grepcent public filings, reorganized for comparison

STATE STREET CORP (STT) FY 2022 MD&A

Verbatim Item 7 Management's Discussion and Analysis from STATE STREET CORP's 10-K for fiscal year 2022. Filing date: 2023-02-16. Report date: 2022-12-31. Accession: 0000093751-23-000489.

This page reproduces the company's own Item 7 MD&A text from the linked SEC filing. It is filer text, not grepcent analysis, scoring, or investment advice.

Extracted structurally from real Item 7 body heading to real Item 7A/8 boundary. Confidence: high.

Company profile: STT · All MD&A years: index · Previous year: FY 2021 · Next year: FY 2023

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

GENERAL

This Management's Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes in this Form 10-K. Certain previously reported amounts presented in this Form 10-K have been reclassified to conform to current-period presentation.

As of December 31, 2022, we had consolidated total assets of $301.45 billion, consolidated total deposits of $235.46 billion, consolidated total shareholders' equity of $25.19 billion and approximately 42,000 employees. Through our two lines of business, Investment Servicing and Investment Management, we operate in more than 100 geographic markets worldwide, including the U.S., Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

For the description of our lines of business, refer to "Lines of Business” in Item 1 in this Form 10-K. For financial and other information about our lines of business, refer to “Line of Business Information” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis and Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

We prepare our consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions in its application of certain accounting policies that materially affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses.

Information about the significant accounting policies that require us to make judgments, estimates and assumptions that are difficult, subjective or complex about matters that are uncertain and may change in subsequent periods is included under “Significant Accounting Estimates” in this Management's Discussion and Analysis and in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Certain financial information provided in this Form 10-K, including this Management's Discussion and Analysis, is presented using both a U.S. GAAP, or reported basis, and a non-GAAP basis, including certain non-GAAP measures used in the calculation of identified regulatory ratios. We measure and compare certain financial information on a non-GAAP basis, including information that management uses in evaluating our business and activities. Non-GAAP financial information should be considered in addition to, and not as a substitute for or as superior to,

financial information prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP. Any non-GAAP financial information presented in this Form 10-K, including this Management’s Discussion and Analysis, is reconciled to its most directly comparable currently applicable regulatory ratio or U.S. GAAP-basis measure. As part of our non-GAAP-basis measures, we present a fully taxable-equivalent NII that reports non-taxable revenue, such as interest income associated with tax-exempt investment securities, on a fully taxable-equivalent basis, which we believe facilitates an investor's understanding and analysis of our underlying financial performance and trends.

In this Management’s Discussion and Analysis, where we describe the effects of changes in foreign currency translation, those effects are determined by applying applicable weighted average FX rates from the relevant 2021 period to the relevant 2022 period results.

This Management's Discussion and Analysis contains statements that are considered "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of U.S. securities laws. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially. Additional information about forward-looking statements and related risks and uncertainties is provided in "Forward-Looking Statements", "Risk Factors Summary" and "Risk Factors" in this Form 10-K.

Information regarding additional disclosures and materials available on our corporate website is provided under "Additional Information" in Item 1 in this Form 10-K.

State Street Corporation | 59

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL RESULTS

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
Years Ended December 31,
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)202220212020
Total fee revenue$9,606$10,012$9,499
Net interest income2,5441,9052,200
Total other income(2)1104
Total revenue12,14812,02711,703
Provision for credit losses20(33)88
Total expenses8,8018,8898,716
Income before income tax expense3,3273,1712,899
Income tax expense553478479
Net income$2,774$2,693$2,420
Adjustments to net income:
Dividends on preferred stock(1)$(112)$(119)$(162)
Earnings allocated to participating securities(2)(2)(2)(1)
Net income available to common shareholders$2,660$2,572$2,257
Earnings per common share:
Basic$7.28$7.30$6.40
Diluted7.197.196.32
Average common shares outstanding (in thousands):
Basic365,214352,565352,865
Diluted370,109357,962357,106
Cash dividends declared per common share$2.40$2.18$2.08
Return on average common equity11.1%10.7%10.0%
Pre-tax margin27.426.424.8
Return on average assets1.00.90.9
Common dividend payout33.430.332.9
Average common equity to average total assets8.38.08.3

(1) Additional information about our preferred stock dividends is provided in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

(2) Represents the portion of net income available to common equity allocated to participating securities, composed of unvested and fully vested SERP (Supplemental executive retirement plans) shares and fully vested deferred director stock awards, which are equity-based awards that contain non-forfeitable rights to dividends, and are considered to participate with the common stock in undistributed earnings.

The following section provides information related to significant events, as well as highlights of our consolidated financial results for the year ended December 31, 2022 presented in Table 1: Overview of Financial Results. More detailed information about our consolidated financial results, including the comparison of our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2022 to those of the year ended December 31, 2021, is provided under “Consolidated Results of Operations”, "Line of Business Information" and "Capital" sections which follow “Financial Results and Highlights”, as well as in our consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

The comparison of our financial results for the year ended December 31, 2021 to those of the year ended December 31, 2020 is included in the Management's Discussion and Analysis in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 filed with the SEC on February 17, 2022.

Financial Results and Highlights

•2022 financial performance:

◦EPS of $7.19, flat compared to 2021.

◦Total revenue increased 1% compared to 2021, as higher NII was partially offset by lower fee revenue and the impact of currency translation, which decreased total revenue by 2% in 2022 relative to the same period in 2021.

◦Total expenses decreased 1% compared to 2021, as continued productivity and optimization savings, as well as the benefit from currency translation were partially offset by ongoing business investments and merit increases, professional fees, recoverable client-related expenses, marketing and travel costs. Currency translation reduced expenses by 3% in 2022 compared to 2021.

◦Return on equity of 11.1% increased from 10.7% in 2021, primarily due to an increase in net income available to common shareholders. Pre-tax margin of 27.4% increased from 26.4% in 2021, primarily due to the increase in total revenue and lower expenses.

◦Positive operating leverage of 2.0% points. Operating leverage represents the difference between the percentage change in total revenue and the percentage change in total expenses, in each case relative to the prior year period.

◦Negative fee operating leverage of 3.1% points. Fee operating leverage represents the difference between the percentage change in total fee revenue and the percentage change in total expenses, in each case relative to the prior year period.

◦Returned approximately $2.4 billion to our shareholders in the form of common stock dividends and common share repurchases compared to approximately $1.7 billion in 2021.

State Street Corporation | 60

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Revenue

•Total fee revenue decreased 4% compared to 2021, primarily driven by lower servicing fees, management fees, and other fee revenue, partially offset by higher foreign exchange trading services revenue and software and processing fees. Currency translation negatively impacted both total revenue and total fee revenue by 2% each in 2022 compared to 2021.

•Servicing fee revenue decreased 8% compared to 2021, primarily due to normal pricing headwinds, lower average market levels and lower client activity and adjustments, partially offset by net new business. Currency translation contributed 3% to the decrease in servicing fee revenue in 2022 compared to 2021.

•Management fee revenue decreased 6% compared to 2021, primarily due to lower average equity and fixed income market levels, a previously reported client-specific pricing adjustment and institutional net outflows, partially offset by the absence of the impact of money market fee waivers and net inflows from cash and ETFs. Currency translation contributed 2% to the decrease in management fee revenue in 2022 compared to 2021.

•Foreign exchange trading services revenue increased 14% compared to 2021, primarily reflecting higher FX spreads and a revenue- related recovery from a 2018 FX benchmark litigation resolution, partially offset by lower client FX volumes.

•Securities finance revenue was flat compared to 2021, reflecting higher spreads, offset by lower agency and enhanced custody balances.

▪Software and processing fees revenue increased 7% compared to 2021, primarily due to higher front office software and data revenue associated with CRD, partially offset by lower lending fees.

•Other fee revenue decreased $64 million compared to 2021, primarily driven by negative market-related adjustments.

•NII increased 34% compared to 2021, primarily due to higher interest rates from U.S. and international central bank rate hikes, partially offset by lower client deposits.

Provision for Credit Losses

•We recorded a $20 million provision for credit losses, due to a downward shift in management's economic outlook that was

partially offset by a reduction in overall loan portfolio risk, compared to a $33 million release of credit reserves in 2021.

Expenses

•Total expenses decreased 1% compared to 2021, as continued productivity and optimization savings, as well as the benefit from currency translation were partially offset by ongoing business investments and merit increases, professional fees, recoverable client-related expenses, marketing and travel costs. Currency translation reduced expenses by 3% in 2022 compared to 2021.

Notable Items

•The impact of notable items in 2022 includes:

◦Revenue-related recovery of $23 million from settlement proceeds associated with the 2018 FX benchmark litigation resolution, which is reflected in foreign exchange trading services revenue;

◦Repositioning charges of approximately $78 million, consisting of $50 million of compensation and benefits expenses primarily related to streamlining the Investment Services organization, and $20 million of occupancy charges related to real estate footprint optimization and $8 million of BBH-related repositioning charges; and

◦Acquisition and restructuring costs of approximately $65 million related to the BBH Investor Services acquisition transaction we are no longer pursuing.

•The impact of notable items in 2021 includes:

◦Gain on the sale of a majority share of our Wealth Management Services (WMS) business of $53 million recorded in other income;

◦Gain on sale of investment securities of $58 million related to a one-time transfer of LIBOR and Euro Interbank Offered Rate based securities from HTM to AFS, and the subsequent sale of the majority of those securities in 2021;

◦Net repositioning release of approximately $3 million, consisting of $32 million release of previously accrued severance charges, partially offset by $29 million of occupancy charges related to footprint optimization;

State Street Corporation | 61

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

◦Deferred compensation expense acceleration of approximately $147 million associated with an amendment of certain outstanding deferred cash incentive compensation awards;

◦Acquisition and restructuring costs of approximately $65 million, of which $53 million related to CRD and $13 million related to the BBH Investor Services acquisition transaction we are no longer pursuing;

◦Net legal and other expenses of approximately $18 million, including $20 million in information systems and communications, $8 million in transaction processing services and $1 million in other expenses, partially offset by a legal accrual release of approximately $11 million associated with a settlement related to the invoicing matter; and

◦Costs of $5 million due to the partial redemption of outstanding Series F non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock representing the difference between the redemption value and the net carrying value of the preferred stock.

AUC/A and AUM

•AUC/A of $36.74 trillion as of December 31, 2022 decreased 16% compared to December 31, 2021, primarily due to lower market levels, a previously disclosed client transition and the impact of currency translation, partially offset by new business installations. In 2022, newly announced asset servicing mandates totaled approximately $1.9 trillion. Servicing assets remaining to be installed in future periods totaled approximately $3.60 trillion as of December 31, 2022.

•AUM of $3.48 trillion as of December 31, 2022 decreased 16% compared to December 31, 2021, primarily due to lower market levels, institutional net outflows and the impact of currency translation, partially offset by net inflows from ETFs.

Capital

•In 2022, we returned approximately $2.4 billion to our shareholders in the form of

common stock dividends and common share repurchases compared to approximately $1.7 billion in 2021.

•We declared aggregate common stock dividends of $2.40 per share, totaling $871 million compared to $2.18 per share, totaling $779 million in 2021.

•We did not repurchase any common stock during the first three quarters of 2022. In October 2022, we resumed our share repurchases under the 2021 Program, and purchased an aggregate of 19.5 million shares of common stock, at an average per share cost of $76.81 and an aggregate cost of approximately $1.5 billion in the fourth quarter of 2022.

•In January 2023, our Board approved a share repurchase program authorizing the purchase of up to $4.5 billion of our common stock through December 31, 2023.

•Our standardized CET1 capital ratio decreased to 13.6% as of December 31, 2022, compared to 14.3% as of December 31, 2021, primarily reflecting lower AOCI related to AFS securities, largely recognized in the first half of 2022 driven by the significant increase in interest rates across the yield curve and the resumption of common share repurchases in the fourth quarter of 2022, partially offset by higher retained earnings and episodically lower RWA. However, we anticipate RWA to increase over the coming quarter as market volatility levels normalize and we efficiently deploy capital to our businesses. Our Tier 1 leverage ratio decreased to 6.0% as of December 31, 2022 compared to 6.1% as of December 31, 2021, primarily driven by lower AOCI and resumption of share repurchases in the fourth quarter of 2022, partially offset by a decline in consolidated average assets. During 2022, we completed a number of actions designed to mitigate additional AOCI risk in the current environment including a $23.56 billion transfer of securities from AFS to HTM. Given the current global economic environment, we currently expect our CET1 and Tier 1 leverage capital ratios to move into our target ranges of 10-11% and 5.25-5.75%, respectively.

State Street Corporation | 62

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Debt Issuances and Redemptions

•On February 7, 2022, we issued $300 million aggregate principal amount of 1.746% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2026, $650 million aggregate principal amount of 2.203% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2028 and $550 million aggregate principal amount of 2.623% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2033.

•On March 30, 2022, we redeemed $750 million aggregate principal amount of 2.825% Fixed-to-Floating Rate Senior Notes due 2023.

•On May 13, 2022, we issued $500 million aggregate principal amount of 4.421% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2033.

•On May 15, 2022, we redeemed $750 million aggregate principal amount of 2.653% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2023.

•On August 4, 2022, we issued $750 million aggregate principal amount of 4.164% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2033.

•On November 4, 2022, we issued $500 million aggregate principal amount of 5.751% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2026 and $500 million aggregate principal amount of 5.820% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2028.

•On January 26, 2023, we issued $500 million aggregate principal amount of 4.857% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2026 and $750 million aggregate principal amount of 4.821% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2034.

CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

This section discusses our consolidated results of operations for 2022 compared to 2021 and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Total Revenue

TABLE 2: TOTAL REVENUE
Years Ended December 31,% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
(Dollars in millions)202220212020
Fee revenue:
Back office services$4,714$5,117$4,758(8)%8%
Middle office services373414399(10)4
Servicing fees(1)5,0875,5315,157(8)7
Management fees1,9392,0531,880(6)9
Foreign exchange trading services1,3761,2111,36314(11)
Securities finance41641635617
Front office software and data550484446149
Lending related and other fees239254239(6)6
Software and processing fees(1)78973868578
Other fee revenue(1)(1)6358nm9
Total fee revenue9,60610,0129,499(4)5
Net interest income:
Interest income4,0881,9082,575nm(26)
Interest expense1,5443375nm(99)
Net interest income2,5441,9052,20034(13)
Other income:
Gains (losses) related to investment securities, net(2)574nmnm
Other income53nmnm
Total other income(2)1104nmnm
Total revenue$12,148$12,027$11,70313

(1) In the first quarter of 2022, we reclassified certain fee revenue in our Consolidated Statement of Operations, primarily moving revenues that are not directly associated with software and processing fees to a new Other fee revenue line item. In addition, we provided a disaggregation of servicing fees into Back office services and Middle office services and of software and processing fees into Front office software and data and Lending related and other fees. Prior periods have been revised to reflect these changes.

nm Not meaningful

State Street Corporation | 63

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Fee Revenue

Table 2: Total Revenue, provides the breakout of fee revenue for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020. Servicing and management fees collectively made up approximately 73%, 76% and 74% of the total fee revenue in 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Servicing Fee Revenue

Servicing fees, as presented in Table 2: Total Revenue, decreased 8% in 2022 compared to 2021 primarily due to normal pricing headwinds, lower average market levels and lower client activity and adjustments, partially offset by net new business. Currency translation decreased servicing fee revenue by 3% in 2022 relative to 2021.

