not be able to exercise rights in connection with the deposited shares exercised in the way they wish or at all.

ADS holders are dependent on the depositary for certain communications from us. We send to the depositary most of our communications to ADS holders in Japanese. ADS holders may not receive all of our communications in the same manner as or on an equal basis with shareholders of record in our shareholder register.

History and Development

We were established in December 2002 as a holding company for the SMBC Group through a statutory share transfer ( kabushiki-iten ) of all of the outstanding equity securities of the former SMBC in exchange for our newly issued securities. Upon our formation and completion of the statutory share transfer, the former SMBC became our direct, wholly owned subsidiary. SMBC was established in March 2003 through the merger of the former SMBC with Wakashio Bank, which was established in 1996 as a subsidiary of Sakura Bank. The former SMBC was established in April 2001 through the merger of Sumitomo Bank and Sakura Bank, which was established through the merger of Taiyo Kobe Bank and Mitsui Bank in 1990. Mitsui and Sumitomo started their banking businesses in 1876 and 1895, respectively. The origins of both banking businesses can be traced back to the seventeenth century.

We had previously employed a board of corporate auditors governance system. In order to further enhance our solid corporate governance system, we transitioned to a company with three statutory committees: a nominating committee, an audit committee and a compensation committee on June 29, 2017. For further information, see “Item 6.C. Board Practices.”

Information Concerning the Principal Capital Expenditures and Divestitures

In April 2016, Sumitomo Mitsui Finance and Leasing Company, Limited (“SMFL”) acquired General Electric Company (“GE”) group’s leasing business in Japan for ¥181 billion by acquiring a 100% equity interest in GE Japan GK (“GE Japan”). The acquired leasing business is comprised mainly of equipment/asset leasing, small-ticket leasing, and automotive leasing. In September 2016, GE Japan changed its corporate name to SMFL Capital Company, Limited.

Public Takeover Offers

Not applicable.

4.B.    BUSINESS OVERVIEW

Overview

We are the holding company for the SMBC Group. The SMBC Group is comprised of SMBC, SMBC Trust Bank Ltd. (“SMBC Trust Bank”), SMFL, SMBC Nikko Securities Inc. (“SMBC Nikko Securities”), Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited (“Sumitomo Mitsui Card”), Cedyna Financial Corporation(“Cedyna”), SMBC Consumer Finance Co., Ltd. (“SMBC Consumer Finance”), The Japan Research Institute, Limited (“The Japan Research Institute”), Sumitomo Mitsui Asset Management Company, Limited (“SMAM”) and other subsidiaries and affiliates. We are one of the three largest financial groups in Japan and offer a diverse range of financial services, including commercial banking, leasing, securities, consumer finance and other services.

On April 1, 2017, we introduced SMBC Group-wide business units, which determine strategies for each customer segment across SMBC Group companies, to further enhance our capability to meet our customers’ diversified needs. In connection with the introduction of such business units, beginning with the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, we have also reorganized our business segments, which formerly consisted of Commercial Banking, Leasing, Securities and Consumer Finance, with the remaining operations recorded in Others, into Wholesale Business, Retail Business, International Business and Global Markets Business, with the remaining operations recorded in Head office account and others. See “Item 4.C. Organizational Structure.”

On March 23, 2018, with the aim of enhancing our corporate group’s brand value, we announced that “SMBC” would be designated as our corporate group’s master brand from April 2018. In line with this change, our corporate group, which was formerly referred to as the “Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group” or its acronym “SMFG,” is now referred to as the “SMBC Group.” “Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group” continues to be used as the holding company’s name.

20

Management Philosophy

Our SMBC Group-wide management philosophy is as follows:

In addition to our SMBC Group-wide management philosophy, we have also established a code of conduct. Our code of conduct is designed to be a guideline for the conduct of our directors, officers and employees in the realization of our SMBC Group-wide management philosophy in all areas. Our code of conduct is as follows:

Environment

We recognize preservation of the environment as one of our most important management objectives and strive to achieve harmony with the natural environment in our corporate activities.

Basic Philosophy Regarding the SMBC Group’s Environmental Activities

Recognizing the importance of realizing a sustainable society as one of our most important tasks, we make continuous efforts to harmonize environmental preservation and pollution control with corporate activities, in order to support the economy and contribute to the betterment of society as a whole.

We and our principal SMBC Group companies have obtained ISO 14001 certification, the international standard for environmental management systems. Every year we set environmental objectives which we systematically pursue through environmental activities based on a PDCA (Plan, Do, Check and Act) cycle. SMBC and some of our other SMBC Group companies adopted “Principles for Financial Action towards a Sustainable Society” in October 2011, which have been set forth for the purposes of making environmental financing widely-known and improving the quality of environmental financing.

21

In our Credit Policy, which describes the universal and basic philosophies, guidelines and rules for credit operations, SMBC declares its policy of prohibiting credit for problematic loans in terms of public responsibility, or extending credit for loans which may have a significant negative impact on the global environment and to the society. For large-scale projects which may potentially exert a major impact on the environment and society, SMBC adopts the Equator Principles, a set of guidelines developed by private-sector financial institutions for managing environmental and social risk related to financing large-scale projects, and conducts environmental and social risk assessments.

SMBC has policies for specific sectors listed below, which may have environmental and social influences such as adverse impact on human rights and climate change. These policies have been reflected in our Credit Policy.

Description of Operations and Principal Activities

Wholesale Business Unit

The Wholesale Business Unit provides financing, investment management, risk hedging and settlement services as well as financial solutions that respond to wide-ranging client needs in relation to M&A and other advisory services and leasing, primarily for large-and mid-sized corporate clients in Japan. This business unit mainly consists of the wholesale businesses of SMBC, SMBC Nikko Securities, SMBC Trust Bank and SMFL.

Financing and Investment Management

The Wholesale Business Unit provides financing services that include bilateral loans, syndicated loans, commitment lines, structured finance, project finance, nonrecourse loans to and investments in corporate customers directly or through private equity funds, securitization, debt and equity underwriting and corporate bond trustee and registrar services.

The Wholesale Business Unit also provides investment management services such as deposits and investment trusts. In addition, this business unit offers a wide range of securities products including structured bonds and subordinated bonds to corporate clients through SMBC and SMBC Nikko Securities.

Risk Hedging

The Wholesale Business Unit provides various risk hedging services including forward exchange contracts and derivatives to meet our customers’ demand for hedging risks such as interest rate risk or foreign exchange rate risk in their transactions. This business unit also provides guarantee services including stand-by credit, performance bond and credit guarantee services.

Settlement

The Wholesale Business Unit offers a variety of products and services including remittance, cash management, trade finance for export and import activities and supply chain finance to optimize customers’ cash flows and business flows.

22

M&A and Other Advisory Services

The Wholesale Business Unit responds to customers’ diversifying business strategies and management issues by providing solutions custom-tailored to their business characteristics and growth stage.

The Wholesale Business Unit caters to large corporate clients in their global business activities by leveraging the collective strength of SMBC Group companies. For example, SMBC and SMBC Nikko Securities support the entire deal process of cross-border M&A projects on a collaborative basis.

For mid-sized companies, the Wholesale Business Unit provides a wide range of financial services including direct investment, LBO financing, debt restructuring, support for initial public offering and M&A advisory to enhance our customers’ corporate value, working in conjunction with private equity funds as necessary. In real estate and related businesses, this business unit provides a full lineup of services including brokerage and asset management by SMBC Trust Bank and funding support mainly by SMBC.

For start-up companies, the Wholesale Business Unit offers support in accordance with clients’ stage of growth such as management consulting, venture investment, financing and support for initial public offerings.

For clients considering business overseas, the Wholesale Business Unit provides tailored information on local laws and regulations and on Japanese companies already present in target countries. For clients who already have business overseas, each SMBC Group company collaborates to provide high quality solutions in areas such as business expansion and reorganization.

Leasing

The Wholesale Business Unit provides a wide range of leasing services including equipment, operating and leveraged leasing mainly through SMFL. SMFL is one of the major leasing companies in Japan. We have a 60% equity interest in SMFL, while the remaining 40% is held by Sumitomo Corporation (“Sumitomo Corp”), a non-affiliate.

On April 1, 2016, SMFL acquired GE group’s leasing business in Japan by acquiring a 100% equity interest in GE Japan. The acquired leasing business is comprised mainly of equipment/asset leasing, small-ticket leasing and automotive leasing. On September 5, 2016, GE Japan changed its corporate name to SMFL Capital Company, Limited.

We announced on November 6, 2017 that we had entered into a basic agreement with Sumitomo Corp concerning the reorganization of our joint leasing partnership, and concluded on March 30, 2018 the final agreement regarding the reorganization, subject to the approval of foreign and domestic regulatory authorities. The completion of the reorganization is tentatively scheduled from November 2018 to January 2019. In this reorganization, we will transfer a portion of our shares of SMFL, a company jointly owned by us and Sumitomo Corp, to SMFL. Following the share transfer, our equity interest in SMFL will decrease from the current 60% to 50% while Sumitomo Corp’s equity interest will increase from 40% to 50%. As a result, SMFL will cease to be our consolidated subsidiary and will become our joint venture, and its consolidated subsidiaries SMBC Aviation Capital Limited, which belongs to the International Business Unit, and SMFL Capital Company, Limited will become our equity method investees. Subsequently, SMFL Capital Company, Limited will be merged into SMFL.

Retail Business Unit

The Retail Business Unit provides financial services to both consumers residing in Japan and domestic small-sized companies and mainly consists of the retail businesses of SMBC, SMBC Nikko Securities and SMBC Trust Bank together with three consumer finance companies, Sumitomo Mitsui Card, Cedyna and SMBC Consumer Finance.

23

This business unit offers a wide range of products and services for consumers, including wealth management, settlement services, consumer finance and housing loans, in order to address the financial needs of all individual customers.

Wealth Management

The Retail Business Unit offers a variety of financial services including personal bank accounts, deposit products such as ordinary deposits, time deposits and foreign currency deposits, investment trust, equity, bond and insurance products.

In addition, SMBC and SMBC Nikko Securities are promoting greater collaboration in order to meet customers’ diverse needs for asset management by leveraging their respective strengths of a broad client base and a high advisory capability.

On January 1, 2018, SMBC Nikko Securities merged with SMBC Friend Securities Co., Ltd., which had been our wholly owned subsidiary. This merger was made for the purpose of strengthening our securities business by reinforcing consulting-type sales, enhancing productivity through the optimization of sales personnel staffing and achieving cost saving synergies through the consolidation of overlapping management infrastructure.

In addition, the Retail Business Unit, through SMBC Trust Bank, offers extensive trust services tailored to the needs of customers, such as wealth management solutions.

In November 2015, SMBC Trust Bank acquired the retail banking business of Citibank Japan Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. This acquisition was made for the purpose of expanding our business model to offer additional products and services to our customers, including foreign currency investment products and global services.

Settlement

The Retail Business Unit conducts credit card, installment and solution businesses and provides customers with secure and convenient payment methods.

In the credit card business, Sumitomo Mitsui Card and Cedyna conduct a comprehensive credit card business with a strong brand, and offer a variety of settlement and finance services to meet diverse customer needs.

Sumitomo Mitsui Card is a leading company in Japan’s credit card industry, having introduced the Visa brand into the Japanese market. We, Sumitomo Mitsui Card, SMBC and NTT DoCoMo, Inc. (“NTT DoCoMo”) formed a strategic business and capital alliance in credit payment service. We have a 66% equity interest in Sumitomo Mitsui Card, while the remaining 34% is held by NTT DoCoMo. Pursuant to the alliance, Sumitomo Mitsui Card offers a credit payment service using NTT DoCoMo’s mobile phones equipped with contactless IC chips. In addition, Sumitomo Mitsui Card issues a variety of affiliated credit cards in cooperation with partners including, but not limited to, railway companies, airline companies, department stores and online retailers to satisfy both these partners’ and cardholders’ needs.

Cedyna conducts credit card, installment (such as shopping credit and automobile loan) and solution (such as collection outsourcing and factoring) businesses. On April 1, 2016, Cedyna merged with SAKURA CARD CO., LTD., which had been our subsidiary and engaged in the credit card business, to further enhance its capability to meet the wide range of customer needs and deliver higher value-added products and services.

SMBC, Sumitomo Mitsui Card and Cedyna are leveraging their strengths to address cashless payment needs and integrate marketing and business operations.

24

Consumer Finance

The Retail Business Unit offers a variety of consumer loan products including unsecured card loan products mainly through SMBC and SMBC Consumer Finance to meet the wide range of individual customers’ demand for funds. Also, SMBC Consumer Finance guarantees certain consumer loans made by SMBC and other financial institutions.

In addition, SMBC and SMBC Mobit Co., LTD., (“SMBC Mobit”) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of SMBC Consumer Finance engaged in the card loan business, are strengthening their partnership. For example, a loan card from SMBC Mobit can be applied for or received through automated contract machines in SMBC branch offices.

Housing Loans

The Retail Business Unit provides housing loans with a variety of terms and interest rates, including fixed-rate loans with 2- to 35-year terms, to meet diversified customer needs. As an example of a product addressing a specific customer need, this business unit offers a housing loan combined with an insurance policy that covers the repayment of the outstanding loan balance in the event the borrower is diagnosed with certain diseases. Housing loans are principally secured by collateral or supported by guarantees.

The Retail Business Unit operations are mainly conducted through a large and well developed branch network. We had a domestic network consisting of 441 SMBC branch offices, 26 SMBC Trust Bank branch offices, 148 SMBC Nikko Securities branch offices and 959 SMBC Consumer Finance staffed and unstaffed branch offices at March 31, 2018. Some SMBC branches provide financial consulting services for asset management and housing loans during extended hours, including weekday evenings, weekends and national holidays, for the convenience of individual customers.

The Retail Business Unit also operates an extensive network of ATMs in Japan. At March 31, 2018, SMBC offers its customers’ access to 56,012 ATMs, some of which are SMBC’s ATMs and the majority of which are ATMs made available through arrangements with other ATM providers such as convenience store chains. SMBC Consumer Finance offers its customers’ access to 1,967 automatic contract machines and ATMs at March 31, 2018.

This business unit also offers internet banking services for consumers. At March 31, 2018, SMBC’s internet banking services had approximately 16 million registered users. The users are able to transfer funds, perform balance inquiries, make time deposits and foreign currency deposits, and buy and sell investment trusts over the internet, as well as over mobile phones and traditional telephones.

Moreover, in credit card business, there are approximately 27 million and 16 million card holders of Sumitomo Mitsui Card and Cedyna at March 31, 2018.

The Retail Business Unit is implementing an initiative to supply customers with convenient and easy-to-use services by utilizing digital technologies and expand consulting space for individual clients at SMBC branches, while pushing ahead with digitalization of administrative processes and the transfer of administrative functions of branches to administration centers. These reforms will enable us to reduce costs while providing customers with convenient and high quality services.