Servicing fees generated outside the U.S. were approximately 46% of total servicing fees in 2022, compared to approximately 48% in 2021.

Servicing fee revenue comprises revenue from both back office and middle office services. Generally, our servicing fee revenues are affected by several factors including changes in market valuations, client activity and asset flows, net new business and the manner in which we price our services. We provide a range of services to our clients, including core custody services, accounting, reporting and administration, which we refer to collectively as back office services and middle office services. The nature and mix of services provided and the asset classes for which the services are performed affect our servicing fees. The basis for fees will differ across regions and clients.

Changes in Market Valuations

Our servicing fee revenue is impacted by both our levels and the geographic and product mix of our AUC/A. Increases or decreases in market valuations have a corresponding impact on the level of our AUC/A and servicing fee revenues, though the degree of impact will vary depending on asset types and classes and geography of assets held within our clients’ portfolios. For certain asset classes where the valuation process is more complex, including alternative investments, or where our valuation is dependent on third party information, AUC/A is reported on a time lag, typically one-month. For those asset classes, the impact of market levels on our reported AUC/A does not reflect current period-end market levels.

We estimate that worldwide market valuations impacted our servicing fee revenues by approximately (2)% and 7% in 2022 and 2021, respectively. Over the five years ended December 31, 2022, we estimate this impact was 2% on average with a range of (2)% to 7% annually. See Table 3: Daily Averages, Month-End Averages and Year-End Equity Indices for selected indices. While the specific indices presented are indicative of general market trends, the asset types and classes relevant to individual client portfolios can and do differ, and the performance of associated relevant indices and of client portfolios can therefore differ from the performance of the indices presented. In addition, our asset classifications may differ from those industry classifications presented.

Assuming that all other factors remain constant, including client activity, asset flows and pricing, we estimate, using relevant information as of December 31, 2022, that a 10% increase or decrease in worldwide equity valuations, on a weighted average basis, over the relevant periods for which our servicing fees are calculated, would result in a corresponding change in our total servicing fee revenues, on average and over multiple quarters, of approximately 3%. We estimate, similarly assuming all other factors remain constant and using relevant information as of December 31, 2022, that changes in worldwide fixed income markets, which on a weighted average basis and over time are typically less volatile than worldwide equity markets, have a significantly smaller impact on our servicing fee revenues on average and over time.

TABLE 3: DAILY AVERAGES, MONTH-END AVERAGES AND YEAR-END EQUITY INDICES(1)
Daily Averages of IndicesMonth-End Averages of IndicesYear-End Indices
Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,Years Ended December 31,
20222021% Change20222021% Change20222021% Change
S&P 500®4,0994,273(4)%4,0784,279(5)%3,8404,766(19)%
MSCI EAFE®1,9762,289(14)1,9652,272(14)1,9442,336(17)
MSCI® Emerging Markets1,0331,315(21)1,0261,303(21)9561,232(22)

(1) The index names listed in the table are service marks of their respective owners.

TABLE 4: YEAR-END DEBT INDICES(1)
As of December 31,
20222021% Change
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index®2,0492,355(13)%
Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index®446532(16)

(1) The index names listed in the table are service marks of their respective owners.

State Street Corporation | 64

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Client Activity and Asset Flows

Client activity and asset flows are impacted by the number of transactions we execute on behalf of our clients, including FX settlements, equity and derivative trades, and wire transfer activity, as well as actions by our clients to change the asset class in which their assets are invested. Our servicing fee revenues are impacted by a number of factors, including transaction volumes, asset levels and asset classes in which funds are invested, as well as industry trends associated with these client-related activities.

Our clients may change the asset classes in which their assets are invested, based on their market outlook, risk acceptance tolerance or other considerations. We estimate that client activity and asset flows, together, impacted our servicing fee revenues by approximately (2)% and 0% in 2022 and 2021, respectively. Over the five years ended December 31, 2022, we estimate this impact was 0% on average with a range of (2)% to 2% annually. See Table 5: Industry Asset Flows for selected asset flow information. While the asset flows presented are indicative of general market trends, the asset types and classes relevant to individual client portfolios can and do differ, and our flows may differ from those market trends. In addition, our asset classifications may differ from those industry classifications presented.

TABLE 5: INDUSTRY ASSET FLOWS
Years Ended December 31,
(In billions)20222021
North America - (US Domiciled) - Morningstar Direct Market Data(1)(2)(3)
Long-Term Funds(4)$(890.9)$612.4
Money Market(35.3)405.4
Exchange-Traded Fund572.5504.6
Total Flows$(353.7)$1,522.4
Europe - Morningstar Direct Market Data(1)(2)(5)
Long-Term Funds(4)$(254.1)$809.4
Money Market63.74.5
Exchange-Traded Fund67.0176.8
Total Flows$(123.4)$990.7

(1) Industry data is provided for illustrative purposes only. It is not intended to reflect our activity or our clients' activity and is indicative of only segments of the entire industry.

(2) Source: Morningstar. The data includes long-term mutual funds, ETFs and money market funds. Mutual fund data represents estimates of net new cash flow, which is new sales minus redemptions combined with net exchanges, while ETF data represents net issuance, which is gross issuance less gross redemptions. Data for Fund of Funds, Feeder funds and Obsolete funds were excluded from the series to prevent double counting. Data is from the Morningstar Direct Asset Flows database.

(3) The year ended December 31, 2022 data for North America (US domiciled) includes Morningstar direct actuals for January 2022 through November 2022 and Morningstar direct estimates for December 2022.

(4) The long-term fund flows reported by Morningstar direct in North America are composed of US domiciled market flows mainly in Equities, Allocation and Fixed-Income asset classes. The long-term fund flows reported by Morningstar direct in EMEA are composed of the European market flows mainly in Equities, Allocation and Fixed-Income asset classes.

(5) The year ended December 31, 2022 data for Europe is on a rolling twelve month basis for December 2021 through November 2022, sourced by Morningstar.

Net New Business

Net new business, which includes business both won and lost, has affected our servicing fee revenues by approximately 1% in both 2022 and 2021. Over the five years ended December 31, 2022, this impact was 0% on average with a range of 0% to 1% annually. Gross investment servicing mandates were $1.94 trillion in 2022 and $2.00 trillion per year on average over the past five years. Over the five years ended December 31, 2022, gross annual investment servicing mandates ranged from approximately $0.79 trillion to $3.52 trillion.

Servicing fee revenue associated with new servicing mandates may vary based on the breadth of services provided, the time required to install the assets, and the types of assets installed.

Revenues associated with new mandates are not reflected in our servicing fee revenue until the assets have been installed. Our installation timeline, in general, can range from 6 to 36 months, with the average installation timeline being approximately 9 to 12 months over the past 2 years. Our more complex installations, including new State Street Alpha mandates, will generally be on the longer end of that range. With respect to the current asset mandates of approximately $3.61 trillion that are yet to be installed as of December 31, 2022, we expect the conversion will occur over the coming 36 months.

Pricing

The industry in which we operate has historically faced pricing pressure, and our servicing fee revenues are also affected by such pressures today. Consequently, no assumption should be drawn as to future revenue run rate from announced servicing wins, as the amount of revenue associated with AUC/A, once installed, can vary materially. We estimate that pricing pressure with respect to existing clients has impacted our servicing fees by approximately (2)% in both 2022 and 2021. On average, over the five years ended December 31, 2022, this impact

State Street Corporation | 65

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

was approximately (3)% annually, with the impact ranging from (2)% to (4)% in any given year. Pricing concessions can be a part of a contract renegotiation with a client including terms that may benefit us, such as extending the term of our relationship with the client, expanding the scope of services that we provide or reducing our dependency on manual processes through the standardization of the services we provide. The timing of the impact of additional revenue generated by anticipated additional services, and the amount of revenue generated, may differ from expectations due to the impact of pricing concessions on existing services due to the necessary time required to onboard those new services, the nature of those services and client investment practices and other factors. These same market pressures also impact the fees we negotiate when we win business from new clients.

In order to offset the typical client attrition and normal pricing headwinds, we estimate that we need at least $1.5 trillion of new AUC/A per year; although, notwithstanding increases in AUC/A, servicing fees remain subject to several factors, including changes in market valuations, client activity and asset flows, the manner in which we price our services, the nature of the assets being serviced and the type of services and the other factors described in this Form 10-K.

Historically, and based on an indicative sample of revenue, we estimate that approximately 60%, on average, of our servicing fee revenues have been variable due to changes in asset valuations including changes in daily average valuations of AUC/A; another 15%, on average, of our servicing fees are impacted by the volume of activity in the funds we serve; and the remaining approximately 25% of our servicing fees tend not to be variable in nature nor impacted by market fluctuations or values.

Based on the impact of the above, client activity and asset flows, net new business and pricing, noted drivers of our servicing fee revenue will vary depending on the mix of products and services we provide to our clients. The full impact of changes in market valuations and the volume of activity in the funds may not be fully reflected in our servicing fee revenues in the periods in which the changes occur, particularly in periods of higher volatility.

TABLE 6: ASSETS UNDER CUSTODY AND/OR ADMINISTRATION BY PRODUCT(1)(2)
(In billions)December 31, 2022December 31, 2021December 31, 2020% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
Collective funds, including ETFs$12,261$15,722$13,387(22)%17%
Mutual funds9,61011,5759,810(17)18
Pension products7,7348,4437,594(8)11
Insurance and other products7,1387,9388,000(10)(1)
Total$36,743$43,678$38,791(16)13
TABLE 7: ASSETS UNDER CUSTODY AND/OR ADMINISTRATION BY ASSET CLASS(2)
(In billions)December 31, 2022December 31, 2021December 31, 2020% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
Equities$20,575$25,974$21,626(21)%20%
Fixed-income10,31812,58712,834(18)(2)
Short-term and other investments5,8505,1174,3311418
Total$36,743$43,678$38,791(16)13
TABLE 8: ASSETS UNDER CUSTODY AND/OR ADMINISTRATION BY GEOGRAPHY(2)(3)
(In billions)December 31, 2022December 31, 2021December 31, 2020% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
Americas$26,981$32,427$28,245(17)%15%
Europe/Middle East/Africa7,1368,5998,101(17)6
Asia/Pacific2,6262,6522,445(1)8
Total$36,743$43,678$38,791(16)13

(1) Certain previously reported amounts presented have been reclassified to conform to current-period presentation.

(2) Consistent with past practice, AUC/A values for certain asset classes are based on a lag, typically one-month.

(3) Geographic mix is generally based on the domicile of the entity servicing the funds and is not necessarily representative of the underlying asset mix.

Asset servicing mandates newly announced in 2022 totaled approximately $1.94 trillion. Servicing assets remaining to be installed in future periods totaled approximately $3.61 trillion as of December 31, 2022, which will be reflected in AUC/A in future periods after installation and will generate servicing fee revenue in subsequent periods. The full revenue impact of such mandates will be realized as the assets are installed and additional services are added over that period.

New asset servicing mandates may be subject to completion of definitive agreements, approval of applicable boards and shareholders and customary regulatory approvals. New asset servicing mandates and servicing assets remaining to be installed in future periods exclude certain new business which has been contracted, but for which the client has not yet provided permission to publicly disclose and the expected installation date extends beyond one quarter. These excluded assets, which from time to time may be significant, will be included in new asset

State Street Corporation | 66

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

servicing mandates and reflected in servicing assets remaining to be installed in the period in which the client provides its permission. Servicing mandates and servicing assets remaining to be installed in future periods are presented on a gross basis and therefore also do not include the impact of clients who have notified us during the period of their intent to terminate or reduce their relationship with us, which may from time to time be significant.

With respect to these new servicing mandates, once installed we may provide various services, including back office services such as custody and safekeeping, transaction processing and trade settlement, fund administration, reporting and record keeping, security servicing, fund accounting, middle office services such as investment book of records (IBOR), transaction management, loans, cash derivatives and collateral services, recordkeeping, client reporting and investment analytics, markets services such as FX trading services, liquidity solutions, currency and collateral management and securities finance, and front office services such as portfolio management solutions, risk analytics, scenario analysis, performance and attribution, trade order and execution management, pre-trade compliance and ESG investment tools. Revenues associated with new servicing mandates may vary based on the breadth of services provided, the timing of installation, and the types of assets.

As previously disclosed, in early 2021, due to a decision to diversify providers, one of our large asset servicing clients has advised us it expects to move a significant portion of its ETF assets currently with State Street to one or more other providers, pending necessary approvals. We expect to continue as a significant service provider for this client after this transition and for the client to continue to be meaningful to our business. The transition began in 2022, but will principally occur in 2023 and 2024 and will impact our fee revenue and income growth trends through 2025. For the year ended December 31, 2022, the fee revenue associated with the assets yet to transition represented approximately 1.7% of our total fee revenue. The actual total revenue and income impact of this transition will reflect a range of factors, including potential growth in our continuing business with the client and expense reductions associated with the transition.

Management Fee Revenue

Management fees decreased 6% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily due to lower average equity and fixed income market levels, a previously reported client-specific pricing adjustment and institutional net outflows, partially offset by the absence of the impact of money market fee waivers and net inflows from cash and ETFs.

Management fees generated outside the U.S. were approximately 26% of total management fees in both 2022 and 2021.

Management fees generally are affected by our level of AUM, which we report based on month-end valuations. Management fees for certain components of managed assets, such as ETFs, mutual funds and UCITS, are affected by daily average valuations of AUM. Management fee revenue is more sensitive to market valuations than servicing fee revenue, as a higher proportion of the underlying services provided, and the associated management fees earned, are dependent on equity and fixed-income security valuations. Additional factors, such as the relative mix of assets managed, may have a significant effect on our management fee revenue. While certain management fees are directly determined by the values of AUM and the investment strategies employed, management fees may reflect other factors, including performance fee arrangements, as well as our relationship pricing for clients. From the second half of 2020 through the first quarter of 2022, we were in a prolonged low-interest rate environment, and waived certain fees for our clients for money market products. Following the Federal Reserve rate hikes in March and September 2022, money market fee waivers did not have a significant impact on our management fee revenue in the last three quarters of 2022.

Asset-based management fees for passively managed products, to which our AUM is currently primarily weighted, are generally charged at a lower fee on AUM than for actively managed products. Actively managed products may also include performance fee arrangements which are recorded when the fee is earned, based on predetermined benchmarks associated with the applicable account's performance.

In light of the above, we estimate, using relevant information as of December 31, 2022 and assuming that all other factors remain constant, including the impact of business won and lost and client flows, that:

•A 10% increase or decrease in worldwide equity valuations, on a weighted average basis, over the relevant periods for which our management fees are calculated, would result in a corresponding change in our total management fee revenues, on average and over multiple quarters, of approximately 5%; and

•changes in worldwide fixed income markets, which on a weighted average basis and over time are typically less volatile than worldwide equity markets, will have a significantly smaller impact on our management fee revenues on average and over time.

State Street Corporation | 67

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Daily averages, month-end averages and year-end indices demonstrate worldwide changes in equity and debt markets that affect our management fee revenue. Year-end indices affect the values of AUM as of those dates. See Table 3: Daily Averages, Month-End Averages and Year-End Equity Indices for selected indices. While the specific indices presented are indicative of general market trends, the asset types and classes relevant to individual client portfolios can and do differ, and the performance of associated relevant indices and of client portfolios can therefore differ from the performance of the indices presented. In addition, our asset classifications may differ from those industry classifications presented.

TABLE 9: ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT BY ASSET CLASS AND INVESTMENT APPROACH
(In billions)December 31, 2022December 31, 2021December 31, 2020% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
Equity:
Active$54$80$85(33)%(6)%
Passive2,0742,5942,086(20)24
Total equity(1)2,1282,6742,171(20)23
Fixed-income:
Active8310390(19)14
Passive471520459(9)13
Total fixed-income(1)554623549(11)13
Cash(1)(2)37636834925
Multi-asset-class solutions:
Active283440(18)(15)
Passive181188146(4)29
Total multi-asset-class solutions(1)209222186(6)19
Alternative investments(3):
Active355639(38)44
Passive179195173(8)13
Total alternative investments(1)214251212(15)18
Total$3,481$4,138$3,467(16)19

(1) The implementation of an improved internal data management system for product level data in the first quarter of 2021 resulted in some AUM reclassifications between the categories presented for prior periods to align with the current presentation. There was no impact to the total level of reported AUM.

(2) Includes both floating- and constant-net-asset-value portfolios held in commingled structures or separate accounts.

(3) Includes real estate investment trusts, currency and commodities, including SPDR® Gold Shares and SPDR® Gold MiniSharesSM Trust. We are not the investment manager for the SPDR® Gold Shares and SPDR®Gold MiniSharesSM Trust, but act as the marketing agent.

TABLE 10: GEOGRAPHIC MIX OF ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT(1)
(In billions)December 31, 2022December 31, 2021December 31, 2020% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
North America$2,544$2,931$2,411(13)%22%
Europe/Middle East/Africa511592512(14)16
Asia/Pacific426615544(31)13
Total$3,481$4,138$3,467(16)19

(1) Geographic mix is based on client location or fund management location.

.

TABLE 11: EXCHANGE - TRADED FUNDS BY ASSET CLASS(1)
(In billions)December 31, 2022December 31, 2021December 31, 2020% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
Alternative Investments(2)$67$72$83(7)%(13)%
Equity(3)817970708(16)37
Multi Asset11nm
Fixed-Income(3)134135115(1)17
Total Exchange-Traded Funds$1,019$1,178$906(13)30

(1) ETFs are a component of AUM presented in the preceding table.

(2) Includes real estate investment trusts, currency and commodities, including SPDR® Gold Shares and SPDR® Gold MiniSharesSM Trust. We are not the investment manager for the SPDR® Gold Shares and SPDR®Gold MiniSharesSM Trust, but act as the marketing agent.

(3) The implementation of an improved internal data management system for product level data in the first quarter of 2021 resulted in some AUM reclassifications between the categories presented for prior periods to align with the current presentation. There was no impact to the total level of reported AUM.

nm Not meaningful

State Street Corporation | 68

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

TABLE 12: ACTIVITY IN ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT BY PRODUCT CATEGORY
(In billions)Equity(1)Fixed-Income(1)Cash(1)(2)Multi-Asset-Class Solutions(1)Alternative Investments(1)(3)Total
Balance as of December 31, 2019$1,990$479$317$157$173$3,116
Long-term institutional flows, net(4)(101)4(1)9(11)(100)
Exchange-traded fund flows, net12161644
Cash fund flows, net3232
Total flows, net(89)203195(24)
Market appreciation (depreciation)24142(1)1830330
Foreign exchange impact29822445
Total market/foreign exchange impact2705012034375
Balance as of December 31, 2020$2,171$549$349$186$212$3,467
Long-term institutional flows, net(4)(25)70(2)161069
Exchange-traded fund flows, net9423(10)107
Cash fund flows, net2020
Total flows, net69931816196
Market appreciation (depreciation)476(7)22243536
Foreign exchange impact(42)(12)(1)(2)(4)(61)
Total market/foreign exchange impact434(19)12039475
Balance as of December 31, 2021$2,674$623$368$222$251$4,138
Long-term institutional flows, net(4)(97)18119(59)
Exchange-traded fund flows, net2222
Total flows, net(97)40119(37)
Market appreciation (depreciation)(398)(94)9(28)(30)(541)
Foreign exchange impact(51)(15)(2)(4)(7)(79)
Total market/foreign exchange impact(449)(109)7(32)(37)(620)
Balance as of December 31, 2022$2,128$554$376$209$214$3,481

(1) The implementation of an improved internal data management system for product level data in the first quarter of 2021 resulted in some AUM reclassifications between the categories presented for prior periods to align with the current presentation. There was no impact to the total level of reported AUM.

(2) Includes both floating- and constant-net-asset-value portfolios held in commingled structures or separate accounts.

(3) Includes real estate investment trusts, currency and commodities, including SPDR® Gold Shares and SPDR® Gold MiniSharesSM Trust. We are not the investment manager for the SPDR® Gold Shares and SPDR®Gold MiniSharesSM Trust, but act as the marketing agent.

(4) Amounts represent long-term portfolios, excluding ETFs.

Foreign Exchange Trading Services

Foreign exchange trading services revenue, as presented in Table 2: Total Revenue, increased 14% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily reflecting higher FX spreads and a revenue- related recovery from a 2018 FX benchmark litigation resolution, partially offset by lower client FX volumes. The negative impact on foreign exchange trading services revenue for fee waivers to money market funds participating on the Fund Connect platform, including State Street Global Advisors funds, was $12 million in 2022, compared to $53 million in 2021. The lower impact in 2022 was driven by the higher interest rate environment.

Foreign exchange trading services revenue comprises revenue generated by FX trading and revenue generated by brokerage and other trading services, which made up 68% and 32%, respectively, of foreign exchange trading services revenue in 2022, and 67% and 33%, respectively in 2021.

We primarily earn FX trading revenue by acting as a principal market-maker through both "direct sales and trading” and “indirect FX trading.”

•Direct sales and trading: Represent FX transactions at negotiated rates with clients and investment managers that contact our trading desk directly. These principal market-making activities include transactions for funds serviced by third party custodians or prime brokers, as well as those funds under custody with us.

•Indirect FX trading: Represents FX transactions with clients, for which we are the funds' custodian, or their investment managers, routed to our FX desk through our asset-servicing operation. We execute indirect FX trades as a principal at rates disclosed to our clients.

Our FX trading revenue is influenced by multiple factors, including: the volume and type of client FX transactions and related spreads; currency volatility, reflecting market conditions; and our management of exchange rate, interest rate and other market risks associated with our FX activities. The relative impact of these factors on our total FX trading revenues often differs from period to period. For example, assuming all other factors remain constant, increases or decreases in volumes or bid-offer spreads across product mix tend to result in increases or decreases, as the case may be, in client-related FX revenue.

Our clients that utilize indirect FX trading can, in addition to executing their FX transactions through dealers not affiliated with us, transition from indirect FX trading to either direct sales and trading execution, including our “Street FX” service, or to one of our electronic trading platforms. Street FX, in which we continue to act as a principal

State Street Corporation | 69

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

market-maker, enables our clients to define their FX execution strategy and automate the FX trade execution process, both for funds under custody with us as well as those under custody at another bank.

We also earn foreign exchange trading services revenue through "electronic FX services" and "other trading, transition management and brokerage revenue."

•Electronic FX services: Our clients may choose to execute FX transactions through one of our electronic trading platforms. These transactions generate revenue through a “click” fee.

•Other trading, transition management and brokerage revenue: As our clients look to us to enhance and preserve portfolio values, they may choose to utilize our Transition or Currency Management capabilities or transact with our Equity Trade execution group. These transactions, which are not limited to foreign exchange, generate revenue via commissions charged for trades transacted during the management of these portfolios.

Fund Connect is another one of our electronic trading platforms: it is a global trading, analytics and cash management tool with access to more than 400 money market funds from leading providers.

Securities Finance

Securities finance revenue, as presented in Table 2: Total Revenue, was flat in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily driven by higher spreads, offset by lower agency and enhanced custody balances.

Our securities finance business consists of three components:

(1) an agency lending program for State Street Global Advisors managed investment funds with a broad range of investment objectives, which we refer to as the State Street Global Advisors lending funds;

(2) an agency lending program for third-party investment managers and asset owners, which we refer to as the agency lending funds; and

(3) security lending transactions which we enter into as principal, which we refer to as our enhanced custody business.

Securities finance revenue earned from our agency lending activities, which is composed of our split of both the spreads related to cash collateral and the fees related to non-cash collateral, is principally a function of the volume of securities on loan, the interest rate spreads and fees earned on the underlying collateral and our share of the fee split.

As principal, our enhanced custody business borrows securities from the lending client or other market participants and then lends such securities to the subsequent borrower, either our client or a broker/dealer. We act as principal when the lending client is unable to, or elects not to, transact directly with the market and execute the transaction and furnish the securities. In our role as principal, we provide support to the transaction through our credit rating. While we source a significant proportion of the securities furnished by us in our role as principal from third parties, we have the ability to source securities through assets under custody from clients who have designated us as an eligible borrower.

Market influences may continue to affect client demand for securities finance, and as a result our revenue from, and the profitability of, our securities lending activities in future periods. In addition, the constantly evolving regulatory environment, including revised or proposed capital and liquidity standards, interpretations of those standards, and our own balance sheet management activities, may influence modifications to the way in which we deliver our agency lending or enhanced custody businesses, the volume of our securities lending activity and related revenue and profitability in future periods.

Software and Processing Fees

Software and processing fees revenue, presented in Table 2: Total Revenue, increased 7% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily driven by higher front office software and data revenue associated with CRD, partially offset by lower lending fees.

Software and processing fees revenue includes diverse types of fees and revenue, including fees from software licensing and maintenance and fees from our structured products business.

Front office software and data revenue, which primarily includes revenue from CRD, Alpha Data Platform and Alpha Data Services, increased 14% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily driven by higher on-premises renewals and software-enabled revenue.

Revenue related to the front office solutions provided by CRD is primarily driven by the sale of term software licenses and SaaS, including professional services such as consulting and implementation services, software support and maintenance. Approximately 50%-70% of revenue associated with a sale of software to be installed on-premises is recognized at a point in time when the customer benefits from obtaining access to and use of the software license, with the percentage varying based on the length of the contract and other contractual terms. The

State Street Corporation | 70

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

remainder of revenue for on-premise installations is recognized over the length of the contract as maintenance and other services are provided. Upon renewal of an on-premises software contract, the same pattern of revenue recognition is followed with 50%-70% recognized upon renewal and the remaining balance recognized over the term of the contract. Revenue for a SaaS related arrangement, where the customer does not take possession of the software, is recognized over the term of the contract as services are provided. Upon renewal of a SaaS arrangement, revenue continues to be recognized as services are provided under the new contract. As a result of these differences in how portions of CRD revenue are accounted for, CRD revenue may vary more than other business units quarter to quarter.

Lending related and other fees decreased 6% in 2022 compared to 2021, reflecting lower unfunded commitments relating to our municipal and fund finance products, driven by changes in product mix. Lending related and other fees primarily consists of fee revenue associated with our fund finance, leverage loans, municipal finance, insurance and stable value wrap businesses.

Other Fee Revenue

Other fee revenue includes market-related adjustments and income associated with certain tax-advantaged investments and other equity method investments.

Other fee revenue decreased $64 million in 2022, compared to 2021, primarily driven by negative market-related adjustments which impacted other fee revenue by approximately $57 million compared to the same period in 2021.

Additional information about fee revenue is provided under "Line of Business Information" included in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.

Net Interest Income

See Table 2: Total Revenue, for the breakout of interest income and interest expense for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020.

NII is defined as interest income earned on interest-earning assets less interest expense incurred on interest-bearing liabilities. Interest-earning assets, which principally consist of investment securities, interest-bearing deposits with banks, loans, resale agreements and other liquid assets, are financed primarily by client deposits, short-term borrowings and long-term debt.

NIM represents the relationship between annualized FTE NII and average total interest-earning assets for the period. It is calculated by dividing FTE NII by average interest-earning assets. Revenue that is exempt from income taxes, mainly earned from certain investment securities (state and political subdivisions), is adjusted to a FTE basis using the U.S. federal and state statutory income tax rates.

NII on an FTE basis increased in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily due to higher interest rates from U.S. and international central bank rate hikes, partially offset by lower client deposits.

Net premium amortization on investment securities, which is included in interest income, was $225 million in 2022, compared to $556 million in 2021 and $575 million in 2020. The decrease in MBS premium amortization is primarily due to lower prepayments from higher long-end interest rates.

Interest income related to debt securities is recognized in our consolidated statement of income using the effective interest method, or on a basis approximating a level rate of return over the contractual or estimated life of the security. The rate of return considers any non-refundable fees or costs, as well as purchase premiums or discounts, resulting in amortization or accretion, accordingly. The amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts are adjusted for prepayments when they occur, which primarily impact mortgage-backed securities.

The following table presents the investment securities amortizable purchase premium net of discount accretion for the periods indicated:

TABLE 13: INVESTMENT SECURITIES NET PREMIUM AMORTIZATION
Years Ended December 31,
202220212020
(Dollars in millions)MBSNon-MBSTotal(1)MBSNon-MBSTotal(1)MBSNon-MBSTotal(1)
Unamortized premiums, net of discounts at period end$520$208$728$712$502$1,214$1,173$736$1,909
Net premium amortization(2)14283225342214556399176575

(1) The investment securities portfolio duration was 2.6 years in 2022, 2.9 years in 2021 and 3.0 years in 2020. Totals exclude premiums or discounts created from the transfer of securities from AFS to HTM. Additional information on the transfer of securities is provided in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

(2) Net of discount accretion on MMLF HTM securities.

State Street Corporation | 71

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

See Table 14: Average Balances and Interest Rates - Fully Taxable-Equivalent Basis, for the breakout of NII on a FTE basis for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020.