The Retail Business Unit promotes digitalization in a variety of areas, including a debit card offering that addresses cashless payment needs, a smartphone application that allows our customers to easily and seamlessly view information on transactions with SMBC, SMBC Nikko Securities and Sumitomo Mitsui Card, an automated chat service utilizing artificial intelligence and a biometric authentication platform.

This business unit also provides private banking and asset succession consulting for high-net-worth individuals.

25

For small-sized companies, this business unit provides a wide array of financial products and services to comprehensively address business owners’ needs as both corporate managers and individuals such as business and asset succession.

International Business Unit

The International Business Unit supports the global businesses of a diverse range of clients, such as Japanese companies operating overseas, non-Japanese companies, financial institutions, and government agencies and public corporations of various countries. This business unit mainly consists of the international businesses of SMBC, SMBC Nikko Securities, SMBC Trust Bank, SMFL and their foreign subsidiaries. At March 31, 2018, we have global network of 129 offices in 40 countries and regions.

Banking Business

The International Business Unit provides a variety of tailored products and services to meet customer and market requirements, including loans, deposits, clearing services, trade finance, project finance, loan syndication, derivatives and global cash management services.

At March 31, 2018, SMBC’s international network consisted of 18 branches, 22 sub-branches and 4 representative offices and SMBC seeks to meet customers’ needs globally, together with the network of SMBC’s foreign banking subsidiaries such as Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Limited with 7 offices and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (China) Limited with 16 offices and foreign banking associates, including PT Bank Tabungan Pensiunan Nasional Tbk, The Bank of East Asia, Limited, ACLEDA Bank Plc. and Vietnam Export Import Commercial Joint Stock Bank.

Securities Business

In overseas markets, the International Business Unit provides services such as underwriting activities, Japanese stockbroking and M&A advisory through SMBC Nikko Capital Markets Limited and SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., which are subsidiaries of SMBC in the United Kingdom and the United States respectively. In addition, this business unit provides Japanese stockbroking and M&A advisory services through SMBC Nikko Securities (Hong Kong) Limited and SMBC Nikko Securities (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and M&A advisory related services through SMBC Nikko Investment Consulting (Shanghai) Limited. Together with other SMBC Nikko Securities’ subsidiaries and affiliates, this business unit offers high quality financial services to clients on a global basis.

Leasing Business

The International Business Unit provides a variety of leasing services related to the construction machinery, transportation equipment, industrial machinery, medical equipment and other categories mainly through SMFL’s offices overseas. This business unit also offers aircraft leasing services through SMBC Aviation Capital Limited, a subsidiary of SMFL, and railcar leasing services through SMBC Rail Services LLC, which is a railcar operating leasing company and a subsidiary of SMBC Leasing and Finance, Inc.

For detailed information on the reorganization of our joint leasing partnership, see “Wholesale Business Unit—Leasing” in this section.

On June 1, 2017, we, through SMBC Rail Services LLC, acquired all membership interests of American Railcar Leasing LLC, one of the leading railcar leasing companies in the United States. We pursued this acquisition based on our expectation that railcar leasing business in the United States will experience further growth and high profitability due to stable demand for rail freight transportation, which is the core infrastructure for inland logistics. Through this acquisition, we aim to expand our railcar leasing business and services by further enhancing our fleet portfolio to appropriately meet diverse needs of clients in a wide range of industries.

26

Global Markets Business Unit

The Global Markets Business Unit offers solutions through foreign exchange products, derivatives, bonds, stocks and other marketable financial products and also undertakes asset liability management operations, which help comprehensively control balance sheet liquidity risks and interest rate risks. This business unit consists of the Treasury Unit of SMBC and the Product Unit of SMBC Nikko Securities.

Asset Liability Management and Portfolio Management

The Global Markets Business Unit maintains high profitability and stability by establishing a portfolio with highly liquid products and focusing on products for which investment appetite is high, and by carrying out portfolio rebalancing in a nimble and dynamic manner in response to changes in market conditions.

Foreign Currency Funding

To support our overseas businesses, this business unit strives to improve the stability of our foreign currency funding by diversifying funding methods and expanding the scope of investors we target. At the same time, this business unit keeps appropriate control of the balance sheet in response to international financial regulations.

Sales and Trading

The Global Markets Business Unit provides detailed information on market conditions and economic trends to address customers’ hedging and asset management needs, expands its product lineup in foreign exchange, derivative, bond, stock and other products and supplies timely solutions to increase customer satisfaction and SMBC Group earnings.

In addition, this business unit encourages the use of electronic transactions such as its electronic foreign exchange execution platform available via the Internet to respond to the needs of a wider range of customers.

Other Major Business

System Development, Data Processing, Management Consulting and Economic Research

We provide financial consultation services relating to management reforms, IT, the planning and development of strategic information systems and outsourcing. We also conduct diverse activities including domestic and international economic research and analysis, policy recommendations and business incubation. We offer these services mainly through The Japan Research Institute.

Asset Management

We engage in the investment advisory and investment trust management businesses.

On July 29, 2016, we acquired an additional 20% of the outstanding shares of SMAM and increased our equity interest in SMAM to 60%. As a result, SMAM, our former associate, became our subsidiary. On May 11, 2018, we announced that we had concluded a memorandum of understanding regarding a merger of SMAM and Daiwa SB Investments Ltd., our associate, in April 2019, subject to the approval of regulatory authorities. We expect the merged company to enhance its investment management capabilities and business foundations, in addition to expanding the scale of its operations. The merged company is scheduled to become our subsidiary.

Others

Our associates Kansai Urban Banking Corporation (“KUBC”) and THE MINATO BANK, LTD. (“The Minato Bank”) engage in commercial banking business in Kansai area.

27

In March 2017, we announced our plan to integrate KUBC, The Minato Bank and The Kinki Osaka Bank, Ltd., which is a regional financial institution based in Kansai area and a wholly owned subsidiary of Resona Holdings, Inc. (“Resona Holdings”), a financial holding company head quartered in Japan. In September 2017, we executed a business integration agreement in connection with the plan. As part of this business integration, KUBC and The Minato Bank ceased to be our subsidiaries and became our equity-method associates. In addition, through a series of transactions including share exchanges effected in April 2018, the three banks became wholly owned subsidiaries of Kansai Mirai Financial Group, Inc., an intermediate holding company established by Resona Holdings, and Kansai Mirai Financial Group, Inc. became our equity-method associate.

Credit Loss Protection Agreement with Goldman Sachs

To expand its overseas portfolio and revenue, SMBC entered into agreements with Goldman Sachs in 2003 to provide credit protection to Goldman Sachs’ extension of credit to their investment grade clients in exchange for receiving a proportion of the fees and interest income from the borrowers. In connection with the agreements, Goldman Sachs established certain wholly owned subsidiaries (“William Street Entities”) that might make credit commitments and extensions. Goldman Sachs entered into credit loss protection arrangements with SMBC in order to hedge in part the credit risk to its investment in the William Street Entities. SMBC, through its Cayman Islands branch, would issue letters of credit in exchange for fees equal to a portion of the fees and interest to be paid by the borrowers to the William Street Entities. The first letter of credit (“FLC”), was issued in 2003 in a maximum available amount of $1 billion, and is available over a 20-year period, subject to early termination or extension. Also, from time to time over a 20-year period, subject to early termination or extension and other conditions, upon the request of Goldman Sachs, SMBC has issued letters of credit and may issue one or more additional letters of credit (each a second letter of credit (“SLC Series”) exposing SMBC to risk rated BBB/Baa2 or higher in an aggregate maximum available amount of $1.125 billion). Goldman Sachs may draw on the letters of credit in the event that Goldman Sachs realizes certain losses (“Specified Losses”), with respect to loan commitments or loans extended thereunder that Goldman Sachs has entered into with specified borrowers approved by SMBC and Goldman Sachs.

Under the FLC, Goldman Sachs is entitled to draw from time to time amounts equal to approximately 95% of Specified Losses, up to an aggregate stated amount of $1 billion. Under the SLC Series, Goldman Sachs is entitled, subject to certain conditions, to draw from time to time amounts equal to approximately 70% of Specified Losses above specified loss thresholds, up to an aggregate stated amount of $1.125 billion. Goldman Sachs has made a small number of drawdowns under the FLC in accordance with its terms.

In connection with these credit arrangements, SMBC pays Goldman Sachs an administration fee based on the aggregate amount of commitments covered by the FLC.

The credit loss protection arrangements contain a number of provisions that give SMBC some control over the determination of borrowers to which it has potential exposure under the FLC and any SLC Series:

28

SMBC, through a separate bankruptcy-remote Cayman Islands subsidiary, has collateralized the obligations on the FLC and a portion of the SLC Series by buying $1.505 billion of Goldman Sachs demand notes and pledging those demand notes to Goldman Sachs. If Goldman Sachs activates an SLC Series that is not collateralized, SMBC through its Cayman Islands subsidiary will be required to purchase and pledge additional Goldman Sachs demand notes with a principal amount equal to the stated amount of that SLC Series. Subject to certain conditions, SMBC has the right to substitute as collateral high quality liquid securities for the Goldman Sachs demand notes.

These arrangements are designed to collateralize SMBC’s obligations in the event SMBC’s Cayman Islands branch fails to perform on the FLC or any SLC Series, including as a result of our insolvency or the insolvency of SMBC or SMBC’s Cayman Islands branch.

If Goldman Sachs’ credit rating, as determined by either of the two major credit rating agencies, falls below investment grade, Goldman Sachs is obligated to provide collateral to SMBC to support Goldman Sachs’ obligations under the Goldman Sachs demand notes. As an initial 15-year period under the letters of credit lapsed in February 2018, SMBC and Goldman Sachs have been able to negotiate in good faith to extend the terms of the letter of credit arrangements for one additional five-year term taking it up to 25 years. Before the expiration of the initial 20-year term, in certain circumstances, the letter of credit arrangements with SMBC may be terminated by SMBC or Goldman Sachs, in which event Goldman Sachs would be obligated to prepay any outstanding demand notes. In circumstances related primarily to the creditworthiness of SMBC or a breach of its representations or covenants, Goldman Sachs may draw on the letters of credit for early termination amounts of up to the remaining undrawn or available amount on the letters of credit. In connection with draws on the letters of credit of early termination amounts, Goldman Sachs would have to prepay any outstanding demand notes. Goldman Sachs also would be obligated to pay SMBC on the originally scheduled expiration date of the letter of credit arrangements an amount equal to the early termination amounts minus the losses that would have been reimbursed under the letters of credit had they not terminated early.

Management Policies

On May 15, 2017, we announced our new medium-term management plan, “SMFG Next Stage” (currently “SMBC Group Next Stage”), for the three-years through March 2020. By combining the SMBC Group’s strengths with more focused business management, we aim to be the financial institution of choice for our customers, to achieve sustainable growth and to enhance corporate value through the provision of products and services that add value to our customers. Under the medium-term management plan, we have established the following three core policies in order to achieve sustainable growth and reach the next stage of our journey towards our vision for the next decade of becoming “a global financial group that, by earning the highest trust of our customers, leads the growth of Japan and the Asian region.”

Disciplined business management

With the environment for financial institutions expected to remain challenging, we aim to focus on capital, asset, and cost efficiencies to grow our bottom-line profit in a sustainable manner, in other words to become a profitable financial institution through sustained discipline.

While maintaining our competitiveness in the stable domestic market, we intend to allocate resources across our portfolio of businesses in order to prioritize business fields which enhance capital efficiency. In addition, as risk-weighted assets are expected to increase on the back of tightening of international financial regulations, we intend to further strengthen control of our risk-weighted assets. Specifically, by assessing risks based on our risk appetite framework, we intend to seek to recalibrate our business portfolio by reducing low-margin assets whilst investing in more profitable and asset-efficient businesses.

Meanwhile, we intend to optimize workflows and share infrastructures among SMBC Group companies by fully utilizing digital technology. Specifically, we intend to enhance productivity on an SMBC Group-wide basis by reorganizing our retail branches and group structure such as through the merging of our security subsidiaries.

29

Focus on our strengths to generate growth

Based on our core competencies and the opportunities we see for growth we have identified the following “Seven Core Business Areas” which we wish to prioritize as shown below:

In addition to strengthening our domestic businesses, where we possess competitive advantages and can make steady profits, we aim to implement growth strategies in international businesses and global products which are based on the strengths we have. Further, we aim to generate new strengths that will contribute to our future growth.

Integration across the SMBC Group and globally to achieve sustainable growth

Governance and management structure to maximize our business potential. We transitioned from a company with a board of auditors to a company with three statutory committees in order to enhance our corporate governance system as a Global Systemically Important Financial Institution, “G-SIFI” on June 29, 2017. To maximize business opportunities on an SMBC Group-wide and global basis, we have established SMBC Group-wide business units and introduced a Group Chief Officers system (“CxO system”). Specifically, we intend to seek to meet the needs of a wide range of clients by executing strategies and strengthening services on an SMBC Group-wide basis. Further, we intend to optimize resource allocation by sharing management resources, for example by exchanging employees among SMBC Group companies. In addition, we intend to control the allocation of human resources and IT investment on an SMBC Group-wide basis by enhancing the capabilities of our planning and management functions. In order to support these initiatives, we intend to introduce management frameworks, such as setting ROE targets for each business unit, and improved management information systems. In addition, we have revised the executive pay system by introducing stock-based compensation which is linked to financial targets within our medium-term management plan and to our stock performance in order to tighten the link with business performance. We also raised the ratio of stock-based compensation for executives in order to ensure the business is well aligned with the shareholder’s perspective.

Digitalization. With the rapid advance of digitalization, we aim to proactively introduce new technologies and promote digitalization in various areas such as enhancing the customer experience, generating new businesses, improving productivity and efficiency, and upgrading management infrastructure. Specifically, in order to enhance the customer experience, we intend to implement advanced digital solutions such as utilizing paperless transactions at retail branches and digital contracts with corporate customers. We intend to generate new businesses through digitalization focusing on creating new platforms such as a biometric authentication business. In order to improve productivity and efficiency, we intend to digitalize certain back-office operations at branches and introduce public cloud servicing, which will also lead to work style reform. Furthermore, we intend to enhance data-based management by digitalizing information and “visualizing” the management system.

30

Revenues by Region

The following table sets forth the percentage of our total operating income under IFRS for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, based on the total operating income of our offices in the indicated regions. For each of the periods presented, we earned more than half of our total operating income in Japan, where we compete with other major Japanese banking groups and financial service providers. We earned the remainder in the Americas, Europe and Middle East, and Asia and Oceania, where we mainly compete with global financial institutions.

Seasonality

Our business is not materially affected by seasonality.

Sources and Availability of Raw Materials

We are not reliant on any particular source of raw materials.