TABLE 14: AVERAGE BALANCES AND INTEREST RATES - FULLY TAXABLE-EQUIVALENT BASIS(1)
Years Ended December 31,
202220212020
(Dollars in millions; fully taxable-equivalent basis)Average BalanceInterest Revenue/ExpenseRateAverage BalanceInterest Revenue/ExpenseRateAverage BalanceInterest Revenue/ ExpenseRate
Interest-bearing deposits with banks(2)$76,498$8421.10%$89,996$(15)(.02)%$76,588$76.10%
Securities purchased under resale agreements(3)2,1161888.884,19327.633,4521263.64
Trading account assets721.01752.01878
Investment securities:
Investment securities available for sale53,6137331.3766,584583.8858,0367611.31
Investment securities held-to-maturity58,3169791.6844,8326651.4842,9568301.93
Investment securities held-to-maturity purchased under money market liquidity facility31441.358,1831171.43
Total Investment securities111,9291,7121.53111,7301,2521.12109,1751,7081.56
Loans35,1179732.7731,0096402.0727,5256272.28
Other interest-earning assets(4)20,8503831.8422,35517.0811,25655.49
Average total interest-earning assets247,2314,0981.66260,0351,921.74228,8742,5921.13
Cash and due from banks3,6525,0573,849
Other assets35,54734,65136,611
Average total Assets$286,430$299,743$269,334
Interest-bearing deposits:
U.S.$98,252$887.90%$104,848$10.01%$87,444$114.13%
Non-U.S.(2)(5)76,84280.1082,126(273)(.33)68,806(231)(.34)
Total interest-bearing deposits(5)(6)175,094967.55186,974(263)(.07)156,250(117)(.07)
Securities sold under repurchase agreements3,63314.396672,6154.14
Short-term borrowings under money market liquidity facility31541.218,2071011.22
Other short-term borrowings1,188262.187882.212,226180.78
Long-term debt14,1323762.6613,3832191.6414,3713122.17
Other interest-bearing liabilities(7)2,7251615.915,48641.753,176571.82
Average total interest-bearing liabilities196,7721,544.78207,6133186,845375.20
Non-interest bearing deposits47,78048,43036,975
Other liabilities15,99217,61520,464
Preferred shareholders' equity1,9762,0762,569
Common shareholders' equity23,91024,00922,481
Average total liabilities and shareholders' equity$286,430$299,743$269,334
Excess of rate earned over rate paid.87%.74%.93%
Net interest income, fully taxable-equivalent basis$2,554$1,918$2,217
Net interest margin, fully taxable-equivalent basis1.03%.74%.97%
Tax-equivalent adjustment(10)(13)(17)
Net interest income, GAAP basis$2,544$1,905$2,200

(1) Rates earned/paid on interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities include the impact of hedge activities associated with our asset and liability management activities where applicable.

(2) Negative values reflect the impact of interest rate environments outside of the U.S. where central bank rates were below zero for several major currencies.

(3) Reflects the impact of balance sheet netting under enforceable netting agreements of approximately $71.02 billion, $62.15 billion and $100.45 billion for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Excluding the impact of netting, the average interest rates would be approximately 0.26%, 0.04% and 0.12% for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

(4) Reflects the impact of balance sheet netting under enforceable netting agreements of approximately $5.39 billion, $$5.60 billion and $$5.65 billion for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Excluding the impact of netting, the average interest rates would be approximately 1.46%, 0.06% and 0.32% for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

(5) Average rate includes the impact of FX swap costs of approximately ($20) million, ($68) million and ($63) million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Average rates for total interest-bearing deposits excluding the impact of FX swap costs were (0.55)%, (0.10)% and (0.03)% for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

(6) Total deposits averaged $222.87 billion, $235.40 billion and $193.23 billion for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

(7) Reflects the impact of balance sheet netting under enforceable netting agreements of approximately $4.59 billion, $5.48 billion and $6.38 billion for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Excluding the impact of netting, the average interest rates would be approximately 2.20%, 0.38% and 0.60% for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

State Street Corporation | 72

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Changes in the components of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities are discussed in more detail below. Additional information about the components of interest income and interest expense is provided in Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Average total interest-earning assets were $247.23 billion in 2022 compared to $260.04 billion in 2021. The decrease is primarily due to lower client deposit balances.

Interest-bearing deposits with banks averaged $76.50 billion in 2022 compared to $90.00 billion in 2021. These deposits primarily reflect our maintenance of cash balances at the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB) and other non-U.S. central banks. The lower levels of average cash balances reflect lower levels of client deposits.

Securities purchased under resale agreements averaged $2.12 billion in 2022 compared to $4.19 billion in 2021. As a member of FICC, we may net securities sold under repurchase agreements against those purchased under resale agreements with counterparties that are also members of the clearing organization, when specific netting criteria are met. The impact of balance sheet netting was $71.02 billion on average in 2022 compared to $62.15 billion in 2021, primarily driven by an increase in FICC repo volumes.

We are a direct and sponsoring member of FICC. As a sponsoring member within FICC, we enter into repurchase and resale transactions in eligible securities with sponsored clients and with other FICC members and, pursuant to FICC Government Securities Division rules, submit, novate and net the transactions. We may sponsor clients to clear their eligible repurchase transactions with FICC, backed by our guarantee to FICC of the prompt and full payment and performance of our sponsored member clients’ respective obligations. We generally obtain a security interest from our sponsored clients in the high quality securities collateral that they receive, which is designed to mitigate our potential exposure to FICC.

Additionally, as a member of FICC, we may be required to pay a pro rata share of the losses incurred by the organization and provide liquidity support in the event of the default of another member to the extent that the defaulting member’s clearing fund obligation and the prescribed loss allocation to FICC is depleted. It is difficult to estimate our maximum possible exposure under the membership agreement, since this would require an assessment of future claims that may be made against us that have not yet occurred. At December 31, 2022 and 2021, we did not record any liabilities under these arrangements.

Average investment securities increased to $111.93 billion in 2022 from $111.73 billion in 2021,

primarily driven by growth in U.S. Treasuries, MBS and CMBS balances, partially offset by a reduction in credit-sensitive assets.

Loans averaged $35.12 billion in 2022 compared to $31.01 billion in 2021. Average core loans, which exclude overdrafts and highlight our efforts to grow our lending portfolio, averaged $29.10 billion in 2022 compared to $26.76 billion in 2021. The increase is primarily due to growth in CLOs in loan form and consumer real estate loans, partially offset by a decline in leveraged loans. Additional information about these loans is provided in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Average other interest-earning assets, largely associated with our enhanced custody business, decreased to $20.85 billion in 2022 from $22.36 billion in 2021, primarily driven by a decrease in the level of cash collateral posted. Enhanced custody is our securities financing business where we act as principal with respect to our custody clients and generate securities finance revenue.

Aggregate average total interest-bearing deposits decreased to $175.09 billion in 2022 from $186.97 billion in 2021. The decrease is driven by higher market rates from central bank rate hikes, the impact of quantitative tightening, currency translation and equity market declines. Future deposit levels will be influenced by the underlying asset servicing business, client deposit behavior and market conditions, including the general levels of U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates.

Average other short-term borrowings increased to $1.19 billion in 2022 from $0.79 billion in 2021.

Average long-term debt was $14.13 billion in 2022 compared to $13.38 billion in 2021. These amounts reflect issuances, redemptions and maturities of senior debt during the respective periods.

Average other interest-bearing liabilities were $2.73 billion in 2022 compared to $5.49 billion in 2021. Other interest-bearing liabilities primarily reflect our level of cash collateral received from clients in connection with our enhanced custody business, which is presented on a net basis where we have enforceable netting agreements.

Several factors could affect future levels of NII and NIM, including the volume and mix of client deposits and funding sources; central bank actions; balance sheet management activities; changes in the level and slope of U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates; revised or proposed regulatory capital or liquidity standards, or interpretations of those standards; the yields earned on securities purchased compared to the yields earned on securities sold or matured and

State Street Corporation | 73

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

changes in the type and amount of credit or other loans we extend.

Based on market conditions and other factors, including regulatory standards, we continue to reinvest the majority of the proceeds from pay-downs and maturities of investment securities in highly-rated U.S. and non-U.S. securities, such as federal agency MBS, sovereign debt securities and U.S. Treasury and agency securities. The pace at which we reinvest and the types of investment securities purchased will depend on the impact of market conditions, the implementation of regulatory standards, including interpretation of those standards and other factors over time. We expect these factors and the levels of global interest rates to impact our reinvestment program and future levels of NII and NIM.

Provision for Credit Losses

We recorded a $20 million provision for credit losses in 2022, due to a downward shift in management's economic outlook that was partially offset by a reduction in overall loan portfolio risk, compared to a $33 million release of credit reserves in 2021.

Additional information is provided under “Loans” in "Financial Condition" in this Management's Discussion and Analysis and in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Expenses

Table 15: Expenses, provides the breakout of expenses for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020. Total expenses decreased 1% compared to 2021, as continued productivity and optimization savings, as well as the benefit from currency translation were partially offset by ongoing business investments and merit increases, professional fees, recoverable client-related expenses, marketing and travel costs. Currency translation reduced expenses by 3% in 2022 compared to 2021.

TABLE 15: EXPENSES
Years Ended December 31,% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
(Dollars in millions)202220212020
Compensation and employee benefits$4,428$4,554$4,450(3)%2%
Information systems and communications1,6301,6611,550(2)7
Transaction processing services9711,024978(5)5
Occupancy394444489(11)(9)
Amortization of other intangible assets238245234(3)5
Acquisition and restructuring costs65655030
Other:
Professional services37533436412(8)
Other70056260125(6)
Total other1,07589696520(7)
Total expenses$8,801$8,889$8,716(1)2
Number of employees at year-end42,22638,78439,4399(2)

Compensation and employee benefits expenses decreased 3% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily due to the impact of currency translation and a decrease in notable items, partially offset by higher headcount and merit increases. Currency translation decreased compensation and employee benefits expenses by 3% in 2022 relative to 2021.

Total headcount increased 9% as of December 31, 2022 compared to December 31, 2021, primarily in global hubs driven by operational support for new business growth segments, as well as technology investments and in-sourcing.

Information systems and communications expenses decreased 2% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily due to productivity and vendor savings initiatives, partially offset by technology infrastructure investments.

Transaction processing services expenses decreased 5% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily due to lower sub-custody costs and the impact of currency translation which reduced transaction processing services expenses by 2% in 2022 compare to 2021.

Occupancy expenses decreased 11% in 2022 compared 2021, primarily due to footprint optimization and the impact of currency translation which reduced occupancy expenses by 4% in 2022 compared to 2021.

Amortization of other intangible assets decreased 3% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily reflecting the impact of currency translation which reduced amortization of other intangible assets by 3% in 2022 compared to 2021.

Other expenses increased 20% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily due to higher professional services, recoverable client-related expenses, securities processing costs, travel costs and marketing expenses.

Acquisition and Restructuring Costs

Acquisition and restructuring costs were $65 million in 2022, unchanged compared to 2021. We recorded approximately $65 million and $13 million in 2022 and 2021, respectively, of acquisition costs related to the BBH Investor Services acquisition transaction we are no longer pursuing. In addition, in 2021, we also recorded approximately $52 million of acquisition costs related to our 2018 acquisition of CRD for which we no longer distinguished certain costs as acquisition costs starting in 2022.

Repositioning Charges

Expenses for 2022 included repositioning charges of $78 million, consisting of $50 million of compensation and benefits expenses primarily related to streamlining the Investment Services organization, $20 million of occupancy charges

State Street Corporation | 74

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

related to real estate footprint optimization and $8 million of BBH-related repositioning charges. The BBH-related repositioning charges were recognized in acquisition and restructuring expenses. Expenses included a net repositioning release of $3 million in 2021.

The following table presents aggregate activity for repositioning charges and activity related to previous Beacon restructuring charges for the periods indicated:

TABLE 16: RESTRUCTURING AND REPOSITIONING CHARGES
(In millions)Employee Related CostsReal Estate ActionsAsset and Other Write-offsTotal
Accrual Balance at December 31, 2019$190$7$1$198
Accruals for Beacon(4)(4)
Accruals for Repositioning Charges8251133
Payments and Other Adjustments(78)(52)(1)(131)
Accrual Balance at December 31, 20201906196
Accruals for Beacon(1)(1)
Accruals for Repositioning Charges(32)29(3)
Payments and Other Adjustments(89)(29)(118)
Accrual Balance at December 31, 202168674
Accruals for Repositioning Charges582078
Payments and other adjustments(43)(21)(64)
Accrual Balance at December 31, 2022$83$5$$88

Income Tax Expense

Income tax expense was $553 million in 2022 compared to $478 million in 2021. Our effective tax rate was 16.6% in 2022 compared to 15.1% in 2021. The 2021 effective tax rate included higher discrete benefits from the completion of tax audits than we experienced in 2022.

Additional information regarding income tax expense, including unrecognized tax benefits and tax contingencies, are provided in Notes 13 and 22 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

LINE OF BUSINESS INFORMATION

Our operations are organized into two lines of business: Investment Servicing and Investment Management, which are defined based on products and services provided. The results of operations for these lines of business are not necessarily comparable with those of other companies, including companies in the financial services industry. For the description of our lines of business, refer to "Lines of Business” in Item 1 in this Form 10-K. Certain amounts that are not allocated to our two lines of business, including repositioning charges, employee costs, acquisition costs, revenue-related recoveries and certain legal accruals. See Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Investment Servicing

TABLE 17: INVESTMENT SERVICING LINE OF BUSINESS RESULTS
(Dollars in millions, except where otherwise noted)Years Ended December 31,% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
202220212020
Servicing fees$5,087$5,531$5,157(8)%7%
Foreign exchange trading services1,2711,1491,29911(12)
Securities finance397402342(1)18
Software and processing fees78973868578
Other fee revenue465931(22)90
Total fee revenue7,5907,8797,514(4)5
Net interest income2,5511,9192,21133(13)
Total other income(2)(1)4nmnm
Total revenue10,1399,7979,72931
Provision for credit losses20(33)88nmnm
Total expenses7,2607,1827,07112
Income before income tax expense$2,859$2,648$2,57083
Pre-tax margin28%27%26%
Average assets (in billions)$283.2$296.5$266.4

nm Not meaningful

Servicing Fees

Servicing fees, as presented in Table 17: Investment Servicing Line of Business Results, decreased 8% in 2022 compared to 2021 primarily due to normal pricing headwinds, lower average market levels and lower client activity and adjustments, partially offset by net new business. Currency translation decreased servicing fees revenue by 3% in 2022 relative to 2021.

For additional information about servicing fees and the impact of worldwide equity and fixed-income valuations on our fee revenue, as well as other key drivers of our servicing fee revenue, refer to "Fee Revenue" in "Consolidated Results of Operations" included in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.

Expenses

Total expenses for Investment Servicing increased 1% in 2022 compared to 2021, as expense growth from higher technology infrastructure investments, higher headcount and merit increases was partially offset by productivity savings, on-going expense management initiatives and the benefit of currency translation, which reduced expenses for Investment Servicing by 3% in 2022 relative to 2021. Seasonal deferred incentive compensation expense and payroll taxes were $143 million in 2022 compared to $124 million in 2021. Additional information about expenses is provided under "Expenses" in "Consolidated Results of Operations" included in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.

State Street Corporation | 75

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Investment Management

TABLE 18: INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LINE OF BUSINESS RESULTS
(Dollars in millions, except where otherwise noted)Years Ended December 31,% Change 2022 vs. 2021% Change 2021 vs. 2020
202220212020
Management fees(1)$1,939$2,053$1,880(6)%9%
Foreign exchange trading services(2)82626432(3)
Securities finance19141436
Other fee revenue(3)(47)427nm(85)
Total fee revenue1,9932,1331,985(7)7
Net interest income(7)(14)(11)(50)27
Total revenue1,9862,1191,974(6)7
Total expenses1,3961,4451,471(3)(2)
Income before income tax expense$590$674$503(12)34
Pre-tax margin30%32%25%
Average assets (in billions)$3.2$3.2$2.9

(1) Includes revenues from SPDR® Gold Shares and SPDR® Gold MiniSharesSM Trust AUM where we are not the investment manager but act as the marketing agent.

(2) Includes revenue for reimbursements received for certain ETFs associated with State Street Global Advisors where we act as the distribution and marketing agent.

(3) Includes other revenue items that are primarily driven by equity market movements.

nm Not meaningful

Investment Management total revenue decreased 6% in 2022 compared to 2021.

Management Fees

Management fees decreased 6% in 2022 compared to 2021, primarily due to lower average equity and fixed income market levels, a previously reported client-specific pricing adjustment and institutional net outflows, partially offset by the absence of the impact of money market fee waivers and net inflows from cash and ETFs. Currency translation decreased management fees by 2% in 2022 relative to 2021.

For additional information about the impact of worldwide equity and fixed-income valuations, as well as other key drivers of our management fees revenue, refer to "Fee Revenue" in "Consolidated Results of Operations" included in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.

Expenses

Total expenses for Investment Management decreased 3% in 2022 compared to 2021, as savings from on-going expense management initiatives and lower incentive compensation were partially offset by merit increases. Currency translation reduced expenses for Investment Management by 2% in 2022 relative to 2021. Seasonal deferred incentive compensation expense and payroll taxes were $65 million in 2022, compared to $52 million in 2021.

Additional information about expenses is provided under "Expenses" in "Consolidated Results of Operations" included in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.

For additional information about our two lines of business, as well as the revenues, expenses and capital allocation methodologies associated with them, refer to Note 24 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

FINANCIAL CONDITION

The structure of our consolidated statement of condition is primarily driven by the liabilities generated by our Investment Servicing and Investment Management lines of business. Our clients' needs and our operating objectives determine the volume, mix and currency denomination of our assets and liabilities. As our clients execute their worldwide cash management and investment activities, they utilize deposits and short-term investments that constitute the majority of our liabilities. These liabilities are generally in the form of interest-bearing transaction account deposits, which are denominated in a variety of currencies; non-interest-bearing demand deposits; and repurchase agreements, which generally serve as short-term investment alternatives for our clients.

Deposits and other liabilities resulting from client initiated transactions are invested in assets that generally have contractual maturities significantly longer than our liabilities; however, we evaluate the operational nature of our deposits and seek to maintain appropriate short-term liquidity of those liabilities that are not operational in nature and maintain longer-termed assets for our operational deposits. Our assets consist primarily of securities held in our AFS or HTM portfolios and short-duration financial instruments, such as interest-bearing deposits with banks and securities purchased under resale agreements. The actual mix of assets is determined by the characteristics of the client liabilities and our desire to maintain a well-diversified portfolio of high-quality assets.

Additional information on our financial condition is presented in Table 14: Average Balances and Interest Rates - Fully Taxable-Equivalent Basis. We believe the average statement of condition is a better measure of the balance

State Street Corporation | 76

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

sheet trends as period-end balances can be impacted by the timing of client activities including deposits and withdrawals.

Investment Securities

TABLE 19: CARRYING VALUES OF INVESTMENT SECURITIES
As of December 31,
(In millions)202220212020
Available-for-sale:
U.S. Treasury and federal agencies:
Direct obligations$7,981$17,939$6,575
Mortgage-backed securities8,50918,20814,305
Total U.S. Treasury and federal agencies16,49036,14720,880
Non-U.S. debt securities:
Mortgage-backed securities1,6231,9951,996
Asset-backed securities(1)1,6692,0872,291
Non-U.S. sovereign, supranational and non-U.S. agency14,08923,54722,087
Other(2)2,0913,0983,355
Total non-U.S. debt securities19,47230,72729,729
Asset-backed securities:
Student loans(3)115211314
Collateralized loan obligations(4)2,355912,966
Non-agency CMBS and RMBS(5)2315278
Other882,15590
Total asset-backed securities2,7892,5093,448
State and political subdivisions8231,2721,548
Other U.S. debt securities(6)1,0052,7443,443
Total available-for-sale securities$40,579$73,399$59,048
Held-to-maturity:
U.S. Treasury and federal agencies:
Direct obligations$11,693$2,170$6,057
Mortgage-backed securities42,30733,48136,901
Total U.S. Treasury and federal agencies54,00035,65142,958
Non-U.S. debt securities:
Mortgage-backed securities303
Non-U.S. sovereign, supranational and non-U.S. agency6,6031,564342
Total non-U.S. debt securities6,6031,564645
Asset-backed securities:
Student loans(3)3,9554,9084,774
Non-agency CMBS and RMBS(7)142307554
Total asset-backed securities4,0975,2155,328
Total(8)64,70042,43048,931
Held-to-maturity under money market mutual fund liquidity facility(8)3,300
Total held-to-maturity securities(8)$64,700$42,430$52,231

(1) As of December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, the fair value non-U.S. collateralized loan obligations of $0.86 billion, $0.83 billion and $0.96 billion, respectively.

(2) As of December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, the fair value includes non-U.S. corporate bonds of $1.14 billion, $1.53 billion and $1.88 billion, respectively.

(3) Primarily comprised of securities guaranteed by the federal government with respect to at least 97% of defaulted principal and accrued interest on the underlying loans.

(4) Excludes collateralized loan obligations in loan form. Refer to Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K for additional information.

(5) Consists entirely of non-agency CMBS as of December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020.

(6) As of December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, the fair value of U.S. corporate bonds was $1.01 billion, $2.44 billion and $3.44 billion, respectively.

(7) As of December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, the total amortized cost included $133 million, $292 million and $464 million, respectively, of non-agency CMBS and $9 million, $14 million and $90 million, respectively, of non-agency RMBS.

(8) As of December 31, 2020, we recognized an allowance for credit losses on all HTM securities of $3 million, inclusive of $1 million related to HTM securities purchased under the money market mutual fund liquidity facility.

Additional information about our investment securities portfolio is provided in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

We manage our investment securities portfolio to align with the interest rate and duration characteristics of our client liabilities and in the context of the overall structure of our consolidated statement of condition, in consideration of the global interest rate environment. We consider a well-diversified, high-credit quality investment securities portfolio to be an important element in the management of our consolidated statement of condition.

In 2022, we completed a number of actions to mitigate additional AOCI risk in the current environment including a $23.56 billion transfer of securities from AFS to HTM. While these measures may serve to mitigate additional AOCI risk, we continue to be exposed to risks associated with sudden or significant AOCI deterioration, particularly in an environment of continuing significant, and potentially, historic interest rate increases. There can be no assurance that we will not experience further, potentially material AOCI deterioration.

Average duration of our investment securities portfolio was 2.6 years and 2.9 years as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Approximately 95% of the carrying value of the portfolio was rated “AA” or higher as of both December 31, 2022 and 2021 as follows:

TABLE 20: INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO BY EXTERNAL CREDIT RATING
December 31, 2022December 31, 2021
AAA(1)84%79%
AA1113
A34
BBB24
100%100%

(1) Includes U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities that are split-rated, “AAA” by Moody’s Investors Service and “AA+” by Standard & Poor’s and also includes Agency MBS securities which are not explicitly rated but which have an explicit or assumed guarantee from the U.S. government.

State Street Corporation | 77

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, the investment portfolio was diversified with respect to asset class composition. The following table presents the composition of these asset classes.

TABLE 21: INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO BY ASSET CLASS
December 31, 2022December 31, 2021
U.S. Agency Mortgage-backed securities37%33%
Non-U.S. sovereign, supranational and non-U.S. agency1921
U.S. Treasuries1917
Asset-backed securities910
Other credit1619
100%100%

Non-U.S. Debt Securities

Approximately 25% and 28% of the aggregate carrying value of our investment securities portfolio was non-U.S. debt securities as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

TABLE 22: NON-U.S. DEBT SECURITIES(1)
(In millions)December 31, 2022December 31, 2021
Available-for-sale:
Canada$3,685$4,502
Australia2,1593,019
United Kingdom1,4491,961
Germany1,1472,130
France1,0592,180
Austria7691,478
Japan7681,332
Hong Kong701
Netherlands5421,109
Italy290803
Spain2501,227
Republic of Korea230201
Brazil202
Finland185837
Other(2)6,0369,948
Total$19,472$30,727
Held-to-maturity:
Spain$804$
Belgium703
France638
Ireland442
Austria362
Singapore269222
Finland213
Netherlands172
Germany123
Other(2)2,8771,342
Total$6,603$1,564

(1) Geography is determined primarily based on the domicile of collateral or issuer.

(2) As of December 31, 2022, other non-U.S. investments include $5.7 billion supranational bonds in AFS securities and $2.9 billion supranational bonds in HTM securities.

Approximately 86% and 81% of the aggregate carrying value of these non-U.S. debt securities was rated “AAA” or “AA” as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The majority of these securities comprised senior positions within the security structures; these positions have a level of protection provided through subordination and other forms of credit protection. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, approximately 26% and 24%, respectively, of the aggregate carrying value of these non-U.S. debt securities was floating-rate.

As of December 31, 2022, our non-U.S. debt securities had an average market-to-book ratio of 96.5%, and an aggregate pre-tax net unrealized loss of $937 million, composed of gross unrealized gains of $1 million and gross unrealized losses of $938 million. These unrealized amounts included:

•a pre-tax net unrealized loss of $633 million, composed of gross unrealized gains of $1 million and gross unrealized losses of $634 million, associated with non-U.S. AFS debt securities; and

•a pre-tax net unrealized loss of $304 million associated with non-U.S. HTM debt securities.

As of December 31, 2022, the underlying collateral for non-U.S. MBS and ABS primarily included mortgages in Australia, the U.K., the Netherlands and Italy. The securities listed under “Canada” were composed of Canadian government securities and provincial bonds, corporate debt and non-U.S. agency securities. The securities listed under “France” were composed of sovereign bonds, corporate debt, covered bonds, ABS and Non-U.S. agency securities. The securities listed under “Japan” were substantially composed of Japanese government securities.

Municipal Obligations

We carried approximately $0.82 billion of municipal securities classified as state and political subdivisions in our investment securities portfolio as of December 31, 2022, as shown in Table 19: Carrying Values of Investment Securities, all of which were classified as AFS. As of December 31, 2022, we also provided approximately $6.98 billion of credit and liquidity facilities to municipal issuers.

State Street Corporation | 78

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

TABLE 23: STATE AND MUNICIPAL OBLIGORS(1)
(Dollars in millions)Total Municipal SecuritiesCredit and Liquidity Facilities(2)Total% of Total Municipal Exposure
December 31, 2022
State of Issuer:
Texas$178$2,395$2,57333%
New York1541,6071,76123
California841,2991,38318
Total$416$5,301$5,717
December 31, 2021
State of Issuer:
Texas$221$2,357$2,57825%
California1082,0052,11321
New York2711,1121,38314
Massachusetts2456969419
Tennessee4914915
Total$845$6,661$7,506

(1) Represented 5% or more of our aggregate municipal credit exposure of approximately $7.81 billion and $10.22 billion across our businesses as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

(2) Includes municipal loans which are also presented within Table 25: U.S. and Non-U.S. Loans .

Our aggregate municipal securities exposure presented in Table 23: State and Municipal Obligors, was concentrated primarily with highly-rated counterparties, with approximately 93% of the obligors rated “AA” or higher as of December 31, 2022. As of that date, approximately 31% and 69% of our aggregate municipal securities exposure was associated with general obligation and revenue bonds, respectively. The portfolios are also diversified geographically, with the states that represent our largest exposures widely dispersed across the U.S.

Additional information with respect to our assessment of impairment of our municipal securities is provided in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

TABLE 24: CONTRACTUAL MATURITIES AND YIELDS
As of December 31, 2022Under 1 Year1 to 5 Years6 to 10 YearsOver 10 YearsTotal
(Dollars in millions)AmountYieldAmountYieldAmountYieldAmountYieldAmount
Available-for-sale(1):
U.S. Treasury and federal agencies:
Direct obligations$1,9400.52%$5,4961.08%$5451.66%$%$7,981
Mortgage-backed securities494.384544.356,3454.061,6613.028,509
Total U.S. treasury and federal agencies1,9895,9506,8901,66116,490
Non-U.S. debt securities:
Mortgage-backed securities583.193823.041,1833.871,623
Asset-backed securities3422.375782.434443.053052.501,669
Non-U.S. sovereign, supranational and non-U.S. agency4,5670.746,8971.522,6253.1014,089
Other1871.941,7692.241202.60152.122,091
Total non-U.S. debt securities5,1549,6263,1891,50319,472
Asset-backed securities:
Student loans396.88764.82115
Collateralized loan obligations1825.103904.301,2055.085785.402,355
Non-agency CMBS and RMBS2315.57231
Other885.0688
Total asset-backed securities2214781,2058852,789
State and political subdivisions(2)1446.242664.713735.99406.21823
Other U.S. debt securities1172.138502.16383.671,005
Total$7,625$17,170$11,695$4,089$40,579
Held-to-maturity(1):
U.S. Treasury and federal agencies:
Direct obligations$2,3290.37%$9,3270.86%$241.66%$134.29%$11,693
Mortgage-backed securities1542.865783.264,6271.9336,9482.3642,307
Total U.S. treasury and federal agencies2,4839,9054,65136,96154,000
Non-U.S. debt securities:
Non-U.S. sovereign, supranational and non-U.S. agency1,5181.044,5201.705650.496,603
Total non-U.S. debt securities1,5184,5205656,603
Asset-backed securities:
Student loans2904.8384.809315.302,7264.873,955
Non-agency CMBS and RMBS1224.94204.13142
Total asset-backed securities41289312,7464,097
Total$4,413$14,433$6,147$39,707$64,700

(1) The maturities of MBS, ABS and CMOs are based on expected principal payments.

(2) Yields were calculated on a FTE basis, using applicable statutory tax rates (21.0% as of December 31, 2022).

State Street Corporation | 79

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Loans

TABLE 25: U.S. AND NON- U.S. LOANS
As of December 31,
(In millions)202220212020
Domestic(1):
Commercial and financial:
Fund Finance(2)$12,154$12,296$11,531
Leveraged Loans2,4313,1062,923
Overdrafts1,7071,7961,894
Collateralized loan obligations in loan form100100
Other(3)1,8712,2622,688
Commercial real estate2,9852,5542,096
Total domestic21,24822,11421,132
Foreign(1):
Commercial and financial:
Fund Finance(2)3,9494,9654,432
Leveraged Loans1,1181,3281,242
Overdrafts1,0941,3121,088
Collateralized loan obligations in loan form4,7412,813
Other(3)31
Total foreign10,90210,4186,793
Total loans(4)32,15032,53227,925
Allowance for loan losses(97)(87)(122)
Loans, net of allowance$32,053$32,445$27,803

(1) Domestic and foreign categorization is based on the borrower’s country of domicile.