Marketing Channels

See “—Description of Operations and Principal Activities” for a discussion of our marketing channels.

Regulations in Japan

Our businesses are subject to extensive regulation, including the effects of changes in the laws, regulations, policies, voluntary codes of practice and interpretations in Japan. On the other hand, deregulation of banking activities in Japan, and more generally of the Japanese financial system, has proceeded, which has made the Japanese banking industry highly competitive.

Supervisory and regulatory authorities

Pursuant to the Banking Act, the FSA has the authority in Japan to supervise banks, bank holding companies and banks’ principal shareholders, meaning bank shareholders having 20% (or 15% in some cases) or more of the voting rights of a bank. The BOJ also has supervisory authority over banks in Japan based primarily on its contractual agreements and transactions with Japanese banks. Only companies licensed by the Prime Minister are defined as banks under the Banking Act, and licenses may be granted only to a kabushiki kaisha , a joint stock corporation, with paid-up capital of ¥2 billion or more.

The Financial Services Agency of Japan

The Prime Minister has supervisory authority over banks in Japan, which is generally delegated to the Financial Services Agency of Japan (“FSA”) except for matters prescribed by cabinet order. The Minister for Financial Services has the power to direct the FSA. Under the Banking Act, the FSA has supervisory control over banks, bank holding companies and banks’ principal shareholders in Japan, except for matters to which the Prime Minister retains authority.

31

The FSA’s authority includes granting and revoking of operating licenses, and approving business activities such as becoming a principal shareholder, establishment of subsidiaries or overseas offices, mergers, corporate splits or business transfers, and dissolutions or discontinuations of business by existing banks, etc.

The FSA may also instruct a Japanese bank to suspend its business or to remove directors if the bank violates laws, other regulations or their articles of incorporation or commits acts contrary to public policy. The FSA may also direct a Japanese bank in financial difficulty to take certain actions, such as holding certain property in Japan for the protection of depositors. Under the prompt corrective action (“PCA”) system, the FSA may take corrective actions in the case of capital deterioration of financial institutions.

The Ministry of Finance and the FSA have introduced a number of regulatory measures into the banking sector in Japan to secure sound management of banks, as well as measures to increase the transparency of the regulatory process, such as bank holding company regulations, single customer credit limits, disclosure regulations, regulations regarding reserves for loan losses and inspections.

The Banking Act authorizes the FSA to inspect banks and bank holding companies in Japan at any time and with any frequency. The FSA monitors the financial soundness of banks and the status and performance of their control systems and reviews their compliance with laws and regulations. The FSA has issued guidelines on its inspection of financial institutions called the Financial Inspection Manual. The Financial Inspection Manual itself does not have the force of law, but the FSA’s inspections of banks are based on the Financial Inspection Manual, which emphasizes the need for bank self-assessment rather than assessment based on the advice of the government authority and risk management by each bank instead of a mere assessment of its assets. On December 15, 2017, the FSA published a report outlining its new supervisory approaches which include expanding the scope of its supervisory approaches from a backward-looking, element-by-element compliance check to substantive, forward-looking and holistic analysis and judgment. According to the report, the FSA will repeal the FSA’s Financial Inspection Manual after April 1, 2019. Following an inspection, the FSA may exercise its authority over a bank under the Banking Act to suspend or terminate its banking business.

The Ministry of Finance

The Ministry of Finance conducts examinations of banks in relation to foreign exchange transactions under the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act.

The Bank of Japan

The Bank of Japan (“BOJ”) is the central bank of Japan and serves as the principal instrument for the execution of Japan’s monetary policy. The BOJ implements monetary policy mainly by adjusting its basic loan rate, open market operations and imposing deposit reserve requirements. All banks in Japan maintain deposits with the BOJ and rely substantially upon obtaining borrowings from and rediscounting bills with the BOJ. Moreover, most banks in Japan maintain current accounts under agreements with the BOJ pursuant to which the BOJ can conclude a contract with SMBC concerning on-site examinations. BOJ supervision is intended to support the effective execution of monetary policy, while FSA supervision aims to maintain the sound operations of banks in Japan and promote the security of depositors. Through its examinations, the BOJ seeks to identify problems at an early stage and give corrective guidance where necessary.

Regulations Regarding Capital Adequacy and Liquidity

Capital Adequacy Requirement

In 1988, the BCBS issued the Basel Capital Accord. The Basel Capital Accord sets minimum risk-weighted capital ratios for the purpose of maintaining sound management of banks which have international operations. The minimum risk-weighted capital ratio required was 8% on both a consolidated and nonconsolidated basis. In

32

2004, the BCBS issued the amended Basel Capital Accord (“Basel II”), which includes detailed measurement of credit risk, the addition of operational risk, a supervisory review process and market discipline through disclosure. These amendments did not change the minimum risk-weighted capital ratio of 8% applicable to banks with international operations (including SMBC). These rules took effect in Japan in 2007, and since 2008, banks are able to apply the advanced IRB approach for credit risk and the AMA for operational risk.

In July 2009, the BCBS approved a final package of measures to enhance certain elements of the Basel II framework, which includes an increase of the risk weights of resecuritization instruments and revisions of certain trading book rules (referred to as “Basel 2.5”), and the FSA’s capital adequacy guidelines which reflect such framework have been applied in Japan from December 2011.

In September 2009, the GHOS reached an agreement on several key measures to strengthen regulation of the banking sector, and in December 2009 the BCBS published a consultative document entitled “Strengthening the resilience of the banking sector” containing proposals on these measures centering on several core areas. The BCBS’ proposals focused on raising the quality, consistency and transparency of the regulatory capital base through measures including a requirement that the predominant form of Tier 1 capital must be common shares and retained earnings; limitations on the use of hybrid instruments with an incentive to redeem; a requirement that regulatory adjustments, including deductions of the amount of net deferred tax assets which rely on the future profitability of a bank, be applied to common equity generally; and a requirement for additional disclosure regarding regulatory capital levels.

The BCBS’ proposals also cover the following key areas:

In July 2010, the GHOS reached a broad agreement on the overall design of the BCBS’ capital and liquidity reform package. In addition, in August 2010, the BCBS issued for consultation a proposal to enhance the loss absorbency function of regulatory capital. In September 2010, the GHOS announced a substantial strengthening of existing capital requirements. The framework of the proposed reform was endorsed by the G-20 leaders at their Seoul summit in November 2010. These capital reforms increased the minimum common equity requirement from 2% to 4.5% and will require banks to hold a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% to withstand future periods of stress, bringing the total common equity requirement to 7%. The Tier 1 capital requirement also increased from 4% to 6% (increasing to 8.5% when included together with the above capital conservation buffer). The total capital requirement remains at 8% but will increase to 10.5% with the capital conservation buffer by January 2019. In addition, a countercyclical buffer within a range of 0% to 2.5% of Common Equity Tier 1 capital has been implemented according to national circumstances. The GHOS also agreed on transitional arrangements for implementing the new standards. Under the transitional arrangements, these new capital requirements are being phased in between January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2019. In December 2010, the BCBS published the new Basel III rules text. To reflect changes made by the BCBS, the FSA changed its capital adequacy guidelines. The FSA’s changes have mostly been applied from March 31, 2013, which generally reflect the main measures of the minimum capital requirements of the BCBS that started to be phased in on January 1, 2013 and will be fully applied from March 2019. The FSA’s changes which reflect capital buffer requirements under Basel III and the G-SIB capital surcharge described below have been applied from March 31, 2016.

33

In September 2013, the BCBS and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) released the final framework for margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives (“2013 framework”). This framework will require high quality liquid assets to be posted as margin on non-centrally cleared derivative transactions, which could adversely affect our liquidity position. The requirements were originally planned to be phased in over a four-year period beginning in December 2015 with the largest, most active and most systemically important participants in the derivatives market, including us. In March 2015, the BCBS and IOSCO released revisions to the 2013 framework, which delayed the beginning of the phase-in period for collecting and posting initial margin on non-centrally cleared trades from December 2015 to September 2016. The full phase-in schedule has been adjusted to reflect this nine-month delay. The revisions also institute a six-month phase-in period of the requirement to exchange variation margin, which began in September 2016.

In addition to the above-mentioned minimum capital requirements and capital buffer requirements under Basel III, organizations identified by the FSB as G-SIBs, which includes us, are required to maintain an additional 1% to 2.5% of Common Equity Tier 1 capital as a percentage of risk-weighted assets based on the organization’s size, interconnectedness, substitutability, complexity and cross-jurisdictional activity as determined by the FSB. This G-SIB capital surcharge requirement started to be phased in from January 2016 and will be fully implemented in January 2019. The amount of G-SIB capital surcharge that applies to us based on the FSB’s determination will be 1% of risk-weighted assets when the requirement is fully applied from 2019. The FSB updates its list of G-SIBs on an annual basis.

G-SIBs will also be subject to a global standard for TLAC, which establishes a minimum requirement for loss-absorbing and recapitalization capacity available in resolution at G-SIBs, to ensure that they can be resolved in an orderly manner without putting public funds at risk. In November 2015, as part of its agenda to address risks arising from G-SIBs, the FSB published the final TLAC standard. The final TLAC standard defines certain minimum requirements for instruments and liabilities so that if a G-SIB fails, it will have sufficient loss-absorbing and recapitalization capacity available to ensure that it can be resolved in an orderly manner which minimizes potential impact on financial stability, maintains the continuity of critical functions and avoids exposing public funds to loss. In addition, in April 2016, the FSA published a paper entitled “The FSA’s Approach to Introduce the TLAC Framework” (“FSA’s Approach”) which was revised in April 2018. This describes the FSA’s approach for the introduction of TLAC requirements in Japan, although it remains subject to change based on future international discussions. According to the FSA’s Approach, the preferred resolution strategy for G-SIBs in Japan is Single Point of Entry resolution, in which resolution powers are applied to the top-level entity of a banking group by a single national resolution authority, although the actual measures to be taken will be determined on a case-by-case basis considering the actual condition of the relevant Japanese G-SIB in crisis. To implement this Single Point of Entry resolution strategy effectively, the FSA plans to require bank holding companies of Japanese G-SIBs, which will be the resolution entities, to (i) meet the minimum external TLAC requirements provided under the FSB’s TLAC standard (being at least 16% of their risk-weighted assets starting from March 2019 and at least 18% of their risk-weighted assets starting from March 2022), and (ii) cause their material subsidiaries that are designated as systemically important by the FSA or that are subject to TLAC requirements or similar requirements by the relevant foreign authorities, including but not limited to certain material sub-groups as provided in the FSB’s TLAC standard, to maintain a certain level of capital and debt recognized by the FSA as internal TLAC, in order that losses incurred at the material sub-group can be absorbed by the bank holding company through such internal TLAC with the involvement of the FSA. In addition, according to the FSA’s Approach, Japanese G-SIBs are expected to be allowed to count Japan’s deposit insurance fund reserves in an amount equivalent to 2.5% of their risk-weighted assets from March 2019 and 3.5% of their risk-weighted assets from March 2022 as external TLAC.

The final TLAC standard also prescribes a minimum TLAC requirement of at least 6% of the resolution group’s Basel III leverage ratio denominator starting from March 2019, increasing to at least 6.75% starting from March 2022, and according to the FSA’s Approach, the same external TLAC requirements on the leverage ratio basis are planned to be required for bank holding companies of Japanese G-SIBs. As a G-SIB, we will be subject to the final TLAC standard, as implemented in Japan.

34

Furthermore, as a disincentive for G-SIBs facing the maximum G-SIB capital surcharge to “increase materially their global systemic importance in the future,” an additional 1% capital surcharge could be applied. So long as we are identified as a G-SIB, we are also subject to stronger supervisory mandates and higher supervisory expectations for risk management functions, data aggregation capabilities, risk governance and internal controls. The substance of this heightened supervision has not yet been fixed, but we anticipate that at a minimum any rules will contain more stringent reporting requirements and impose common frameworks for data aggregation and internal risk management processes on G-SIBs.

Because we have been identified as a G-SIB, we are also subject to, among other things, resolution-related requirements described in the FSB’s “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions.” In particular, the FSB has required the initial group of G-SIBs to have in place a recovery and resolution plan, including a group-level plan, containing various specified elements, to be subject to regular resolvability assessments. Under the Comprehensive Guidelines for Supervision of Financial Instruments Business Operators, etc., issued by the FSA, as part of crisis management, financial institutions identified as G-SIBs must prepare and submit a recovery plan, which includes a description of events that would trigger implementation of the recovery plan and the analysis of the recovery options to the FSA, and the FSA must prepare the resolution plan for each G-SIB.

On December 7, 2017, the GHOS endorsed the outstanding Basel III regulatory reforms. The endorsed reforms include the following elements:

The revised framework, other than revisions to the capital floor, will take effect from January 1, 2022. The revisions to the capital floor will be phased in from January 1, 2022, with an initial capital floor of 50%, and will reach 72.5% by January 1, 2027.

Our securities subsidiaries in Japan are also subject to capital adequacy requirements under the FIEA. Under the requirements, securities firms must maintain a minimum capital adequacy ratio of 120% on a nonconsolidated basis and must file periodic reports with the Commissioner of the FSA or the Director-General of the appropriate Local Finance Bureau, and also publicly disclose their capital adequacy ratio on a quarterly basis. In addition, securities firms whose total assets exceed ¥1,000 billion are required to maintain this minimum capital adequacy ratio on a consolidated basis. This requirement on a consolidated basis is applied in addition to and in a manner similar to the requirements on a nonconsolidated basis referred to above. Failure to meet the capital adequacy requirements will trigger mandatory regulatory action. For example, in the case of the requirement on a nonconsolidated basis, a securities firm with a capital adequacy ratio of greater than 120%, but less than 140% will be required to file daily reports with the Commissioner of the FSA or the Director-General of the appropriate Local Finance Bureau. A securities firm with a capital adequacy ratio of less than 120% may be ordered to change its business conduct, place its property in trust or be subject to other supervisory orders, as the

35

relevant authorities deem appropriate. A securities firm with a capital adequacy ratio of less than 100% may be subject to temporary suspension of all or part of its business operations or cancellation of its license to act as a securities broker and dealer.

The capital adequacy ratio for securities firms is defined as the ratio of adjusted capital to a quantified total of business risks, which include market risks, counterparty risks and operational risks (e.g., risks in carrying out daily business activities, such as administrative problems with securities transactions and clerical mistakes) quantified in the manner specified by a rule promulgated under the FIEA. Adjusted capital is defined as net worth less illiquid assets, as determined in accordance with Japanese GAAP. Net worth consists mainly of stated capital, additional paid-in capital, retained earnings, reserves for securities transactions, certain allowances for doubtful current accounts, net unrealized gains (losses) in the market value of investment securities, and subordinated debt. Illiquid assets generally include non-current market assets, certain deposits and advances, and prepaid expenses.