(2) Fund finance loans include primarily $7.57 billion private equity capital call finance loans, $6.61 billion loans to real money funds and $1.11 billion loans to business development companies as of December 31, 2022, compared to $9.15 billion and $8.38 billion private equity capital call finance loans, $6.40 billion and $6.04 billion loans to real money funds and $1.39 billion and $832 million loans to business development companies as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

(3) Includes $1.51 billion securities finance loans, $321 million loans to municipalities and $42 million other loans as of December 31, 2022, $1.78 billion securities finance loans, $455 million loans to municipalities and $23 million other loans as of December 31, 2021 and $1.91 billion securities finance loans, $754 million loans to municipalities and $54 million other loans as of December 31, 2020.

(4) As of December 31, 2022, excluding overdrafts, floating rate loans totaled $26.57 billion and fixed rate loans totaled $2.77 billion. We have entered into interest rate swap agreements to hedge the forecasted cash flows associated with LIBOR indexed floating-rate loans. See Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K for additional details.

The decrease in domestic loans was primarily driven by leveraged loans and the increase in foreign loans was primarily driven by an increase in collateralized loan obligations in loan forms, partially offset by a decrease in fund finance loans as of December 31, 2022 compared to December 31, 2021.

As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, our leveraged loans totaled approximately $3.55 billion and $4.43 billion, respectively. We sold $935 million of leveraged loans in 2022.

In addition, we had binding unfunded commitments as of December 31, 2022 and 2021 of $98 million and $124 million, respectively, to participate in syndications of leveraged loans. Additional information about these unfunded

commitments is provided in Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

These leveraged loans, which are primarily rated “speculative” under our internal risk-rating framework (refer to Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K), are externally rated “BBB,” “BB” or “B,” with approximately 96% and 94% of the loans rated “BB” or “B” as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Our investment strategy involves generally limiting our investment to larger, more liquid credits underwritten by major global financial institutions, applying our internal credit analysis process to each potential investment and diversifying our exposure by counterparty and industry segment. However, these loans have significant exposure to credit losses relative to higher-rated loans in our portfolio.

Additional information about all of our loan segments, as well as underlying classes, is provided in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

No loans were modified in troubled debt restructurings as of both December 31, 2022 and 2021.

TABLE 26: CONTRACTUAL MATURITIES FOR LOANS
As of December 31, 2022
(In millions)Under 1 year1 to 5 years5 to 15 yearsTotal
Domestic:
Commercial and financial$11,843$4,951$1,469$18,263
Commercial real estate891,2181,6782,985
Total domestic11,9326,1693,14721,248
Foreign:
Commercial and financial3,8381,8735,19110,902
Total foreign3,8381,8735,19110,902
Total loans$15,770$8,042$8,338$32,150
TABLE 27: CLASSIFICATION OF LOAN BALANCES DUE AFTER ONE YEAR
As of December 31, 2022
(In millions)Loans with predetermined interest ratesLoans with floating or adjustable interest rates
Domestic:
Commercial and financial$321$6,098
Commercial real estate2,409488
Total domestic2,7306,586
Foreign:
Commercial and financial7,064
Total foreign7,064
Total loans$2,730$13,650

State Street Corporation | 80

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Allowance for credit losses

TABLE 28: ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES
Years Ended December 31,
(In millions)202220212020
Allowance for credit losses:
Beginning balance$108$148$93
Provision for credit losses (funded commitments)(1)16(29)83
Provisions for credit losses (unfunded commitments)4(2)3
Provisions for credit losses (investment securities and all other)(2)2
Charge-offs(2)(7)(2)(41)
Other(3)(5)8
Ending balance$121$108$148

(1) The provision for credit losses is primarily related to commercial and financial loans.

(2) The charge-offs are related to commercial and financial loans.

(3) Consists primarily of foreign currency translation.

We recorded a provision for credit losses of $20 million in 2022, due to a downward shift in management's economic outlook that was partially offset by a reduction in overall loan portfolio risk, compared to $33 million release of credit reserves in 2021.

As of December 31, 2022, approximately $73 million of our allowance for credit losses was related to leveraged loans included in the commercial and financial segment compared to $61 million as of December 31, 2021. As our view on current and future economic scenarios changes, our allowance for credit losses related to these loans may be impacted through a change to the provisions for credit losses, reflecting credit migration within our loan portfolio, as well as changes in management's economic outlook as of year-end. The remaining $48 million and $47 million as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, was related to other loans, commercial real estate loans, off-balance sheet commitments and other financial assets held at amortized cost, including investment securities. As of December 31, 2022, the allowance for credit losses represented 0.3% of total loans.

Additional information with respect to the allowance for credit losses, net impairment losses and gross unrealized losses related to investment securities, is provided in "Allowance for Credit Losses" under Significant Accounting Estimates and Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

RISK MANAGEMENT

Overview

In the normal course of our business activities, we are exposed to a variety of risks, some that are inherent in the financial services industry, and others that are more specific to our business activities. Our

risk management framework focuses on material risks, which include the following:

•credit and counterparty risk;

•liquidity risk, funding and management;

•operational risk;

•information technology risk;

•operational resiliency risk;

•market risk associated with our trading activities;

•market risk associated with our non-trading activities, referred to as asset and liability management, consisting primarily of interest rate risk;

•model risk;

•strategic risk; and

•reputational, fiduciary and business conduct risk.

Many of these risks, as well as certain factors underlying each of them, could affect our businesses and our consolidated financial statements, and are discussed in detail under "Risk Factors" in this Form 10-K.

The identification, assessment, monitoring, mitigation and reporting of risks are essential to our financial performance and successful management of our businesses. Accordingly, the scope of our business requires that we consider these risks as part of a comprehensive and well-integrated risk management function.

These risks, if not effectively managed, can result in losses to us as well as erosion of our capital and damage to our reputation. Our approach to risk management, including Board and senior management oversight and a system of policies, procedures, limits, risk measurement and monitoring and internal controls, allows for an assessment of risks within a framework for evaluating opportunities for the prudent use of capital that appropriately balances risk and return.

Our objective is to optimize our returns while operating at a prudent level of risk. In support of this objective, we have instituted a risk appetite framework that aligns our business strategy and financial objectives with the level of risk that we are willing to incur.

State Street Corporation | 81

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

We manage risk with a focus on the following objectives:

•A culture of risk awareness that extends across all of our business activities;

•The identification, classification and quantification of our material risks;

•The establishment of our risk appetite and associated limits and policies, and our compliance with these limits;

•The establishment of a risk management structure at the “top of the house” that enables the control and coordination of risk-taking across the business lines;

•The implementation of stress testing practices and a dynamic risk-assessment capability (additional information with respect to our stress-testing process and practices is provided under "Capital" in this Management's Discussion and Analysis);

•A direct link between risk and strategic-decision making processes and incentive compensation practices; and

•The overall flexibility to adapt to the ever-changing business and market conditions.

Our risk appetite framework outlines the quantitative limits and qualitative goals that define the level and type of risk we are willing to undertake in the course of executing our business strategy, and also serves as a guide in setting risk limits across our business units. It further defines responsibilities for measuring and monitoring risk against limits, and for reporting, escalating, approving and addressing exceptions. Our risk appetite framework is established by ERM, a corporate risk oversight group, in conjunction with the MRAC and the RC of the Board. The Board formally reviews and approves our risk appetite statement annually, or more frequently in response to shifts in endogenous or exogenous risk conditions.

Governance and Structure

Our approach to risk management involves all levels of management, from the Board and its committees, including its Examining and Audit Committee (E&A Committee), the RC, the Human Resources Committee (HRC) and the TOPS, to each business unit and employee. We allocate responsibility for risk oversight so that risk/return decisions are made at an appropriate level, and are subject to robust and effective review and challenge.

Risk management is the responsibility of each employee, and is implemented through three lines of defense:

•The business units, which own and manage the risks inherent in their business, are considered the first line of defense;

•ERM and other support functions, such as Compliance, Finance and Vendor Management, provide the second line of defense; and

•Corporate Audit is the third line of defense, reports to the E&A committee of the Board and is independent from the business units, ERM and other corporate functions. Corporate Audit provides independent assurance to the Board over the design and operating effectiveness of key internal controls included within the risk management framework.

The responsibilities for effective review and challenge reside with senior managers, management oversight committees, Corporate Audit and, ultimately, the Board and its committees.

Corporate-level risk committees provide focused oversight, and establish corporate standards and policies for specific risks, including credit, sovereign exposure, market, liquidity, operational, information technology as well as new business products, regulatory compliance and ethics, vendor risk and model risks. These committees have been delegated the responsibility to develop recommendations and remediation strategies to address issues that affect or have the potential to affect us.

We maintain a risk governance committee structure which serves as the formal governance mechanism through which we seek to undertake the consistent identification, management and mitigation of various risks facing us in connection with our business activities. This governance structure is enhanced and integrated through multi-disciplinary involvement, particularly through ERM. The following chart presents this structure.

While our risk management program is designed to manage the risks in our businesses, internal and external factors may create risks that cannot always be identified or anticipated.

State Street Corporation | 82

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Management Risk Governance Committee Structure
Executive Management Committees:
Management Risk and Capital Committee (MRAC)Business Conduct Committee (BCC)Technology and Operational Risk Committee (TORC)
Risk Committees:
Asset-Liability Committee (ALCO)Credit and Market Risk Committee (CMRC)Fiduciary Review CommitteeOperational Risk and Controls CommitteeTechnology Risk Committee
Recovery and Resolution Planning (RRP) Executive Review BoardBasel Oversight Committee (BOC)New Business and Product CommitteeGlobal Third Party and Outsourcing Risk CommitteeEnterprise Continuity Steering Committee
CCAR Steering CommitteeModel Risk Committee (MRC)Core Compliance and Ethics CommitteeExecutive Operations Management CommitteeEnterprise Data Management Committee
Country Risk CommitteeSSGA Risk CommitteeLegal Entity Oversight Committee
Regulatory Reporting Oversight CommitteeConduct Standards Committee

State Street Corporation | 83

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Enterprise Risk Management

The goal of ERM is to ensure that risks are proactively identified, well-understood and prudently managed in support of our business strategy. ERM provides risk oversight, support and coordination to allow for the consistent identification, measurement and management of risks across business units separate from the business units' activities, and is responsible for the formulation and maintenance of corporate-wide risk management policies and guidelines. In addition, ERM establishes and reviews limits and, in collaboration with business unit management, monitors key risks. Ultimately, ERM works to validate that risk-taking occurs within the risk appetite statement approved by the Board and conforms to associated risk policies, limits and guidelines.

The Chief Risk Officer (CRO) is responsible for our risk management globally, leads ERM and has a dual reporting line to our CEO and the Board’s RC. ERM manages its responsibilities globally through a three-dimensional organization structure:

•“Vertical” business unit-aligned risk groups that support business managers with risk management, measurement and monitoring activities;

•“Horizontal” risk groups that monitor the risks that cross all of our business units (for example, credit and operational risk); and

•Risk oversight for international activities, which combines intersecting “Verticals” and “Horizontals” through a hub and spoke model to provide important regional and legal entity perspectives to the global risk framework.

Sitting on top of this three-dimensional organization structure is a centralized group responsible for the aggregation of risk exposures across the vertical, horizontal and regional dimensions, for consolidated reporting, for setting the corporate-level risk appetite framework and associated limits and policies, and for dynamic risk assessment across our business.

Board Committees

The Board has four committees which assist it in discharging its responsibilities with respect to risk management: the RC, the E&A Committee, the HRC and the TOPS.

•The RC is responsible for oversight related to the operation of our global risk management framework, including policies and procedures establishing risk management governance and processes and risk control infrastructure. It is responsible for reviewing and discussing with management our assessment and management of all risks applicable to our

operations, including credit, market, interest rate, liquidity, operational, regulatory, technology, business, compliance and reputation risks, and related policies. In addition, the RC provides oversight of capital policies, capital planning and balance sheet management, resolution planning and monitors capital adequacy in relation to risk. It is also responsible for discharging the duties and obligations of the Board under applicable Basel and other regulatory requirements.

•The E&A Committee oversees management's operation of our comprehensive system of internal controls covering the integrity of our consolidated financial statements and reports, compliance with laws, regulations and corporate policies. The E&A Committee acts on behalf of the Board in monitoring and overseeing the performance of Corporate Audit and in reviewing certain communications with banking regulators. The E&A Committee has direct responsibility for the appointment, compensation, retention, evaluation and oversight of the work of our independent registered public accounting firm, including sole authority for the establishment of pre-approval policies and procedures for all audit engagements and any non-audit engagements.

•The HRC has direct responsibility for the oversight of human capital management, all compensation plans, policies and programs in which executive officers participate and incentive, retirement, welfare as well as equity plans in which certain of our other employees participate. In addition, it oversees the alignment of our incentive compensation arrangements with our safety and soundness, including the integration of risk management objectives, and related policies, arrangements and control processes consistent with applicable related regulatory rules and guidance.

•The TOPS leads and assists in the Board’s oversight of technology and operational risk management and the role of these risks in executing our strategy and supporting our global business requirements. The TOPS reviews strategic initiatives from a technology and operational risk perspective and reviews and approves technology-related risk matters. In addition, the TOPS reviews matters related to corporate information security and cybersecurity programs, operational and technology resiliency, data

State Street Corporation | 84

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

and access management and third-party risk management.

Executive Management Committees

MRAC is the senior management decision-making body for risk and capital issues, and oversees our financial risks, our consolidated statement of condition, and our capital adequacy, liquidity and recovery and resolution planning. Its responsibilities include:

•The approval of our global risk policies, capital and liquidity management frameworks, including our risk appetite framework;

•The monitoring and assessment of our capital adequacy based on internal policies and regulatory requirements;

•The oversight of our firm-wide risk identification, model risk governance, stress testing and Recovery and Resolution Plan programs; and

•The ongoing monitoring and review of risks undertaken within the businesses, and our senior management oversight and approval of risk strategies and tactics.

MRAC is co-chaired by our CRO and Chief Financial Officer, who regularly present to the RC on developments in the risk environment and performance trends in our key business areas.

BCC provides oversight of our business conduct and culture risks and standards, our commitments to clients and others with whom we do business, and our potential reputational risks, on an enterprise-wide basis. Management considers adherence to high ethical standards to be critical to the success of our business and to our reputation. The BCC is co-chaired by our Chief Compliance Officer and our General Counsel.

TORC provides oversight of, and assesses the effectiveness of, corporate-wide technology and operational risk management programs, and reviews areas of improvement to manage and control technology and operational risk consistently across the organization. TORC is co-chaired by the Chief Operating Officer and the CRO.