Leverage Ratio

In March 2015, the FSA published its leverage ratio guidelines which have been applied from March 31, 2015 to help ensure broad and adequate capture of both on- and off-balance sheet sources of leverage for internationally active banks. The FSA’s leverage ratio guidelines are based on the text of the leverage ratio framework and disclosure requirements issued by the BCBS in January 2014. From January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2017, the BCBS monitored banks’ leverage ratio data to assess whether the design and calibration of its indicated minimum leverage ratio of 3% was appropriate.

In January 2016, the GHOS agreed that the leverage ratio should be based on a Tier 1 definition of capital and should comprise a minimum level of 3%. On December 7, 2017, the definition and requirements of the leverage ratio were revised as part of the revised Basel III reforms. Under the revised Basel III reforms, in addition to meeting the minimum leverage ratio, G-SIBs are required to meet a leverage ratio buffer, which will take the form of a Tier 1 capital buffer set at 50% of the applicable G-SIB capital surcharge. Various refinements were also made to the definition of the leverage ratio exposure measure. The leverage ratio requirements under the definition based on the framework issued by the BCBS in January 2014 were implemented as a Pillar 1 measurement from January 2018, and those under the revised definition and the leverage ratio buffer requirement for the G-SIBs will be implemented as a Pillar 1 measurement from January 1, 2022.

Liquidity Requirement

In October 2014, the FSA published its guidelines for liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) applicable to banks with international operations that have been applied from March 31, 2015. These guidelines are based on the full text of the LCR standard issued by the BCBS in January 2013. LCR is intended to promote resilience to potential liquidity disruptions over a thirty-day horizon and help ensure that global banks have sufficient, unencumbered, high-quality liquid assets to offset the net cash outflows they could encounter under an acute short-term stress scenario. Under the FSA’s LCR guidelines, banks with international operations must maintain LCR of at least 100% on both a consolidated basis and a nonconsolidated basis, while the minimum LCR requirements are being phased in between March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2019 with an increase of 10% in each year starting from 60%.

In October 2014, the BCBS issued the final standard for the net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”), which requires a minimum amount of stable sources of funding at a bank relative to the liquidity profiles of the bank’s assets, as well as the potential for contingent liquidity needs arising from off-balance sheet commitments, over a one-year horizon. The NSFR was scheduled to be introduced as a minimum standard by January 1, 2018.We will be subject to the NSFR requirement, as implemented in Japan, but the FSA has not published any guidelines for the NSFR.

36

Self-Assessment, Reserves and Related Disclosure

Financial institutions, including SMBC, are required to establish self-assessment programs to, among other things, analyze their assets giving due consideration to accounting principles and other applicable rules and to classify their assets into categories taking into account the likelihood of repayment and the risk of impairment to the value of the assets. These classifications determine whether an addition to or reduction in reserves or write-offs is necessary.

Pursuant to the Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“JICPA”) guidelines, the outcome of each financial institution’s self-assessment leads to substantially all of a bank’s loans and other claims on customers being analyzed by classifying obligors into five categories: (1) normal borrowers; (2) borrowers requiring caution; (3) potentially bankrupt borrowers; (4) effectively bankrupt borrowers; and (5) bankrupt borrowers. The reserve for possible loan losses is then calculated based on the obligor categories.

FSA guidelines require banks to classify their assets not only by the five categories of obligor but also by four categories of quality. SMBC has adopted its own internal guidelines for self-assessment which conform to guidelines currently in effect and comply with the PCA system requirements.

Based on the results of the self-assessment discussed above, SMBC is required to establish a reserve for its loan portfolio in an amount SMBC considers adequate at a balance sheet date. Three categories of reserves SMBC establishes, for statutory purposes, along with the Accounting Standards for Banks issued by the Japanese Bankers Association, are a general reserve, a specific reserve and a reserve for specific overseas loan losses.

Under the Banking Act, banks and bank holding companies must disclose their non- and under-performing loans (consolidated and nonconsolidated) as risk-monitored loans. Risk-monitored loans are classified into four categories: (1) bankrupt loans, (2) non-accrual loans, (3) past due loans (three months or more) and (4) restructured loans. Banks and bank holding companies are required to submit to the FSA annual reports on their business including the amount of risk-monitored loans. Banks and bank holding companies must disclose their financial statements on an annual basis. The financial statements consist of the balance sheet and income statement, and explanatory documents regarding business and asset conditions, each prepared under the Banking Act both on a nonconsolidated and consolidated basis.

Independent of the Banking Act disclosure regulations, the Act Concerning Emergency Measures for the Revitalization of Financial Functions requires banks to disclose their loans and their other problem assets. Under this law, assets are classified into four categories: (1) bankrupt and quasi-bankrupt assets, (2) doubtful assets, (3) substandard assets and (4) normal assets. Generally, bankrupt and quasi-bankrupt assets correspond to the total of bankrupt loans and the lower tier of the non-accrual loans (the borrowers of which are effectively bankrupt) under the Banking Act disclosure. Doubtful assets generally correspond to the higher tier portion of the non-accrual loans (the borrowers of which are not, but have the potential to become, bankrupt). The substandard assets generally correspond to the total of the restructured loans and past due loans (three months or more). Bankrupt and quasi-bankrupt assets and doubtful assets also include non-loan assets, for example, securities lending, foreign exchange, accrued interest, advanced payments and customers’ liabilities for acceptances and guarantees.

Prompt Corrective Action System

Under the Prompt Corrective Action (“PCA”) system, the FSA may take corrective actions depending upon the extent of capital deterioration of a financial institution. The FSA may require a bank to submit and implement a capital reform plan, if;

37

The FSA may order a bank to (1) submit and implement a plan for improving its capital; (2) prohibit or restrict the payment of dividends to shareholders or bonuses to officers; (3) reduce assets or restrict any increase in assets; (4) prohibit or restrict the acceptance of deposits under terms less advantageous than ordinary terms; (5) reduce the business of some offices; (6) eliminate some offices other than the head office; (7) reduce or prevent the launching of non-banking businesses; or (8) take certain other actions, if;

The FSA may order a bank to conduct any one of the following: (1) a capital increase; (2) a substantial reduction in its business; (3) a merger; or (4) abolishment of its banking business, if;

The FSA may order the bank to suspend all or part of its business, if the total risk-weighted capital ratio, the Common Equity Tier 1 risk-weighted capital ratio or Tier 1 risk-weighted capital ratio of a bank with international operations declines below 0%.

The FSA may take actions similar to the actions the FSA may take with respect to a bank, if;

Prompt Warning System

The prompt warning system currently in effect allows the FSA to take precautionary measures to maintain and promote the sound operation of financial institutions before those financial institutions become subject to the PCA system. These measures include requiring a financial institution to reform: (1) profitability, if deemed necessary to improve profitability based upon a fundamental profit index; (2) credit risk management, if deemed necessary to reform management of credit risk based upon the degree of large credit concentration and other circumstances; (3) stability, if deemed necessary to reform management of market and other risks based upon, in particular, the effect of securities price fluctuations; and (4) cash flow management, if deemed necessary to reform management of liquidity risks based upon deposit trends and level of reserve for liquidity.

Restrictions on Capital Distributions

Under the FSA’s capital adequacy guidelines and related ordinances, if a bank fails to maintain capital levels under the capital buffer requirements in accordance with Basel III and the G-SIB capital surcharge, the

38

FSA may order a bank to submit and implement a reasonable capital distribution constraint plan to restore the capital levels. This plan shall include restrictions on capital distributions, such as dividends, share buybacks, discretionary payments on other Tier 1 capital instruments and bonuses, in such amount as determined depending on the degree of insufficiency of such requirements.

Regulations for Stabilizing the Financial System

Deposit Insurance System

The Deposit Insurance Act was enacted to protect depositors when deposit-taking institutions fail to meet their obligations. The Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan (“DIC”) implements the law and is supervised by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Subject to limited exceptions, the Prime Minister’s authority is delegated to the FSA Commissioner.

From April 2015 to March 2017, the DIC received annual insurance premiums from member deposit-taking institutions amounting to 0.054% of deposits primarily for payment and settlement purposes and 0.041% of deposits for other deposits, and from April 2017 to March 2018, they amounted to 0.049% and 0.036%, respectively. Furthermore, from April 2018, they amounted to 0.046% and 0.033% respectively.

Premiums held by the DIC may be either deposited at deposit-taking institutions or used to purchase marketable securities. The insurance money may be paid out to depositors in case of a suspension of repayments of deposits, banking license revocation, dissolution or bankruptcy of a bank. Payouts are generally limited to a maximum of ¥10 million of principal amount together with any interest accrued with respect to each depositor. Only non-interest-bearing deposits that are redeemable upon demand and used by depositors primarily for payment and settlement functions are protected in full.

City banks (including SMBC), regional banks (including member banks of the second association of regional banks), trust banks, credit associations, credit cooperatives, labor banks and Japan Post Bank participate in the deposit insurance system on a compulsory basis.

The Deposit Insurance Act also provides a permanent system for resolving failed deposit-taking institutions.

The basic method for resolving a failed deposit-taking institution under the Deposit Insurance Act is cessation of the business by paying insurance money to depositors up to the principal amount of ¥10 million plus accrued interest per depositor, or pay-off or transfer of the business to another deposit-taking institution, with financial assistance provided within the cost of pay-off. Under the Deposit Insurance Act, transfer of business is regarded as the primary method. In order to affect a prompt transfer of business, the following framework has been established:

39

Where it is anticipated that the failure of a deposit-taking institution may cause an extremely grave problem in maintaining the financial order in Japan or the region where the deposit-taking institution is operating, the following exceptional measures may be taken following deliberation by Japan’s Financial Crisis Response Council:

In order to fund the above-mentioned activities, the DIC may borrow from financial institutions or issue bonds which may be guaranteed by the Government of Japan.

In addition, on June 12, 2013, a bill to amend the Deposit Insurance Act which includes establishment of a new orderly resolution regime of financial institutions was enacted and became effective on March 6, 2014. Financial institutions including banks, securities companies and insurance companies and their holding companies will be subject to the new resolution regime that includes, among others, the following features.

Under the new resolution regime, where the Prime Minister recognizes that the failure of a financial institution which falls into either of (a) or (b) below may cause significant disruption in the financial markets or other financial systems in Japan if measures described in (a) (specified Item 1 measures) ( tokutei dai ichigo sochi ) or measures described in (b) (specified Item 2 measures) ( tokutei dai nigo sochi ) are not taken, the Prime Minister may confirm that any of the following measures need to be applied to the financial institution following deliberation by Japan’s Financial Crisis Response Council:

(a) if the financial institution is not a financial institution whose liabilities exceed its assets, which means it is unable to fully perform its obligations with its assets, the DIC shall supervise the operation of business and management and disposal of assets of that financial institution, and may provide it with loans or guarantees necessary to avoid the risk of significant disruption in the financial systems in Japan, or subscribe for shares or subordinated bonds of, or lend subordinated loans to, the financial institution, taking into consideration the financial condition of the financial institution;

(b) if the financial institution is a financial institution whose liabilities exceed or are likely to exceed its assets or which has suspended or is likely to suspend payment of its obligations, the DIC shall supervise the operation of business and management and disposal of assets of that financial institution and may provide financial aid necessary to assist a merger, business transfer, corporate split or other reorganization in respect to such failed financial institution; and

if a measure set out in (b) above is determined to be taken with respect to a financial institution, the Prime Minister may order that the financial institution’s operations of business and management and disposal of assets be placed under the special control of the DIC. The business or liabilities of the financial institution subject to the special supervision by the DIC as set forth above may also be transferred to a “bridge bank” established by the DIC for the purpose of the temporary maintenance and continuation of operations of, or repayment of the liabilities of, such financial institution, and the bridge bank will seek to transfer the financial institution’s business or liabilities to another financial institution or dissolve the financial institution. The financial aid provided by the DIC to assist a merger, business transfer, corporate split or other reorganization in respect to the financial institution set out in (b) above may take the form of a monetary grant, loan or deposit of funds, purchase of assets, guarantee or assumption of debts, subscription of preferred stock or subordinated bonds, subordinated loan, or loss sharing.

40

The expenses for implementation of the measures for these crisis management operations will be borne by the financial industry; provided, however, the Government of Japan may provide subsidies to the DIC within the limit to be specified in the government budget in cases where it is likely to cause extremely serious hindrance to the maintenance of the credit system in Japan or significant turmoil in the financial market or other financial system of Japan if such expenses are to be borne only by the financial industry.

In March 2014, the FSA made an announcement clarifying the requirement of loss absorbency at the point of non-viability for additional Tier 1 instruments and Tier 2 instruments under Basel III issued by banks and bank holding companies. According to the announcement, (i) additional Tier 1 instruments and Tier 2 instruments under Basel III issued by a bank must be written-down or converted into common shares when the Prime Minister of Japan confirms ( nintei ) that the above-described “Item 2 measures ( dai nigo sochi ),” “Item 3 measures ( dai sango sochi ),” or “specified Item 2 measures ( tokutei dai nigo sochi )” need to be applied to the bank and (ii) additional Tier 1 instruments and Tier 2 instruments under Basel III issued by a bank holding company must be written-down or converted into common shares when the Prime Minister of Japan confirms ( nintei ) that the above-described “specified Item 2 measures ( tokutei dai nigo sochi )” need to be applied to the bank holding company. The FSA also stated in the announcement that the trigger event for loss absorbency at the point of non-viability with respect to such instruments should be construed in accordance with the then effective financial crisis response framework for banks and bank holding companies that have failed or are likely to fail, since the purpose of such write-down or conversion required under Basel III is to ensure that all classes of these capital instruments fully absorb losses at the point of non-viability before taxpayers are exposed to loss.

Special Measures Act Concerning Facilitation of Reorganization by Financial Institutions, Etc.

Under the Special Measures Act Concerning Facilitation of Reorganization by Financial Institutions, Etc.: (1) for one year after the merger or transfer of the entire business of a deposit-taking institution, the maximum amount to be covered by the deposit insurance will be ¥10 million multiplied by the number of parties to the merger or business transfer; and (2) the procedures are simplified to a certain extent in connection with the transfer of an entire business or a merger with another deposit-taking institution by a deposit-taking institution that is made in accordance with a management base-strengthening plan that has been approved by the Government of Japan.

Single Customer Credit Limit

The Banking Act restricts the aggregate amount of credit and loans that may be extended to any single customer in order to avoid the excessive concentration of credit risks and promote the fair and extensive use of bank credit. To tighten the restrictions under Japanese law to meet international standards, the Banking Act and the related cabinet order were amended in June 2013 and October 2014, respectively and those amendments became effective in December 2014. As a result of the amendments, the credit limit of bank holding companies, banks or bank groups for any single customer, including certain of the customer’s affiliates, was lowered from 40% to 25% of the total qualifying capital of the bank holding company, bank or bank group, with certain adjustments.