Risk Committees

The following second line risk committees, under the oversight of the respective executive management committees, have focused responsibilities for oversight of specific areas of risk management:

Management Risk and Capital Committee

•ALCO is the senior corporate oversight and decision-making body for balance sheet strategy, Global Treasury business activities and risk management for interest rate risk,

liquidity risk and non-trading market risk. ALCO’s roles and responsibilities are designed to be complementary to, and in coordination with the MRAC, which approves the corporate risk appetite and associated balance sheet strategy;

•CMRC is the independent risk oversight and decision-making body for our credit, counterparty, and trading-related activities. It is responsible, as part of the second line of defense within ERM, for overseeing alignment of these activities with our appetite for risk and prevailing policy and guidelines. This committee also serves as a forum to discuss, address, and escalate material risk issues;

•BOC provides oversight and governance over Basel related regulatory requirements, assesses compliance with respect to Basel regulations and approves all material methodologies and changes, policies and reporting;

•RRP Executive Review Board oversees the development of recovery and resolution plans as required by banking regulators;

•MRC monitors the overall level of model risk and provides oversight of the model governance process pertaining to all models, including the validation of key models and the ongoing monitoring of model performance. The MRC may also, as appropriate, mandate remedial actions and compensating controls to be applied to models to address modeling deficiencies as well as other issues identified;

•CCAR Steering Committee provides primary supervision of the stress tests performed in conformity with the Federal Reserve's CCAR process and the Dodd-Frank Act, and is responsible for the overall management, review, and approval of all material assumptions, methodologies, and results of each stress scenario;

•State Street Global Advisors Risk Committee is the most senior oversight and decision making committee for risk management within State Street Global Advisors; the committee is responsible for overseeing the alignment of State Street Global Advisors' strategy, and risk appetite, as well as alignment with our corporate-wide strategy and risk management standards;

•Country Risk Committee oversees the identification, assessment, monitoring, reporting and mitigation, where necessary, of country risks; and

State Street Corporation | 85

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

•Regulatory Reporting Oversight Committee is responsible for providing oversight of regulatory reporting and related report governance processes and accountabilities.

Business Conduct Committee

•Fiduciary Review Committee reviews and assesses the fiduciary risk management programs of those units in which we serve in a fiduciary capacity;

•New Business and Product Committee provides oversight of the evaluation of the risk inherent in proposed new products or services and new business, and extensions of existing products or services, evaluations including economic justification, material risk, compliance, regulatory and legal considerations, and capital and liquidity analyses;

•Core Compliance and Ethics Committee provides review and oversight of our compliance programs, including our culture of compliance and high standards of ethical behavior;

•Legal Entity Oversight Committee establishes standards with respect to the governance of our legal entities, monitors adherence to those standards, and oversees the ongoing evaluation of our legal entity structure, including the formation, maintenance and dissolution of legal entities; and

•The Conduct Standards Committee provides oversight of our enforcement of employee conduct standards.

Technology and Operational Risk Committee

•Operational Risk and Controls Committee along with the support of regional business or entity-specific working groups and committees, is responsible for oversight of our operational risk programs, including determining that the implementation of those programs is designed to identify, manage and control operational risk in an effective and consistent manner across the firm;

•Technology Risk Committee is responsible for the global oversight, review and monitoring of operational, legal and regulatory compliance and reputational risk that may result in a significant change to our Information Technology risk profile or a material financial loss or reputational impact to global technology services. The Committee serves as a forum to provide regular reporting

to TORC and escalate technology risk and control issues to TORC, as appropriate;

•Enterprise Continuity Steering Committee considers matters pertaining to continuity and related risks, including oversight in determining the direction of the continuity program;

•Global Third Party and Outsourcing Risk Committee is responsible for overseeing our framework and processes for the identification, assessment, and ongoing management of third party and outsourcing-related risks. This committee is also a decision-making body for outsourcing strategy, third party risk acceptance, and the end-to-end third party management process, including the oversight of appropriate controls and risk mitigants that comply with applicable regulatory standards;

•Executive Operations Management Committee is a forum for the development of strategy, decision-making, and escalation for operations, regulatory remediation, product management, technology, and the operating model; and

•Enterprise Data Management Committee oversees the enterprise-wide data management strategy, provides independent oversight of the programs associated with enterprise-wide data management, serves as an escalation point for material and emerging enterprise-wide data management issues, and determines / oversees enterprise-wide data management priorities and strategy.

Credit Risk Management

Core Policies and Principles

We define credit risk as the risk of financial loss if a counterparty, borrower or obligor, collectively referred to as a counterparty, is either unable or unwilling to repay borrowings or settle a transaction in accordance with contractual terms. We assume credit risk in our traditional non-trading lending activities, such as overdrafts, loans and contingent commitments, in our investment securities portfolio, where recourse to a counterparty exists, and in our direct and indirect trading activities, such as securities purchased under a resale agreement, principal securities lending and foreign exchange and indemnified agency securities lending. We also assume credit risk in our treasury and securities and other settlement operations, in the form of deposit placements and other cash balances, with central banks or private sector institutions and fee receivables.

We distinguish between three major types of credit risk:

State Street Corporation | 86

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

•Default risk - the risk that a counterparty fails to meet its contractual payment obligations;

•Country risk - the risk that we may suffer a loss, in any given country, due to any of the following reasons: deterioration of economic conditions, political and social upheaval, nationalization and appropriation of assets, government repudiation of indebtedness, exchange controls and disruptive currency depreciation or devaluation; and

•Settlement risk - the risk that the settlement or clearance of transactions will fail, which arises whenever the exchange of cash, securities or other assets is not simultaneous.

The acceptance of credit risk by us is governed by corporate policies and guidelines, which include standardized procedures applied across the entire organization. These policies and guidelines include specific requirements related to each counterparty's risk profile; the markets served; counterparty, industry and country concentrations; and regulatory compliance. These policies and procedures also implement a number of core principles, which include the following:

•We measure and consolidate credit risks attributed to each counterparty, or group of counterparties, in accordance with a “one-obligor” principle that aggregates risks across our business units;

•ERM reviews and approves all material extensions of credit, and material changes to such extensions of credit (such as changes in term, collateral structure or covenants), in accordance with assigned credit-approval authorities;

•Credit-approval authorities are assigned to individuals according to their qualifications, experience and training, and these authorities are periodically reviewed. Our largest exposures require approval by the Credit Committee, a sub-committee of the CMRC. With respect to small and low-risk extensions of credit to certain types of counterparties, approval authority may be granted to individuals outside of ERM;

•We seek to avoid or limit undue concentrations of risk. Counterparty (or groups of counterparties), industry, country and product-specific concentrations of risk are subject to frequent review and approval in accordance with our risk policies and appetite;

•We evaluate the creditworthiness of counterparties through a detailed risk assessment, including the use of internal risk-rating methodologies;

•We review all extensions of credit and the creditworthiness of counterparties at least annually. The nature and extent of these reviews are determined by the size, nature and term of the extensions of credit and the creditworthiness of the counterparty; and

•We subject all corporate policies and guidelines to annual review as an integral part of our periodic assessment of our risk appetite.

Our corporate policies and guidelines require that all extensions of credit are consistent with the bank's standards, limit credit-related losses, and our goal of maintaining a strong financial condition.

Structure and Organization

The Credit and Global Markets Risk group within ERM is responsible for the assessment, approval and monitoring of credit risk across our business. The group is managed centrally, has dedicated teams in a number of locations worldwide, and is responsible for related policies and procedures, and for our internal credit-rating systems and methodologies. In addition, the group, in conjunction with the business units, establishes measurements and limits to control the amount of credit risk accepted across its various business activities, both at the portfolio level and for each individual counterparty or group of counterparties, to individual sectors, and also to counterparties by product and country of risk. These measurements and limits are reviewed periodically, but at least annually.

In conjunction with other groups in ERM, the Credit and Global Markets Risk group is jointly responsible for the design, implementation and oversight of our credit risk measurement and management systems, including data and assessment systems, quantification systems and the reporting framework.

Various key committees within our company are responsible for the oversight of credit risk and associated credit risk policies, systems and models. All credit-related activities are governed by our risk appetite framework and our credit risk guidelines, which define our general philosophy with respect to credit risk and the manner in which we control, manage and monitor such risks.

The previously described CMRC (refer to "Risk Committees") has primary responsibility for the oversight, review and approval of the credit risk guidelines and policies. Credit risk guidelines and

State Street Corporation | 87

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

policies are reviewed periodically, but at least annually.

The Credit Committee, a sub-committee of the CMRC, has responsibility for assigning credit authority and approving the largest and higher-risk extensions of credit to individual counterparties or groups of counterparties.

CMRC provides periodic updates to MRAC and the Board's RC.

Credit Ratings

We perform initial and ongoing reviews to exercise due diligence on the creditworthiness of our counterparties when conducting any business with them or approving any credit limits.

This due diligence process generally includes the assignment of an internal credit rating, which is determined by the use of internally developed and validated methodologies, scorecards and a 15-grade rating scale. This risk-rating process incorporates the use of risk-rating tools in conjunction with management judgment; qualitative and quantitative inputs are captured in a replicable manner and, following a formal review and approval process, an internal credit rating based on our rating scale is assigned. We generally rate our counterparties individually, although some counterparties defined by us as low-risk are rated on a pooled basis. Credit ratings are reviewed and approved by the Credit and Global Markets Risk group or its delegates. We evaluate and rate the credit risk of our counterparties on an ongoing basis. To facilitate comparability across the portfolio, counterparties within a given sector are rated using a risk-rating tool developed for that sector.

Our risk-rating methodologies are approved for use by the Portfolio Risk Committee, a subcommittee of the CMRC, after completion of internal model validation processes, and are subject to an annual review, including re-validation.

Risk Parameter Estimates

Our internal risk-rating system promotes a clear and consistent approach to determining appropriate credit risk classifications for our credit counterparties and exposures. This allows us to track the changes in risk associated with these counterparties and exposures over time. This capability enhances our ability to calculate both risk exposures and capital, and enables better strategic decision making across the organization.

More specifically, our internal risk rating system is used for the following purposes:

•The assessment of the creditworthiness of new counterparties and, in conjunction with our risk appetite statement, the development of appropriate credit limits for our products

and services, including loans, foreign exchange, securities finance, placements and repurchase agreements;

•The automation of limit approvals for certain low-risk counterparties, as defined in our credit risk guidelines and based on the counterparty’s probability-of-default;

•The development of approval authority matrices based on PD; riskier counterparties with higher PDs require higher levels of approval for a comparable PD and limit size compared to less risky counterparties with lower PDs;

•The analysis of risk concentration trends using historical PD and exposure-at-default (EAD), data;

•The determination of the level of management review of short-duration advances depending on PD; riskier counterparties with higher rating class values generally trigger higher levels of management escalation for comparable short-duration advances compared to less risky counterparties with lower rating-class values;

•The monitoring of credit facility utilization levels using EAD values and the identification of instances where counterparties have exceeded limits;

•The aggregation and comparison of counterparty exposures with risk appetite levels to determine if businesses are maintaining appropriate risk levels; and

•The determination of our regulatory capital requirements for the AIRB set forth in the Basel framework.

Credit Risk Mitigation

We seek to limit our credit exposure and reduce any potential credit losses through the use of various types of credit risk mitigation. The Basel III final rule permits us to reflect the application of credit risk mitigation when it meets the standards outlined therein. Examples of forms of credit risk mitigation include a security interest in financial and non financial assets (collateral), netting and guarantees. Where permissible, we apply the recognition of collateral, guarantees and netting to mitigate overall risk within our counterparty credit portfolio. While credit default swaps are permitted under the Basel III final rule, we do not actively use credit default swaps as a risk mitigation tool.

State Street Corporation | 88

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Collateral

In many parts of our business, we regularly require or agree for collateral to be received from or provided to clients and counterparties in connection with contracts that involve credit risk. In our trading businesses, this collateral is typically in the form of cash, as well as highly-rated and/or liquid securities (i.e. government securities and other bonds or equity securities). Credit risks in our non-trading and securities finance businesses are also often secured by bonds and equity securities and by other types of assets. Collateral serves to reduce the risk of loss inherent in an exposure. However, changing market values of the collateral we hold, unexpected increases in the credit exposure to a client or counterparty, reductions in the value or change in the type of securities held by us, as well as operational errors or errors in the manner in which we seek to exercise our rights, may reduce the risk mitigation effects of collateral. While collateral is often an alternative source of repayment, it does not replace the requirement within our policies and guidelines for high-quality underwriting. We also may choose to incur credit exposure without the benefit of collateral or other risk mitigating credits rights.

Our credit risk guidelines require that the collateral we accept for risk mitigation purposes is of high quality, can be reliably valued and is supported by a valid security interest that permits liquidation if or when required. Generally, when collateral is of lower quality, more difficult to value or more challenging to liquidate, higher discounts to market values are applied for the purposes of measuring credit risk. For certain less liquid collateral, longer liquidation periods are assumed when determining the credit exposure.

All types of collateral are assessed regularly by ERM, as is the basis on which the collateral is valued. Our assessment of collateral, including the ability to liquidate collateral in the event of a counterparty default, and also with regard to market values of collateral under a variety of hypothetical market conditions, is an integral component of our assessment of risk and approval of credit limits. We also seek to identify, limit and monitor instances of "wrong-way" risk, where a counterparty’s risk of default is positively correlated with the risk of our collateral eroding in value.

We maintain policies and procedures requiring that documentation used to collateralize a transaction is legal, valid, binding and enforceable in the relevant jurisdictions. We also conduct legal reviews to assess whether our documentation meets these standards on an ongoing basis.

Netting

Netting is a mechanism that allows institutions and counterparties to net offsetting exposures and

payment obligations against one another through the use of qualifying master netting agreements. A master netting agreement allows for certain rights and remedies upon a counterparty default, including the right to net obligations arising under derivatives or other transactions under such agreement. In such an event, the netting of obligations would result in a single net claim owed by, or to, the counterparty. This is commonly referred to as "close-out netting,” and is pursued wherever possible. We may also enter into master agreements that allow for the netting of amounts payable on a given day and in the same currency, reducing our settlement risk. This is commonly referred to as “payment netting,” and is widely used in our foreign exchange activities.

As with collateral, we have policies and procedures in place to apply close-out and payment netting only to the extent that we have verified legal validity and enforceability of the master agreement. In the case of payment netting, operational constraints may preclude us from reducing settlement risk, notwithstanding the legal right to require the same under the master netting agreement. In the event we become unable, due to operational constraints, actions by regulators, changes in accounting principles, law or regulation (or related interpretations) or other factors, to net some or all of our offsetting exposures and payment obligations under those agreements, we would be required to gross up our assets and liabilities on our statement of condition and our calculation of RWA, accordingly.  This would result in a potentially material change in our regulatory ratios, including LCR, and present increased credit, liquidity, asset-and-liability management and operational risks, some of which could be material.

Guarantees

A guarantee is a financial instrument that results in credit support being provided by a third party, (i.e., the protection provider) to the underlying obligor (the beneficiary of the provided protection) on account of an exposure owing by the obligor. The protection provider may support the underlying exposure either in whole or in part. Support of this kind may take different forms. Typical forms of guarantees provided to us include financial guarantees, letters of credit, bankers’ acceptances, purchase undertaking agreement contracts and insurance.