Restrictions on Activities of a Bank Holding Company

Under the Banking Act, a bank holding company is prohibited from carrying on any business other than management of its subsidiaries and other incidental businesses. A bank holding company may have any of the following as a subsidiary: a bank, a securities company, an insurance company or a foreign subsidiary that engages in the banking, securities or insurance business. In addition, a bank holding company may have as a subsidiary any company that engages in finance-related business, such as a credit card company, a leasing company or an investment advisory company. Certain companies that are designated by ministerial ordinance as those that cultivate new business fields may also become the subsidiary of a bank holding company.

An amendment to the Banking Act was promulgated in June 2016. Among other things, the amendment (1) requires a bank holding company to enhance group management, by measures including establishment of a

41

basic policy of such group, coordination of conflicts of interest among group companies, development of a group compliance system and others; (2) permits a bank holding company or a group company, with prior approval of the Government of Japan, to manage certain businesses of other group companies that are common and duplicative; and (3) permits a bank or a bank holding company, with prior approval of the government, to hold voting rights of companies conducting businesses that contribute to or are expected to contribute to the sophistication of the banking business or the enhancement of customer convenience by utilizing information technology or other technologies, regardless of the shareholding restriction described below. The amendment became effective from April 2017.

Restriction on Aggregate Shareholdings by a Bank

The Act Concerning Restriction on Shareholdings by Banks requires Japanese banks and their qualified subsidiaries to limit the aggregate market value (excluding unrealized gains, if any) of their equity securities holdings to an amount equal to 100% of their consolidated Tier 1 capital, with adjustments, in order to reduce exposure to stock price fluctuations. Treasury shares, shares issued by subsidiaries, shares not listed on any stock exchange or not registered with any OTC market, shares held as trust assets, and shares acquired through debt-for-equity swaps in restructuring transactions are excluded from this limitation. In order to facilitate the disposition of shares of listed stocks held by banks while preventing adverse effects caused by sales of large amounts of shares in a short period of time, share purchases by the Banks’ Shareholdings Purchase Corporation of listed shares have been restarted from March 2009.

Shareholding Restrictions Applicable to a Bank Holding Company and a Bank

The provision of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade which prohibits banks from holding more than 5% of the voting rights of non-financial companies in Japan does not apply to bank holding companies. However, the Banking Act generally prohibits a bank holding company and its subsidiaries, on an aggregated basis, from holding more than 15% of the voting rights of certain types of companies which are not permitted to become subsidiaries of bank holding companies. Also, the Banking Act generally prohibits a bank and its subsidiaries, on an aggregated basis, from holding more than 5% of the voting rights of certain types of companies which are not permitted to become subsidiaries of banks.

Examination and Reporting Applicable to Shareholders of a Bank

The FSA may request the submission of reports or other materials from a bank and/or its bank holding company, or inspect the bank and/or the bank holding company, if necessary, in order to secure the sound and appropriate operation of the business of a bank.

Under the Banking Act, a person who desires to hold 20% (in some exceptional cases, 15%) or more of the voting rights of a bank is required to obtain advance approval of the FSA Commissioner. In addition, the FSA may request the submission of reports or materials from, or may conduct an inspection of, any principal shareholder who holds 20% (in some exceptional cases, 15%) or more of the voting rights of a bank if the FSA deems the action necessary in order to secure the sound and appropriate operation of the business of the bank. Under limited circumstances, the FSA may order the principal shareholder to take such measures as the FSA deems necessary.

Furthermore, any person who becomes a holder of more than 5% of the voting rights of a bank holding company or a bank must report the ownership of the voting rights to the Director General of the relevant local finance bureau within five business days. This requirement is separate from the significant shareholdings report required under the FIEA. In addition, a similar report must be made in respect of any subsequent change of 1% or more in any previously reported holding or in respect of any change in material matters set out in reports previously filed, with some exceptions.

42

Regulations for Protection of Customers

Protection of Personal Information

The Act on the Protection of Personal Information and related rules, regulations and guidelines impose requirements on businesses that use databases containing personal information, including appropriate custody of personal information and restrictions on information sharing with third parties.

Act on Sales, Etc. of Financial Products

Due to deregulatory measures in the banking and other financial services industries, more financial products, including highly structured and other complicated products, may now be marketed to a broad base of customers. The Act on Sales, Etc. of Financial Products was enacted to better protect customers from incurring unexpected losses as a result of purchasing these financial products. Under this law, sellers of financial products have a duty to their potential customers to explain important matters (i.e., the nature and magnitude of risk involved) regarding the financial products that they sell. If a seller fails to comply with the duty, the loss in value of the purchased investment product due to the failure to explain is refutably presumed to be the amount of the customer’s loss. An amendment to this law, together with other related laws including the FIEA, became effective in September 2007. The amended law enlarges the scope of the duty of financial services providers to inform customers of important matters related to the financial products that they offer.

Act Concerning Protection of Depositors and Relief for Victims of Certain Types of Fraud

The Act Concerning Protection of Depositors from Illegal Withdrawals Made by Forged or Stolen Cards requires financial institutions to establish internal systems to prevent illegal withdrawals of deposits made using forged or stolen bank cards. The law also requires financial institutions to compensate depositors for any amount illegally withdrawn using forged or stolen bankcards, subject to certain conditions.

The Act Concerning Payment of Dividends for Relief of Damages from Funds in Account used in connection with Crimes requires that financial institutions take appropriate measures against various crimes including the closing of accounts used in connection with fraud and other crimes. The law also requires financial institutions to make, in accordance with specified procedures, payments from funds collected from the closed accounts to victims of certain crimes.

Laws Prohibiting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds

Under the Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds, which addresses money laundering and terrorism concerns, financial institutions and certain other entities, such as credit card companies, are required to perform customer identification, submit suspicious transaction reports and keep records of their transactions.

Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act of Japan

Under the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act, SMBC is required to confirm that necessary permission from the relevant authorities is obtained by the customer or obtain necessary permission itself, for certain transaction involving targets who are designated under the law and the relevant orders thereunder including North Korea or Iran.

Act on Special Measures Concerning International Terrorist Assets-Freezing, etc. Conducted by the Government Taking into Consideration United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267, etc.

Under the Act on Special Measures Concerning International Terrorist Assets-Freezing, etc. Conducted by the Government Taking into Consideration United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267, etc., SMBC is generally prohibited to conduct certain transactions including donating or lending of money, securities or real estates or refunding of deposit with International Terrorist, who are designated under the law.

43

Other Regulations Related to Our Business

Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan

The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan (“FIEA”) regulates the securities industry and most aspects of securities transactions in Japan, including public offerings, private placements and secondary trading of securities, ongoing disclosure by securities issuers, tender offers for securities, organization and operation of securities exchanges and self-regulatory organizations and registration of securities companies. The Prime Minister has the authority to regulate the securities industry and securities companies, which authority is delegated to the FSA Commissioner under the FIEA. The Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, an external agency of the FSA, is independent from the Agency’s other bureaus and is vested with authority to conduct day-to-day monitoring of the securities markets and to investigate irregular activities that hinder fair trading of securities, including inspection of securities companies as well as banks in connection with their securities business. Furthermore, the FSA Commissioner delegates certain authority to the Director General of the Local Finance Bureau to inspect local securities companies and their branches. A violation of applicable laws and regulations may result in various administrative sanctions, including revocation of registration or authorization, suspension of business or an order to discharge any Director or Executive Officer who has failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Securities companies are also subject to the rules and regulations of the Japanese stock exchanges and the Japan Securities Dealers Association, a self-regulatory organization of securities companies.

Regulation of the Consumer Finance Business

In order to resolve the problems of heavily indebted borrowers and to effect proper regulation of the consumer finance business, in June 2010, maximum legal interest rates were reduced to levels prescribed by the Interest Rate Restriction Act, ranging from 15% to 20%, and gray zone interest, which is interest on loans in excess of rates prescribed by the Interest Rate Restriction Act up to the 29.2% maximum rate permitted under the Contributions Act, was abolished. Judicial decisions have strictly interpreted the conditions under which consumer finance companies may retain gray zone interest. As a result, claims for refunds of gray zone interest increased substantially. Amendments to the Money Lending Business Act provide an additional upper limit on aggregate borrowings by an individual from all moneylenders over which moneylenders may not extend further loans, as well as stricter regulation and supervision of moneylender activities.

Installment Sales Act

In order to ensure the fairness of transactions with respect to installment and other sales, prevent damage to consumers and manage credit card numbers, the Installment Sales Act imposes requirements on those who conduct installment sales businesses. In June 2008, revisions to the Installment Sales Act were enacted, most of which became effective in December 2009. The revisions impose more stringent and expanded requirements for credit card companies, including, among other things: (1) wider coverage of installment sales under the regulations; (2) measures to prevent inappropriate extensions of credit for certain credit transactions; (3) measures to prevent excessive lending for certain credit transactions that include requirements to investigate the payment ability of consumers by use of designated credit information organizations and prohibition of execution of credit agreements that exceed the payment ability of consumers; and (4) measures to protect certain information, such as credit numbers.

Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)

In July 2013, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) published the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) in order to prevent exploiting of gaps and mismatches in tax rules and artificial shifting of profits to low or no-tax locations. In October 2015, OECD published the final package of measures for a comprehensive, coherent and coordinated reform of the international tax rules for 15 key areas. These measures will apply once they are implemented either in domestic laws or in the network of

44

bilateral tax treaties. Some of the deliverables published by OECD have been partially reflected to Japanese tax regulations by the tax reforms adopted from 2015 through 2018.

Common Reporting Standard (CRS)

In order to prevent tax evasion and avoidance through offshore financial accounts, the OECD developed the Common Reporting Standards (“CRS”), which calls on jurisdictions to obtain information on financial accounts of non-residents from their financial institutions and automatically exchange that information with other jurisdictions. From the perspective of implementation of the exchange of information based on CRS, the Act on Special Provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Corporation Tax Act and the Local Tax Act Incidental to Enforcement of Tax Treaties as well as the cabinet and ministerial ordinances thereunder has been amended as part of the tax reform of 2015, which became effective on January 1, 2017, and those who open a financial account with a financial institution located in Japan must submit a self-certification indicating the name of the jurisdiction of residence, etc. From 2018, each financial institution must report information pertaining to financial accounts of specific non-residents and the information is automatically exchanged with tax administrations of each jurisdiction on an annual basis.

Deregulation

The developments toward deregulation of the financial system including those described below have made the Japanese banking industry highly competitive.

Deregulation of Bank Engagement in the Securities Business

The gradual relaxation of the restrictions under the Securities and Exchange Act allowed banks to engage in the following business lines, after taking appropriate registration measures with the FSA:

In addition, amendments to the FIEA and the Banking Act relating to firewalls and conflicts of interest between banks, securities companies and insurance companies became effective on June 1, 2009. The amendment relating to firewalls abolished the ban on certain officers and employees from holding concurrent posts in banks, securities companies and insurance companies, and relaxed restrictions on the transfer of non-public customer information. On the other hand, the amendment relating to conflicts of interest requires those financial institutions, including banks, to implement proper information management procedures and to develop appropriate internal systems to prevent customer interests from being unfairly harmed through trading by the companies or by other companies within their group. For example, the companies may be required to create information barriers between departments and monitor how it executes transactions with customers.

Deregulation of Insurance Products

The gradual deregulation of the financial services industry permitted banks in Japan to offer an increased variety of insurance products, including pension-type insurance to the full range, as an agent.

Privatization of Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd.’s subsidiaries

In December 2014, under the Postal Privatization Act, Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd. (“Japan Post Holdings”), a joint stock corporation that holds shares of operating companies, published a plan for the listing of

45

Japan Post Holdings, Japan Post Bank, one of the world’s largest deposit-taking institutions, and Japan Post Insurance Co., Ltd. (“Japan Post Insurance”) and the gradual disposition of its shares of Japan Post Bank and Japan Post Insurance down to approximately 50% ownership. In November 2015, each of Japan Post Holdings, Japan Post Bank and Japan Post Insurance publicly offered approximately 11% of their outstanding shares, respectively, and they were listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Japan Post Bank is required to receive prior approval of the Government of Japan to expand its business until Japan Post Holdings disposes of at least half of the shares of Japan Post Bank.

Regulations in the United States

As a result of its operations in the United States, SMBC and the Company are subject to extensive federal and state banking and securities supervision and regulation. SMBC engages in U.S. banking activities directly through its branches in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York and through its representative offices in Houston, Silicon Valley and Chicago. SMBC also controls a U.S. banking subsidiary, Manufacturers Bank, and a U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc.

SMBC’s New York branch is supervised by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the New York State Department of Financial Services, but its deposits are not insured (or eligible to be insured) by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). SMBC’s Los Angeles and San Francisco branches are supervised by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and the California Department of Business Oversight, but their deposits are not insured (or eligible to be insured) by the FDIC. SMBC’s representative office in Houston is subject to regulation and examination by the Texas Department of Banking and the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. SMBC’s representative office in Silicon Valley is subject to regulation and examination by the California Department of Business Oversight and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. The SMBC’s representative office in Chicago is subject to regulation and examination by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

SMBC and the Company are qualifying foreign banking organizations under the U.S. International Banking Act of 1978, as amended (“International Banking Act”), and as such are subject to regulation as bank holding companies under the U.S. Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“Bank Holding Company Act”). Additionally, SMBC and the Company are bank holding companies by virtue of their ownership of Manufacturers Bank. As a result, SMBC, the Company and their U.S. operations are subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve Board as their U.S. “umbrella supervisor.”

Manufacturers Bank is a California state-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve System. As a state non-member bank the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC, Manufacturers Bank is subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the FDIC and the California Department of Business Oversight.

In order to further expand our business in the U.S., we and SMBC obtained financial holding company status under the Bank Holding Company Act in May 2013, which authorizes the expansion of the scope of services we provide in the U.S., including the underwriting, dealing and making markets in, securities and other investment banking services.

Restrictions on Business Activities

As described below, federal and state banking laws and regulations restrict SMBC’s and the Company’s ability to engage, directly or indirectly through subsidiaries, in certain activities in the United States.

SMBC and the Company are required to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board before directly or indirectly acquiring the ownership or control of more than 5% of any class of voting shares of U.S. banks, certain other depository institutions and bank or depository institution holding companies. Under the Bank

46

Holding Company Act and the Federal Reserve Board regulations, SMBC is required to serve as a source of financial strength to Manufacturers Bank. In addition, SMBC’s U.S. banking operations (including Manufacturers Bank and SMBC’s U.S. branches) are also restricted from engaging in certain “tying” arrangements involving products and services.

As financial holding companies, we, SMBC and the companies under our control are permitted to engage in a broader range of activities in the U.S. and abroad than permitted for bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Unless otherwise limited by the Federal Reserve Board, financial holding companies generally can engage, directly or indirectly in the U.S. and abroad, in financial activities, either de novo or by acquisition, by providing after-the-fact notice to the Federal Reserve Board. These financial activities include underwriting, dealing and making markets in securities, insurance underwriting and brokerage and making merchant banking investments in non-financial companies for a limited period of time, as long as the financial holding company does not directly or indirectly manage the non-financial companies’ day-to-day activities, and the financial holding company’s banking subsidiaries engage only in permitted cross-marketing with the non-financial companies. If we or SMBC cease to qualify as financial holding companies, we could be barred from new financial activities or acquisitions, and have to discontinue the broader range of activities permitted to financial holding companies.

Other Prudential Restrictions

SMBC’s U.S. branches and Manufacturers Bank are subject to requirements and restrictions under U.S. federal and state law, including requirements to maintain reserves against deposits, restrictions on the types and amounts of loans that may be made and limitations on the types of investments that may be made and the types of services that may be offered. Various consumer laws and regulations also affect the operations of Manufacturers Bank, and to a limited extent, SMBC’s New York and California branches.

In addition, under U.S. federal banking laws, state-chartered banks (such as Manufacturers Bank) and state-licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks (such as SMBC’s New York branch) may not, as a general matter, engage as a principal in any type of activity not permissible for their federally chartered or licensed counterparts, unless (i) in the case of state-chartered banks, the FDIC determines that the additional activity would pose no significant risk to the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund and is consistent with sound banking practices and (ii) in the case of state-licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks, the Federal Reserve Board determines that the additional activity is consistent with sound banking practices. The U.S. federal banking laws also subject state branches and agencies of foreign banks to the same single-borrower lending limits that apply to federal branches or agencies, which are substantially similar to the lending limits applicable to national banks. For SMBC’s U.S. branches, these single-borrower lending limits are based on the worldwide capital of SMBC.

Under the International Banking Act, the Federal Reserve Board may terminate the activities of any U.S. office of a foreign bank if it determines (i) that the foreign bank is not subject to comprehensive supervision on a consolidated basis in its home country (unless the home country is making demonstrable progress toward establishing such supervision), (ii) that there is reasonable cause to believe that such foreign bank or its affiliate has violated the law or engaged in an unsafe or unsound banking practice in the United States and, as a result of such violation or practice, the continued operation of the U.S. office would be inconsistent with the public interest or with the purposes of federal banking laws, or (iii) for a foreign bank that presents a risk to the stability of the United States financial system, the home country of the foreign bank has not adopted, or made demonstrable progress toward adopting, an appropriate system of financial regulation to mitigate such risk.

There are various qualitative and quantitative restrictions on the extent to which the Company and its subsidiaries can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from its U.S. bank subsidiary, Manufacturers Bank, or engage in certain other transactions involving that subsidiary. In general, these transactions must be on terms that would ordinarily be offered by Manufacturers Bank to unaffiliated entities, and credit transactions must be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral. In addition, certain transactions, such as certain purchases by

47

Manufacturers Bank from SMBC or its non-bank subsidiaries, are subject to volume limitations. Effective in July 2012, the Dodd-Frank Act (discussed below) subjects credit exposure arising from derivative transactions, securities borrowing and lending transactions, and repurchase/reverse repurchase agreements to these collateral and volume transactions limitations.

Regulatory Requirements Applicable to Financial Holding Companies

As financial holding companies, we and SMBC are subject to additional regulatory requirements. For example, we, SMBC and Manufacturers Bank, which is our U.S. insured depository institution subsidiary, must be “well capitalized,” meaning maintenance of a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10% under the revised capital standards of Basel III, which became effective on January 1, 2015 in the U.S. In addition, we, SMBC and Manufacturers Bank must be “well managed,” including maintenance of examination ratings that are at least satisfactory. Further, SMBC is also required to be well capitalized and well managed under its home country standards, which must be comparable to those required for a U.S. bank. Failure to comply with such requirements would require us and SMBC to prepare a remediation plan, and we would not be able to undertake new business activities or acquisitions based on our status as a financial holding company during any period of noncompliance without the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board. Divestiture or termination of certain business activities in the U.S. may also be required as a consequence of failure to correct such conditions within 180 days.

Regulations for Stabilizing the Financial System

U.S. Financial Regulatory Reform

Both the scope of the U.S. laws and regulations and the intensity of supervision have increased in recent years, in response to the financial crisis as well as other factors such as technological and market changes. Regulatory enforcement and fines have also increased across the banking and financial services sector. Many of these changes have occurred as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations, most of which are now in place, and have resulted in or are anticipated to result in additional costs and impose certain limitations on our and SMBC’s business activities. The current U.S. Presidential administration has expressed different policy goals with respect to financial regulation, but the impact that such U.S. Presidential administration’s policy goals or any new or proposed legislation could have on the regulatory requirements currently imposed on us and SMBC remains uncertain.

In 2013, the Federal Reserve Board, the SEC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the FDIC, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted final rules implementing what is known as the “Volcker Rule.” The final rules restrict the ability of banking entities, such as us and SMBC, to engage as principal in proprietary trading activities, or sponsor, invest in, or retain investments in certain private equity, hedge or similar funds, but a number of exclusions and exemptions limit the final rules’ extraterritorial reach.

The Dodd-Frank Act provides regulators with tools to impose greater capital, leverage and liquidity requirements and other prudential standards, particularly for financial institutions that pose significant systemic risk and bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more. In imposing heightened prudential standards on non-U.S. financial institutions such as us and SMBC, the Federal Reserve Board is directed to take into account the principle of national treatment and equality of competitive opportunity, and the extent to which the non-U.S. bank holding company is subject to comparable home country standards.

In 2014, the Federal Reserve Board adopted final rules that apply enhanced prudential standards to the U.S. operations of large non-U.S. banking organizations, including us. The final rules became effective on July 1, 2016, and require each of certain large non-U.S. banking organizations, such as us, to certify that it is subject to home country capital standards that are broadly consistent with the Basel capital framework, including Basel III;

48

conduct home country capital stress tests that are comparable to U.S. standards; comply with a certain liquidity requirements, including, among other things, a U.S. liquidity buffer requirement for its U.S. branches and agencies based on the results of internal liquidity stress testing; and establish a U.S. risk committee that periodically reviews the risk management policies and oversees the risk management framework of its U.S. operations.

Under the final rules, non-U.S. banking organizations with combined U.S. assets (excluding assets held by its U.S. branches and agencies) of $50 billion or more, are required to establish a separately capitalized top-tier U.S. intermediate holding company. However, this requirement does not apply to us because we do not meet this threshold. Although proposed rules have been released, the final rules for single counterparty credit limits and for early remediation have yet to be promulgated.

The Dodd-Frank Act removed a longstanding prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits by Manufacturers Bank and SMBC’s three branches in the United States. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the lending limits take into account credit exposure arising from derivative transactions and securities lending, securities borrowing, and repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements with counterparties. In 2013, the OCC adopted the final rules that implement these new lending limits, and our New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco branches must comply with these limits, in addition to existing state lending limits that apply to the branches. Additionally, as a California state-chartered bank, Manufacturers Bank is subject to state lending limits, which also apply to credit exposure arising from derivative transactions.

The Dodd-Frank Act also provides for an extensive framework for the regulation of OTC derivatives, including mandatory clearing, exchange trading and transaction reporting of certain OTC derivatives. In 2012, the final joint rules of the CFTC and the SEC that further define “swap” and “security based swap” became effective. As a result, certain entities are required to register with the CFTC as “swap dealers” or “major swap participants” and our subsidiary, SMBC Capital Markets, Inc., became provisionally registered as a swap dealer on December 31, 2012. Mandatory clearing, trade execution and reporting requirements for swaps took effect in 2013. Registration as a security-based swap dealer is not required until the SEC finalizes certain security-based swap rules that are still in proposed form.

Furthermore, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to establish rules requiring issuers with listed securities, which may include non-U.S. private issuers such as us, to establish a “clawback” policy to recoup previously awarded compensation in the event of an accounting restatement. The Dodd-Frank Act also grants the SEC discretionary rule-making authority to impose a new fiduciary standard on brokers, dealers and investment advisers, and expands the extraterritorial jurisdiction of U.S. courts over actions brought by the SEC or the United States with respect to violations of the antifraud provisions in the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which is the first significant legislative reform of the Dodd Frank Act. Although this legislation makes changes to several major provisions of the Dodd Frank Act, the changes mainly relate to smaller U.S. banks and to U.S. bank holding companies, and have we expected them to limited effect upon the SMBC Group.

Laws Prohibiting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

The Bank Secrecy Act / USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

The Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (“PATRIOT Act”) contains measures to prevent and detect the financing of terrorism and international money laundering by imposing significant compliance and due diligence obligations, creating crimes, providing for penalties and expanding the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States. The Bank Secrecy Act, as amended, imposes anti-money

49

laundering compliance obligations on U.S. financial institutions, including the U.S. offices of foreign banks. The passage of the PATRIOT Act and other events have resulted in heightened scrutiny of compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering rules by federal and state regulatory and law enforcement authorities. Certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act expired in June 2015 and were extended in part by the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, enacted in June 2015.

U.S. Sanctions Targeting Iran Related Activities

Starting in 2010, the U.S. government implemented various sanctions targeting non-U.S. parties that engage in specified Iran-related activities. Various statutes, Executive Orders and regulations, including the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 (which, among other things, amended the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Executive Orders 13622 and 13645, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, and the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012, authorize or authorized the imposition of sanctions on parties that engage in, among other things, certain activities relating to Iran’s energy, petroleum, shipping or shipbuilding sectors or that facilitate “significant” transactions or provide “significant financial services” for certain Iran-linked individuals or entities or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Prior to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA (discussed below), the United States along with the European Union provided Iran with certain sanctions relief. On Implementation Day, the United States government revoked certain Iran-related Executive Orders, temporarily waived certain statutory provisions (in certain cases, extending temporary sanctions waivers that had previously been in effect), and removed various individuals and entities from the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (the “SDN List”) maintained by OFAC. However, U.S. persons continued to be generally prohibited from engaging in transactions involving Iran. In addition, certain U.S. secondary sanctions targeting Iran remained in effect, including those targeting significant transactions involving Iranian or Iran-related SDNs or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Non-U.S. financial institutions that engaged in sanctionable activity could lose their ability to open or maintain correspondent or payable-through accounts with U.S. financial institutions, among other possible sanctions. It is SMBC’s policy not to conduct activities targeted by secondary sanctions.

On May 8, 2018, President Trump announced that he was terminating the United States’ participation in the JCPOA and issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum directing his administration to immediately begin the process of fully re-imposing sanctions that target critical sectors of Iran’s economy, including the energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors. This includes the resumption of U.S. efforts to reduce Iran’s crude oil sales, which will be backed by the potential threat of correspondent account sanctions targeting foreign financial institutions once the applicable wind-down period has ended, subject (as before the JCPOA) to exceptions from such sanctions for countries determined by the U.S. State Department to have significantly reduced purchases of crude oil from Iran. Depending on the particular sanctions measure, the United States provides for either a 90-day or 180-day period from May 8, 2018 in which activities permitted under or consistent with the JCPOA can be wound down. Following the conclusion of the applicable wind-down period, persons engaged in such activities involving Iran will face exposure to secondary sanctions or enforcement actions under U.S. law. Additionally, the U.S. government has indicated that no later than November 5, 2018, the U.S. government will re-impose, as appropriate, sanctions on persons removed on Implementation Day from the SDN List or other sanctions lists.

Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, as Amended

In order to deter the Russian government from further destabilizing and invading Ukraine, the U.S. government enacted H.R. 5859, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (signed into law on December 18, 2014). Among other things, the Act, as amended by the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (signed into law on August, 2017), mandates prohibitions or strict limitations on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts in the United States by non-U.S. financial institutions

50

determined by the U.S. government (i) to have knowingly engaged in on or after December 18, 2014 in significant transactions involving certain activities described in the Act, including those involving individuals or entities on whom sanctions are imposed pursuant to the Act for making a significant investment in a project for the extraction of deepwater, Arctic offshore or shale formation crude oil in Russia, or (ii) to have knowingly facilitated, on or after June 16, 2015, a significant financial transaction on behalf of any Russian individual or entity included on the SDN List pursuant to Ukraine-related sanction programs.

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

Provisions of the U.S. tax law commonly referred to as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”), which became effective on July 1, 2014, aims to prevent U.S. persons from hiding their financial assets or evading their U.S. federal income tax obligations by the use of offshore accounts. A foreign financial institution that has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) pursuant to which it agrees to comply with FATCA, referred to as a “participating foreign financial institution” (“PFFI”), is required to perform specified due diligence, reporting and withholding functions (a “PFFI agreement”). Specifically, under FATCA, a PFFI is required to ascertain the U.S. status of customers through specified due diligence and report certain information annually to the IRS. In cases where customers are not compliant with FATCA, PFFIs are obligated to carry out specified reporting and withholding procedures as prescribed. The consequences for foreign financial institutions that are not compliant with FATCA include being subjected to a 30% withholding tax on certain withholdable payments from U.S. sources and reporting to the IRS.

The United States entered into intergovernmental agreements or reached agreements in substance with more than 100 countries in furtherance of the objectives of FATCA, which modify the operation of FATCA with respect to financial institutions located in those countries. The United States and Japan have entered into an intergovernmental agreement to facilitate the implementation of FATCA pursuant to which Japanese financial institutions (such as us and certain of SMBC Group companies) are directed by the Japanese authorities to register with the IRS and fulfill obligations consistent with those required under a PFFI agreement. We have registered with the IRS to become a PFFI. We are committed to complying with FATCA as a PFFI and abiding by the terms of our PFFI agreement with the IRS within the jurisdictions in which we operate and in accordance with the time frame set out by the IRS. We intend to closely monitor FATCA developments and evolving industry practices to ensure continued compliance with FATCA moving forward.

Other Regulations in the United States

In the United States, SMBC’s U.S.-registered broker-dealer subsidiary, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc. is regulated by the SEC. Broker-dealers are subject to regulations that cover all aspects of the securities business, including:

In addition, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc. is a member of and regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and is regulated by the individual state securities authorities in the states in which it operates. The U.S. government agencies and self-regulatory organizations, as well as state securities authorities

51

in the United States having jurisdiction over SMBC’s U.S. broker-dealer affiliates, are empowered to conduct administrative proceedings that can result in censure, fine, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders or the suspension or expulsion of a broker-dealer or its directors, officers or employees.

Regulations in Other Jurisdictions

Elsewhere in the world, our operations are subject to regulation and control by local central banks and monetary authorities.

Disclosure Pursuant to Section 13(r) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Section 13(r) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires an issuer to disclose whether it or any of its affiliates knowingly engaged in certain activities or transactions relating to Iran or with individuals or entities designated by the U.S. government under specified Executive Orders, even if those activities are not prohibited by U.S. law and are conducted outside the United States by non-U.S. affiliates. During the twelve months ended March 31, 2018, one affiliate of SMFG, SMBC, engaged in activities subject to disclosure under Section 13(r). SMBC conducted these activities consistent with its internal policies and procedures, the policies and procedures of SMFG, and applicable laws and regulations, and to the extent they are not sanctionable under U.S. secondary sanctions.

SMBC issued letters of credit and provided remittance and other settlement services in connection with customers’ trade transactions between Japan and Iran. These transactions principally involved the importation of oil into Japan or exportation of civilian commercial products from Japan and were conducted with Iranian banks, including the Central Bank of Iran and one other bank owned by the Government of Iran. SMBC supported a Japanese importing company by paying bills of exchange in connection with imports of crude oil from an Iranian oil company owned by the Government of Iran. These transactions did not involve entities or other persons on the SDN List and did not involve the settlement of U.S. dollar-denominated payments cleared through U.S. banks. SMBC has informed SMFG that it intends to continue to engage in these types of transactions to the extent permitted under applicable regulations and to the extent they are not sanctionable under U.S. secondary sanctions. For the twelve months ended March 31, 2018, the gross revenue related to these transactions was ¥10.9 million, representing about 0.0003% of SMFG’s total interest and fee income. SMFG does not allocate direct costs to interest and fee income and therefore does not calculate net profits with respect to these transactions.

SMBC has issued performance bonds that supported various projects, including the construction of petroleum plants in Iran. Some of these performance bonds had counterparties that were entities controlled by the Government of Iran. Some of these performance bonds have matured, and SMBC has not renewed and will not renew them, but SMBC continues to have obligations under the matured performance bonds until they are returned or cancelled by the beneficiaries. SMBC has also received fees from its customers on whose behalf it issued the performance bonds. For the twelve months ended March 31, 2018, the gross revenue relating to these transactions was ¥21.7 million, representing less than 0.0007% of SMFG’s total interest and fee income. As noted above, SMFG does not allocate direct costs to interest and fee income and therefore does not calculate net profits with respect to these transactions. SMBC has informed SMFG that it intends to continue to accept fee income from its customers for whose account the performance bonds were issued and to pay the relevant fees to the Iranian banks, to the extent authorized by the Ministry of Finance of Japan or otherwise permitted under applicable regulations, until the bonds are returned or cancelled. However, SMBC strongly urges the relevant customers to ask the beneficiaries to agree to return or cancel the matured performance bonds.

SMBC has frozen an account of an Iranian bank designated under Executive Order 13224 pursuant to Japanese foreign exchange laws, and has frozen the U.S. dollar accounts of all Iranian banks. SMBC still maintains three Japanese yen accounts of government-owned Iranian banks, including an account for the Central Bank of Iran, and certain transactions described in this disclosure were conducted through the use of such

52

accounts. These transactions were conducted in accordance with Japanese law, and we do not believe that the transactions were sanctionable under U.S. sanctions that were in effect at the time the transactions occurred. The gross revenue attributable to the accounts of government-owned Iranian banks for the twelve months ended March 31, 2018, was less than ¥0.8 million, representing less than 0.0001% of SMFG’s total interest and fee income. SMFG does not allocate direct costs to interest and fee income and therefore does not calculate net profits with respect to these transactions. SMBC has informed SMFG that it intends to continue to maintain the Iranian accounts described above to the extent permitted under applicable laws and regulations and to the extent the activities are not targeted by secondary sanctions.

As of the date of this annual report, to our knowledge, there is no other activity for the twelve months ended March 31, 2018 that requires disclosure under Section 13(r) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

53

4.C.    ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The following chart presents our corporate structure summary at March 31, 2018.

As the ultimate holding company of the SMBC Group, we are responsible for:

54

Principal Subsidiaries

Our principal subsidiaries at March 31, 2018 are shown in the list below. We consolidate all entities that we control. We control an entity when we are exposed, or have rights, to variable returns from our involvement with the entity and have the ability to affect those returns through our power over the entity.

Principal domestic subsidiaries

55

Principal foreign subsidiaries

4.D.    PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

The assets for rent we own for the purpose of operating leases mainly consist of aircraft for the leasing business. We own or lease the land and buildings in which we conduct our business. Most of the property that we operate in Japan is owned by us to be used by our branches. In contrast, our international operations are conducted out of leased premises. Our head office building in Marunouchi is leased from a third party. Our largest property is SMBC’s East Tower in Marunouchi, with a net carrying value of ¥172 billion, including the land and building, at March 31, 2018.

The following table shows the net carrying amount of our tangible fixed assets at March 31, 2018.

For more information, see Note 12 “Property, Plant and Equipment” to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.

The total area of land related to our material office and other properties at March 31, 2018 was approximately 703,000 square meters for owned land and approximately 14,000 square meters for leased land.

We are not aware of any material environmental issues that may affect the utilization of our assets.

56

the period from October to December 2017, respectively. Thereafter, for the period from January to March 2018, they pulled down Japanese GDP growth by 0.2 percentage points on a quarter-on-quarter basis.

The ratio of exports of goods and services to Japanese GDP was about 17%, and exports of goods and services increased by 6.2% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018. For the period from April to June 2017, they decreased by 0.1% on a quarter-on-quarter basis. However, for the periods from July to September 2017 and October to December 2017, they increased, on a quarter-on-quarter basis, by 2.0% and 2.2%, respectively, primarily due to the recovery of exports to some Asian countries. Thereafter, for the period from January to March 2018, they increased by 0.6% on a quarter-on-quarter basis.

Imports of goods and services were subtracted in calculating Japanese GDP. The ratio of imports of goods and services to Japanese GDP was about 17%, and imports of goods and services increased by 4.0% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018. For the period from April to June 2017, they increased by 1.8% on a quarter-on-quarter basis, reflecting robust private consumption. Although they decreased by 1.3% on a quarter-on-quarter basis for the period from July to September 2017, they increased by 3.1% on a quarter-on-quarter basis for the period from October to December 2017. Thereafter, for the period from January to March 2018, they increased by 0.3% on a quarter-on-quarter basis.

Industrial production, as a whole, increased moderately throughout the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, reflecting the increase in domestic and foreign demand.

The employment situation continued to improve during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, reflecting a growing labor shortage. The active job openings-to-applicants ratio continued to steadily improve. In addition, the unemployment rate remained relatively low, and it was 2.5% in March 2018, a decrease of 0.3 percentage points from the same month of the previous year, based on the Labor Force Survey by the Statistics Bureau in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Compensation of employees increased by 1.7% for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, reflecting the current employment situation. This was the third consecutive year that compensation of employees increased.

Further, according to Teikoku Databank, a research institution in Japan, there were approximately 8,300 corporate bankruptcies in Japan during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, an increase of 1.6% from the previous fiscal year, involving approximately ¥1.7 trillion in total liabilities, a decrease of 13.0% from the previous fiscal year.

Interest rates in Japanese financial and capital markets are affected by the monetary policy measures of the BOJ. In 2016, in addition to the existing provision of ample funds, the BOJ introduced “quantitative and qualitative monetary easing with a negative interest rate” as part of its “quantitative and qualitative monetary easing,” and “quantitative and qualitative monetary easing with yield curve control.” Under this policy framework, the BOJ would keep short-term interest rates down by maintaining its policy of applying a negative interest rate of minus 0.1% to certain excess reserves of financial institutions held at the BOJ. Moreover, the BOJ indicated it would purchase Japanese government bonds so that the yield of the 10-year Japanese government bonds would be close to around 0% to control long-term interest rates. Under such circumstances, the uncollateralized overnight call rate, which is the benchmark short-term interest rate, remained negative for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018. The yield on newly issued Japanese government bonds with a maturity of 10 years, which is the benchmark long-term interest rate, was at around 0% for the same period.

The Nikkei Stock Average, which is a price-weighted average of 225 stocks listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange First Section, rose from ¥18,909.26 at March 31, 2017 to ¥24,124.15 at January 23, 2018, its highest closing level since November 1991. However, it then dropped to ¥21,454.30 at March 30, 2018.

The yen appreciated against the U.S. dollar from ¥111.80 at March 31, 2017 to ¥106.19 at March 30, 2018, according to the statistical data published by the BOJ.

58

The global economy, as a whole, continued to recover gradually for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018.

For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, the U.S. economy continued to recover, supported by robust private consumption, reflecting the gradual improvement in the employment and income situation. The European economy continued to recover steadily for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018. On the other hand, the Chinese economy, as a whole, was picking up gradually for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, although it showed some signs of slowing down in the middle of the fiscal year. The growth momentum in other Asian economies showed some signs of picking up for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018.

In addition to economic factors and conditions, we expect that our results of operations and financial condition will be significantly affected by regulatory trends such as the Basel III reforms and the Dodd-Frank Act. For a more detailed description of regulations to which we are subject, risks associated with regulatory development and our management policy under this environment, see “Item 3.D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business,” “Item 4.B. Business Overview—Regulations in Japan, Regulations in the United States, Regulations in Other Jurisdictions and Description of Operations and Principal Activities—Management Policies.”

Factors Affecting Results of Operation

Income (Loss)

We have three principal sources of operating income: net interest income, net fee and commission income, and net income from trading/investment securities.

Net Interest Income . Net interest income, or the difference between interest income and interest expense, is determined by:

Our principal interest-earning assets are loans and advances, investment securities, and deposits with banks. Our principal interest-bearing liabilities are deposits, borrowings and debt securities in issue. The interest income and expense on trading assets and liabilities and financial assets at fair value through profit or loss are not included in net interest income. Our net interest income is earned mainly by SMBC. SMBC controls its exposure to interest rate fluctuations through asset and liability management operations.

SMBC, like other banks in Japan, makes most domestic loans based on a short-term interest rate, the TIBOR, or a short-term prime rate, which are generally intended to reflect its cost of short-term yen funding and significantly affected by the monetary policy of the BOJ.

The BOJ announced in October 2014 the expansion of its “quantitative and qualitative monetary easing” introduced in April 2013, and in December 2015 the introduction of “supplementary measures for quantitative and qualitative monetary easing,” in order to achieve the price stability target of 2% in terms of the year-on-year rate of increase in the consumer price index. In January 2016, the BOJ announced the introduction of “quantitative and qualitative monetary easing with a negative interest rate” (“negative interest rate policy”), and began to implement a negative interest rate policy in February 2016. Under the negative interest rate policy, the BOJ has adopted a multi-tier system where the outstanding balance of each financial institution’s current account at the BOJ is divided into three tiers, to each of which a positive interest rate, a zero interest rate and a negative interest rate of minus 0.1 percent are applied, respectively. After these policy interest rate changes, SMBC

59

lowered its ordinary deposit rate by 0.019 percentage points from 0.02% to 0.001% in February 2016. Thereafter, in September 2016, the BOJ announced the introduction of “quantitative and qualitative monetary easing with yield curve control.” Under this policy framework, the BOJ indicated it would purchase Japanese government bonds so that the yield of the 10-year Japanese government bonds would be close to around 0% to control long-term interest rates. In addition, the BOJ would keep short-term interest rates down by maintaining its policy of applying a negative interest rate of minus 0.1% to certain excess reserves of financial institutions held at the BOJ.

The following table sets forth SMBC’s short-term prime rate, three-month TIBOR, ordinary deposit rate, long-term prime rate and ten-year swap rate, at the dates indicated:

It is difficult to earn a wide interest spread when interest rates are at a low level, as they currently are in Japan. When interest rates rise from extremely low levels, interest spreads at commercial banks generally increase. However, interest spreads may temporarily decrease immediately after an increase in interest rates because it may take time for banks to increase lending rates correspondingly, in contrast to their funding rates. After an adjustment period, lending rates generally also increase and banks are able to secure a wider interest spread than in a low interest rate environment. Conversely, interest spreads may temporarily increase immediately after a decrease in interest rates because it may take time for banks to decrease lending rates correspondingly, in contrast to their funding rates. After an adjustment period, lending rates generally also decrease and banks generally are not able to maintain a wide interest spread.

Net Fee and Commission Income . We earn fees and commissions from a variety of services. The primary components of SMBC’s net fee and commission income are fees and commissions related to money remittances and transfers, investment trusts, loans (such as loan commitment fees and loan arrangement fees), securities transactions (such as bond trustee fees and bond recording agency fees) and guarantees and acceptances. Other fees and commissions include fees from investment banking and electronic banking.

In addition, we earn a significant amount of fees and commissions from our credit card business, conducted through Sumitomo Mitsui Card and Cedyna, and from our securities business, conducted through SMBC Nikko Securities and SMBC Friend Securities (until January 1, 2018, the date of the merger with SMBC Nikko Securities). The principal components of Sumitomo Mitsui Card’s and Cedyna’s fees and commissions are membership fees from retailers and annual cardholder membership fees, while those of SMBC Nikko Securities’ and SMBC Friend Securities’ fees and commissions are subscription and agent commissions from investment trusts and underwriting commissions.

The principal factors affecting fees and commissions are the demand for the services provided, the fees charged for those services and fees charged by competitors for similar services. The volume of services provided also affects profitability, as our fee businesses have significant economies of scale. In order to diversify sources of revenue and enhance return on assets, we are expanding our fees and commissions businesses, including sales of investment trusts and life insurance products, and investment banking businesses.

Net Income from Trading/Investment Securities . We undertake significant trading activities involving a variety of financial instruments, including derivatives. Our income from these activities is subject to volatility caused by, among other things, changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equity prices or other market variables. Any unexpected change in interest rates could affect the fair value of our interest rate derivative

60

positions and our net income from trading activities. Net trading income consists of margins made on market-making and our customer business as well as changes in fair value of trading assets and liabilities and derivative financial instruments. It also includes net interest and dividend income on these instruments.

We have substantial investments in debt securities as available-for-sale financial assets. In particular, Japanese government bonds represent a significant part of our bond portfolio. We also own debt securities denominated in foreign currencies, principally the U.S. dollars. We also have investments in equity securities as available-for-sale financial assets, which include our strategic investments in stocks issued by our customers. Net investment income includes the gains and losses arising from the sales or redemptions of available-for-sale financial assets and the dividend income earned from available-for-sale equity instruments. Increases in interest rates or declines in equity prices could substantially decrease the fair value of our available-for-sale financial assets.

Operating income from other than these three principal sources is included in “Net income from financial assets at fair value through profit or loss” or “Other income.” Net income from financial assets at fair value through profit or loss includes gains and losses arising from sales and the change in the fair value of the instruments such as hybrid instruments classified as financial assets at fair value through profit or loss. It also includes interest and dividend income on these instruments. Other income consists primarily of income from operating leases conducted by SMFL and income related to IT solution services.

Expenses

Impairment Charges on Financial Assets . Our impairment charges are recorded primarily due to impairment on loans and advances and on investment securities.

Impairment charges on loans and advances are affected by the economic environment and financial conditions of borrowers. During periods of economic slowdown, corporate and individual borrowers are generally more likely to suffer credit rating downgrades, or become delinquent or default on their borrowings. The slowdown in the domestic or global economy may increase credit costs relating to a wide range of industries.

Declines in market prices for domestic and foreign investment securities may result in our recording impairment charges. We assess at the end of each reporting period whether there is any objective evidence that a financial asset or a group of financial assets is impaired. In the case of equity instruments classified as available-for-sale, a significant or prolonged decline in the fair value of the instrument below its cost is also considered to be such evidence in determining whether the assets are impaired. If any such evidence exists for available-for-sale financial assets, the cumulative loss, measured as the difference between the cost and the current fair value less any impairment charges on that financial asset previously recognized in profit or loss, is removed from equity and recognized in profit or loss.

General and Administrative Expenses . General and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel expenses (salaries and related expenses), depreciation and amortization expenses, and other expenses (rent and lease expenses, premiums for deposit insurance, publicity and advertising expenses, and communication expenses).

Other Expenses . Other expenses consist primarily of cost of operating leases, costs related to IT solution services and IT systems, losses on disposal of property, plant and equipment, and other intangible assets, and impairment losses of property, plant and equipment.

Unrealized Gains or Losses on Investment Securities Portfolio

Changes in the fair value of domestic and foreign investment securities result in an increase or a decrease in unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale financial assets. Unrealized gains or losses arising from changes in the fair value of the investments in these securities are recognized directly in equity, until they are derecognized or impaired.

61

Most of our domestic equity instruments consist of publicly traded Japanese stocks. The Nikkei Stock Average increased by 12.8% from ¥16,758.67 at March 31, 2016, to ¥18,909.26 at March 31, 2017, and increased by 13.5% to ¥21,454.30 at March 30, 2018. At March 31, 2018, we had net unrealized gains on domestic equity securities of ¥2,924,591 million, an increase of ¥228,469 million from ¥2,696,122 million at March 31, 2017. For more information, see “Item 5.A. Operating Results—Financial Condition—Investment Securities.”

Strengthening of Equity Capital

In response to the imposition of more stringent regulatory capital requirements, we have been taking a proactive approach to managing our risk-weighted capital ratio by focusing on increasing qualifying capital, including by building up our retained earnings, identifying risks, and controlling risk-weighted assets.

Foreign Currency Fluctuations

The average exchange rate used to convert dollars to yen in the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018 was ¥110.86 per $1.00, compared to the previous fiscal year’s average exchange rate of ¥108.36 per $1.00. The percentage of revenue we earned from our foreign operations for both fiscal years ended March 31, 2018 and 2017 were 30%. For more information, see “Item 4.B. Business Overview—Revenues by Region.”

Critical Accounting Estimates and Judgments

Our financial position and results of operations are influenced by estimates and judgments that management employs in the course of preparation of our consolidated financial statements. We identified the following areas of significant accounting policies to be particularly sensitive in terms of estimates and judgments made by management. Estimates and judgments are continually evaluated based on historical experience and other factors, including expectations of future events that are believed to be reasonable.

Allowance for Loan Losses

Allowance for loan losses represents management’s estimate of the losses incurred in the loan portfolios at the end of each reporting period. Management exercises judgment in making assumptions and estimations when calculating the allowance for loan losses on both individually and collectively assessed loans.

The allowance for loan losses for individually significant impaired loans is estimated by management based on the expected future cash flows, taking into account factors such as historical loss information, the appropriateness of the borrower’s business plan or operational improvement plan, the status of progress of its plan, the overall support from financial institutions, and the realizable value of any collateral held. The allowance for loan losses is the difference between the carrying amount of a loan and the discounted present value of expected future cash flows that are estimated by management. The actual future cash flows may differ from the estimates by management and consequently may cause actual loan losses to differ from the reported allowance for loan losses.

The allowance for loan losses for impaired loans that are not individually significant and non-impaired loans is collectively calculated based on the historical loss experience for loans which have similar credit risk characteristics to those in the current loan portfolio using statistical methods. These statistical methods are subject to estimation uncertainty. In normal circumstances, the use of statistical methods evidenced by historical information provides the most objective methodology in assessing inherent losses on loans with similar credit risk characteristics. However, in certain circumstances, the use of historical loss experience alone may not be representative of current loss experiences and as a result it may provide less relevant information about the loss incurred in a given portfolio at the end of the reporting period, particularly in a situation where there have been

62

changes in economic conditions. In these circumstances, we make a judgment to update the historical loss experience based on the most recent loss information, taking into account, among others, the effect of the current economic environment. To estimate the allowance for loan losses for non-impaired loans, which reflects incurred but not yet identified losses for the period between the impairment occurring and the loss being identified, management develops assumptions and methodologies to estimate the loss identification period.

Management estimates and judgments may change from time to time as the economic environment changes or new information becomes available. Changes in these estimates and judgments will result in a different allowance for loan losses and may have a direct impact on impairment charges. Impairment charges on loans and advances amounting to ¥126,623 million, ¥141,457 million and ¥118,750 million were recognized for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Some of our financial instruments are measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in profit or loss, such as trading assets and liabilities, financial assets at fair value through profit or loss, and derivative financial instruments. Available-for-sale financial assets are also measured at fair value with changes in fair value reported in other comprehensive income.

The fair value of a financial instrument is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Our financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value are mostly valued based on quoted prices in active markets, or using valuation techniques that incorporate inputs, other than quoted market prices, that are observable either directly or indirectly in the market, including dealers’ quotes. We principally use valuation techniques that are commonly used by market participants to price the instruments. To the extent practical, the valuation models make maximum use of observable data. However, for certain financial assets and liabilities, the fair values are measured by using valuation techniques with significant unobservable inputs. In such cases, significant management estimates are made, resulting in a less objective measurement of fair value.

The risk management departments in each subsidiary regularly review significant valuation methodologies and recalibrate model parameters and inputs, both observable and unobservable, in an effort to ensure an appropriate estimation of fair value has been made. Where significant management judgments are required in valuation, we establish a valuation control framework to validate the valuation models and fair values calculated based on such valuation models. Under the framework, the accounting department is responsible for ensuring that the accounting policies and procedures to determine the fair values are in compliance with the relevant accounting standards.

If the fair value at the trade date, which is measured using a valuation technique with significant unobservable inputs, differs from the transaction price, any gain or loss on the trade date is adjusted to be deferred. Management judgment is required to determine whether significant unobservable inputs exist in the valuation technique.

The financial assets and liabilities are classified into one of three levels within a fair value hierarchy based on the inputs used in the fair value measurement. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:

Management judgment is involved in determining the level of hierarchy to which each financial instrument should be categorized and in periodical assessments of market liquidity for inputs and price transparency.

63

In addition to the fair value hierarchy disclosure, we provide a sensitivity analysis of the impact on the Level 3 financial instruments carried at fair value by using reasonably possible alternatives for the unobservable parameters in Note 43 “Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities” to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report. The determination of reasonably possible alternatives requires significant management judgment.

Impairment of Available-for-sale Financial Assets

Available-for-sale financial assets are measured at fair value with changes in fair value reported in available-for-sale financial assets reserve as a separate component of equity until the financial assets are either derecognized or become impaired. If there is objective evidence of impairment as a result of loss events which have an impact on the estimated future cash flows of the financial assets that can be reliably estimated, the cumulative loss previously recognized in equity is removed and recognized in profit or loss as an impairment charge.

We exercise judgment in determining whether there is objective evidence of occurrence of loss events which result in a decrease in estimated future cash flows. The estimation of future cash flows also requires judgment. In the assessment of impairment of available-for-sale equity instruments, we also consider whether there has been a significant or prolonged decline in fair value below their cost. The determination of what is a significant or prolonged decline requires management judgment.

Impairment may occur when there is objective evidence of deterioration in the financial conditions of the investee, industry and sector performance, or changes in operating and financing cash flows. The determination of impairment in this respect also includes significant management judgment.

Management estimates and judgments may change from time to time upon future events that may or may not occur and changes in these estimates and judgments could adversely affect the carrying amounts of available-for-sale financial assets. Impairment charges on available-for-sale financial assets reclassified from equity to profit or loss totaled ¥10,185 million, ¥71,510 million and ¥29,606 million for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Impairment of Goodwill

Goodwill is tested for impairment at least annually and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that it may be impaired. The first step of the impairment test is identifying the cash-generating units (“CGUs”), which represent the smallest identifiable groups of assets that generate cash inflows that are largely independent of the cash inflows from other assets or groups of assets. Goodwill is then allocated to the CGUs, considering how the goodwill is recognized and other relevant factors.

In the impairment test, the carrying amount of the CGU to which goodwill is allocated is compared against its recoverable amount, which is the higher of its fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. Such recoverable amounts are determined based on significant management judgments and assumptions.

We determine the recoverable amount using the estimated future cash flows, pre-tax discount rates, growth rates and other factors. The estimation of future cash flows inherently reflects management judgments, even though such forecasts are prepared taking into account actual past performance and external economic data. The pre-tax discount rates and growth rates may be significantly affected by market interest rates or other market conditions, which are beyond management’s control, and therefore significant management judgments are made to determine these assumptions.

These management judgments are made based on the facts and circumstances at the time of the impairment test, and may vary depending on the situation and time. Changes in management judgments may result in

64

different impairment test results and different impairment losses recognized. For the fiscal years ended March 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, impairment losses on goodwill were ¥28,607 million, ¥74,616 million and ¥1,124 million, respectively.

Provision for Interest Repayment

Provision for interest repayment represents management’s estimate of future claims for the refund of gray zone interest, taking into account historical experience such as the number of customer claims for a refund, the amount of repayments and the characteristics of customers, and the length of the period during which claims are expected to be received in the future.

Management estimates and judgments may change from time to time as the legal environment and market conditions change or new information becomes available. Changes in these estimates and judgments could affect the balance of provision for interest repayment. Provision for interest repayment is recorded in provisions as a liability, and it totaled ¥145,179 million and ¥157,333 million at March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Retirement Benefits

We have defined benefit plans such as defined benefit pension plans and lump-sum severance indemnity plans. The present value of the defined benefit obligation is calculated based on actuarial valuations that are dependent upon a number of assumptions, including discount rates, mortality rates and future salary (benefit) increases. The discount rates are equivalent to market yields of AA credit-rated corporate bonds that have terms to maturity approximating those of the related obligations. Future mortality rates are based on the official mortality table generally used for actuarial assumptions in Japan. Other assumptions used for the calculation of the defined benefit obligation are based on historical records. Due to the long-term nature of these plans, such estimates are subject to significant uncertainty. While we believe that these assumptions are appropriate, any change in these assumptions will impact actuarial gains and losses, as well as the present value of the defined benefit obligations and the net retirement benefit expense for each period. Actuarial gains and losses arising from experience adjustments and changes in actuarial assumptions in the year, and return on plan assets excluding interest income are recognized in other comprehensive income and are never reclassified to profit or loss.

The difference between the fair value of the plan assets and the present value of the defined benefit obligation at the end of the reporting period is recognized as assets and liabilities in the consolidated statement of financial position. When this calculation for each plan results in a benefit to us, the recognized asset is limited to the present value of any economic benefits available in the form of refunds from the plan or reductions in future contributions to the plan. An economic benefit is available to us, if it is realizable during the life of the plan or on settlement of the plan obligation. The net total of assets and liabilities in the consolidated statement of financial position amounted to net assets of ¥279,567 million and ¥192,772 million at March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Deferred Tax Assets

We recognize deferred tax assets relating to tax losses carried forward and deductible temporary differences, only to the extent that it is probable that future taxable profit will be available against which the tax losses carried forward and the deductible temporary differences can be utilized. This assessment requires significant management judgments and assumptions. Future taxable profit is estimated based on, among other relevant factors, forecasted results of operations, which are based on historical financial performance and the business plans that management believes to be prudent and feasible. While we carefully assess the realization of tax losses carried forward and deductible temporary differences, the actual taxable profit in the future may be less than the forecast. The deferred tax assets amounted to ¥19,436 million and ¥81,961 million in the consolidated statement of financial position at March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, while the net total of deferred tax assets and liabilities amounted to net liabilities of ¥378,305 million and ¥238,240 million at March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

65

New and Amended Accounting Standards and Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See “New and Amended Accounting Standards Adopted by the SMBC Group” and “Recent Accounting Pronouncements” under Note 2 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.

5.A.    OPERATING RESULTS

Under the economic and financial circumstances described in “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Overview—Operating Environment,” we made a profit through our commercial banking and other financial services businesses. Our total operating income increased by ¥464,452 million from ¥3,347,895 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥3,812,347 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, primarily due to increases in net investment income and other income. Our net profit increased by ¥149,012 million from ¥740,586 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥889,598 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, due to the increase in total operating income described above, which was partially offset by an increase in operating expenses.

Our total assets increased by ¥1,024,585 million from ¥191,150,981 million at March 31, 2017 to ¥192,175,566 million at March 31, 2018, primarily due to increases in cash and deposits with banks and investment securities, which were partially offset by a decrease in loans and advances.

Our total liabilities increased by ¥416,069 million from ¥179,263,698 million at March 31, 2017 to ¥179,679,767 million at March 31, 2018, primarily due to an increase in repurchase agreements and cash collateral on securities lent, which was partially offset by a decrease in deposits.

Our total equity increased by ¥608,516 million from ¥11,887,283 million at March 31, 2017 to ¥12,495,799 million at March 31, 2018, primarily due to increases in retained earnings and other reserves, which were partially offset by a decrease in non-controlling interests.

66

Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2018 Compared to Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2017

Total operating income increased by ¥464,452 million, or 14%, from ¥3,347,895 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥3,812,347 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, primarily due to increases in net investment income of ¥118,770 million and other income of ¥182,030 million. In addition, due to a decrease in impairment charges on financial assets, net operating income increased by ¥540,611 million from ¥3,134,928 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥3,675,539 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018.

Net profit increased by ¥149,012 million from ¥740,586 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 to ¥889,598 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, as a result of the increase in net operating income described above, which was partially offset by an increase in other expenses.

67

Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2017 Compared to Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2016

Total operating income decreased by ¥340,331 million, or 9%, from ¥3,688,226 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥3,347,895 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, primarily due to a decrease in net trading income of ¥278,719 million. In addition, due to an increase in impairment charges on financial assets, net operating income also decreased by ¥404,942 million from ¥3,539,870 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥3,134,928 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

Net profit decreased by ¥212,236 million from ¥952,822 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 to ¥740,586 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, as a result of the decrease in net operating income described above, which was partially offset by a decrease in income tax expense.

68