We have established a review process to evaluate guarantees under the applicable requirements of our policies and Basel III requirements. Governance for this evaluation is covered under policies and procedures that require regular reviews of documentation, jurisdictions and credit quality of protection providers.

State Street Corporation | 89

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Credit Limits

Central to our philosophy for our management of credit risk is the approval and imposition of credit limits, against which we monitor the actual and potential future credit exposure arising from our business activities with counterparties or groups of counterparties. Credit limits are a reflection of our risk appetite, which may be determined by the creditworthiness of the counterparty, the nature of the risk inherent in the business undertaken with the counterparty, or a combination of relevant credit factors. Our risk appetite for certain sectors and certain countries and geographic regions may also influence the level of risk we are willing to assume to certain counterparties.

The analysis and approval of credit limits is undertaken similarly across our businesses, although the nature and extent of the analysis may vary, based on the type, term and magnitude of the risk being assumed. Credit limits and underlying exposures are assessed and measured on both a gross and net basis where appropriate, with net exposure determined by deducting the value of any collateral held. For certain types of risk being assumed, we will also assess and measure exposures under a variety of hypothetical market conditions. Credit limit approvals across our business are undertaken by the Credit and Global Markets Risk group, by individuals to whom credit authority has been delegated, or by the Credit Committee.

Credit limits are re-evaluated annually, or more frequently as needed, and are revised periodically on prevailing and anticipated market conditions, changes in counterparty or country-specific credit ratings and outlook, changes in our risk appetite for certain counterparties, sectors or countries, and enhancements to the measurement of credit utilization.

Reporting

Ongoing active monitoring and management of our credit risk is an integral part of our credit risk management framework. We maintain management information systems to identify, measure, monitor and report credit risk across businesses and legal entities, enabling ERM and our businesses to have timely access to information on credit limits and exposures. Monitoring is performed along the dimensions of counterparty, industry, country and product-specific risks to facilitate the identification of concentrations of risk and emerging trends.

Key aspects of this credit risk reporting structure include governance and oversight groups and policies that define standards for the reporting of credit risk, data aggregation and sourcing systems.

The Credit and Global Markets Risk group routinely assesses the composition of our overall

credit risk portfolio for alignment with our stated risk appetite. This assessment includes routine analysis and reporting of the portfolio, monitoring of market-based indicators, the assessment of industry trends and developments and regular reviews of concentrated risks. The Credit and Global Markets Risk group is also responsible, in conjunction with the business units, for defining the appetite for credit risk in the major sectors in which we have a concentration of business activities. These sector-level risk appetite statements, which include counterparty selection criteria and granular underwriting guidelines, are reviewed periodically and approved by the CMRC.

Monitoring

Regular surveillance of credit and counterparty risks is undertaken by our business units, the Credit and Global Markets Risk group and designees with ERM, allowing for oversight. This surveillance process includes, but is not limited to, the following components:

•Annual Reviews. A formal review of counterparties is conducted at least annually and includes a review of operating performance, primary risk factors and our internal credit risk rating. This annual review also includes a review of current and proposed credit limits, an assessment of our ongoing risk appetite and assessment that supporting legal documentation remains effective.

•Interim Monitoring. Monitoring of our largest and riskiest counterparties is undertaken more frequently, utilizing financial information, market indicators and other relevant credit and performance measures. The nature and extent of this interim monitoring is individually tailored to certain counterparties and/or industry sectors to identify material changes to the risk profile of a counterparty (or group of counterparties) and assign an updated internal risk rating in a timely manner.

We maintain an active "watch list" for all counterparties. The watch list status denotes a concern with some aspect of a counterparty's risk profile that warrants closer monitoring of the counterparty's financial performance and related risk factors. Our ongoing monitoring processes are designed to facilitate the early identification of counterparties whose creditworthiness is deteriorating; any counterparty may be placed on the watch list by ERM at its sole discretion.

Counterparties on the watch list generally correspond with the non-investment grade or near non-investment grade ratings established by the major independent credit-rating agencies. The watch

State Street Corporation | 90

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

list also includes any counterparties rated “Special Mention,” “Substandard,” “Doubtful” and “Loss.”

The Credit and Global Markets Risk group maintains primary responsibility for our watch list processes, and generates a quarterly report of all watch list counterparties. The watch list is formally reviewed at least on a quarterly basis, with participation from senior ERM staff, and representatives from the business units and our corporate finance and legal groups as appropriate. These meetings include a review of individual watch list counterparties, together with credit limits and prevailing exposures, and are focused on actions to contain, reduce or eliminate the risk of loss to us. Identified actions are documented and monitored.

Controls

GCR provides a separate level of surveillance and oversight over the integrity of our credit risk management processes, including the internal risk-rating system. GCR reviews counterparty credit ratings for all identified sectors on an ongoing basis. GCR is subject to oversight by the CMRC, and provides periodic updates to the Board’s RC.

Specific activities of GCR include the following:

•Perform separate and objective assessments of our credit and counterparty exposures to determine the nature and extent of risk undertaken by the business units;

•Execute periodic credit process and credit product reviews to assess the quality of credit analysis, compliance with policies, guidelines and relevant regulation, transaction structures and underwriting standards, and risk-rating integrity;

•Identify and monitor developing counterparty, market and/or industry sector trends to limit risk of loss and protect capital;

•Deliver regular and formal reporting to stakeholders, including exam results, identified issues and the status of requisite actions to remedy identified deficiencies;

•Allocate resources for specialized risk assessments (on an as-needed basis); and

•Liaise with assurance partners and regulatory personnel on matters relating to risk rating, reporting and measurement.

Allowance for Credit Losses

We record an allowance for credit losses related to certain on-balance sheet credit exposures, including our financial assets held at amortized cost, as well as certain off-balance sheet credit exposures, including unfunded commitments and letters of credit. Review and evaluation of the adequacy of the

allowance for credit losses is ongoing throughout the year, but occurs at least quarterly, and is based, among other factors, on our evaluation of the level of risk in the portfolio and the estimated effects of our forecasts on our counterparties. We utilize multiple economic scenarios, consisting of a baseline, upside and downside scenarios, to develop our forecast of expected losses.

In 2022, the allowance estimate reflected a downward shift in our economic outlook, which was partially offset by a reduction in loan portfolio risk. Allowance estimates are subject to uncertainties, including those inherent in our model and economic assumptions, and management may use qualitative adjustments. If future data and forecasts deviate relative to the forecasts utilized to determine our allowance for credit losses as of December 31, 2022, or if credit risk migration is higher or lower than forecasted for reasons independent of the economic forecast, our allowance for credit losses will also change.

Additional information about the allowance for credit losses is provided in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Liquidity Risk Management

Our liquidity framework contemplates areas of potential risk to our liquidity based on our activities, size and other appropriate risk-related factors. In managing liquidity risk we employ limits, maintain established metrics and early warning indicators and perform routine stress testing to identify potential liquidity needs. This process involves the evaluation of a combination of internal and external scenarios which assist us in measuring our liquidity position and in identifying potential increases in cash needs or decreases in available sources of cash, as well as the potential impairment of our ability to access the global capital markets.

We manage our liquidity on a global, consolidated basis as well as on a stand-alone basis at our Parent Company and at certain branches and subsidiaries of State Street Bank. State Street Bank generally has access to markets and funding sources limited to banks, such as the federal funds market and the Federal Reserve's discount window. The Parent Company is managed to a more conservative liquidity profile, reflecting narrower market access. Additionally, the Parent Company typically holds, or has direct access to, primarily through SSIF, a direct subsidiary of the Parent Company, and the support agreement, as discussed in "Supervision and Regulation" in Business in this Form 10-K, cash and equivalents intended to meet its current debt maturities and other cash needs, as well as those projected over the next twelve-month period. Absent financial distress at the Parent Company, the liquid assets available at SSIF continue to be available to

State Street Corporation | 91

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

the Parent Company. As of December 31, 2022, the value of our Parent Company's net liquid assets totaled $460 million, compared with $482 million as of December 31, 2021, excluding available liquidity through SSIF. As of December 31, 2022, our Parent Company and State Street Bank had approximately $1.99 billion of senior notes or subordinated debentures outstanding that will mature in the next twelve months.

As a SIFI, our liquidity risk management activities are subject to heightened and evolving regulatory requirements, including interpretations of those requirements, under specific U.S. and international regulations and also resulting from published and unpublished guidance, supervisory activities, such as stress tests, resolution planning, examinations and other regulatory interactions. Satisfaction of these requirements could, in some cases, result in changes in the composition of our investment portfolio, reduced NII or NIM, a reduction in the level of certain business activities or modifications to the way in which we deliver our products and services. If we fail to meet regulatory requirements to the satisfaction of our regulators, we could receive negative regulatory stress test results, incur a resolution plan deficiency or determination of a non-credible resolution plan or otherwise receive an adverse regulatory finding. Our efforts to satisfy, or our failure to satisfy, these regulatory requirements could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Governance

Global Treasury is responsible for our management of liquidity. This includes the day-to-day management of our global liquidity position, the development and monitoring of early warning indicators, key liquidity risk metrics, the creation and execution of stress tests, the evaluation and implementation of regulatory requirements, the maintenance and execution of our liquidity guidelines and contingency funding plan (CFP), and routine management reporting to ALCO, MRAC and the Board's RC.

Global Treasury Risk Management, part of ERM, provides separate oversight over the identification, communication and management of Global Treasury’s risks in support of our business strategy. Global Treasury Risk Management reports to the CRO. Global Treasury Risk Management’s responsibilities relative to liquidity risk management include the development and review of policies and guidelines; the monitoring of limits related to adherence to the liquidity risk guidelines and associated reporting.

Liquidity Framework

We manage liquidity according to several principles that are equally important to our overall liquidity risk management framework:

•Structural liquidity management addresses liquidity by monitoring and directing the composition of our consolidated statement of condition. Structural liquidity is measured by metrics such as the percentage of total wholesale funds to consolidated total assets, and the percentage of non-government investment securities to client deposits. In addition, on a regular basis and as described below, our structural liquidity is evaluated under various stress scenarios.

•Tactical liquidity management addresses our day-to-day funding requirements and is largely driven by changes in our primary source of funding, which are client deposits. Fluctuations in client deposits may be supplemented with short-term borrowings, repurchase agreements, FHLB products and certificates of deposit.

•Stress testing and contingent funding planning are longer-term strategic liquidity risk management practices. Regular and ad hoc liquidity stress testing are performed under various severe but plausible scenarios at the consolidated level and at significant subsidiaries, including State Street Bank. These tests contemplate severe market and events specific to us under various time horizons and severities. Tests contemplate the impact of material changes in key funding sources, credit ratings, additional collateral requirements, contingent uses of funding, systemic shocks to the financial markets and operational failures based on market and assumptions specific to us. The stress tests evaluate the required level of funding versus available sources in an adverse environment. As stress testing contemplates potential forward-looking scenarios, results also serve as a trigger to activate specific liquidity stress levels and contingent funding actions.

CFPs are designed to assist senior management with decision-making associated with any contingency funding response to a possible or actual crisis scenario. The CFPs define roles, responsibilities and management actions to be taken in the event of deterioration of our liquidity profile caused by either an event specific to us or a broader disruption in the capital markets. Specific actions are linked to the level of stress indicated by these measures or by management judgment of market conditions.

State Street Corporation | 92

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Liquidity Risk Metrics

In managing our liquidity, we employ early warning indicators and metrics intended to detect situations which may result in a liquidity stress, including changes in our stock price and spreads on our long-term debt. Additional metrics that are critical to the management of our consolidated statement of condition and monitored as part of our routine liquidity management include measures of our fungible cash position, purchased wholesale funds, unencumbered liquid assets, deposits and the total of investment securities and loans as a percentage of total client deposits.

Asset Liquidity

Central to the management of our liquidity is asset liquidity, which consists primarily of HQLA. HQLA is the amount of liquid assets that qualify for inclusion in the LCR. As a banking organization, we are subject to a minimum LCR under the LCR rule approved by U.S. banking regulators. The LCR is intended to promote the short-term resilience of internationally active banking organizations, like us, to improve the banking industry's ability to absorb shocks arising from market stress over a 30 calendar day period and improve the measurement and management of liquidity risk. The LCR measures an institution’s HQLA against its net cash outflows. HQLA primarily consists of unencumbered cash and certain high quality liquid securities that qualify for inclusion under the LCR rule. We report LCR to the Federal Reserve daily. For the quarters ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, daily average LCR for the Parent Company was 106% and 105%, respectively. The impact of higher deposits on the Parent Company's LCR is offset by a cap, known as the transferability restriction, on the HQLA from State Street Bank and Trust that can be recognized at the Parent Company as defined in the U.S. LCR Final Rule as it prohibits the upstreaming of liquidity under stress. The average HQLA, post-prescribed haircuts for the Parent Company under the LCR final rule definition was $139.88 billion and $159.36 billion for the quarters ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The decrease in average HQLA for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, compared to the quarter ended December 31, 2021, was primarily driven by a decrease in client deposits. For the quarter ended December 31, 2022, LCR for State Street Bank and Trust was approximately 122%. State Street Bank and Trust's LCR is higher than the Parent Company's LCR, primarily due to application of the transferability restriction in the LCR final rule to the calculation of the Parent Company's LCR. This restriction limits the HQLA used in the calculation of the Parent Company's LCR to the amount of net cash outflows of its principal banking subsidiary (State Street Bank and Trust). This transferability restriction does not apply in the calculation of State Street Bank and Trust's LCR, and therefore State Street Bank and

Trust's LCR reflects the benefit of all of its HQLA holdings.

We maintained average cash balances in excess of regulatory requirements governing deposits with the Federal Reserve of approximately $79.52 billion at the Federal Reserve, the ECB and other non-U.S. central banks for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, and $83.48 billion for the quarter ended December 31, 2021. The higher levels of average cash balances with central banks reflect higher levels of client deposits.

Liquid securities carried in our asset liquidity include securities pledged without corresponding advances from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (FRBB), the FHLB, and other non-U.S. central banks. State Street Bank is a member of the FHLB. This membership allows for advances of liquidity in varying terms against high-quality collateral, which helps facilitate asset-and-liability management. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, we had no outstanding borrowings from the FHLB.

Access to primary, intra-day and contingent liquidity provided by these utilities is an important source of contingent liquidity with utilization subject to underlying conditions. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, we had no outstanding primary credit borrowings from the FRBB discount window or any other central bank facility.

In addition to the securities included in our asset liquidity, we have other unencumbered investment securities. These securities are available sources of liquidity, although not as rapidly deployed as those included in our asset liquidity.

The average fair value of total unencumbered securities was $78.25 billion for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, compared to $99.47 billion for the quarter ended December 31, 2021.

Measures of liquidity include LCR and NSFR, which are described in "Supervision and Regulation" in Business in this Form 10-K.

Uses of Liquidity

Significant uses of our liquidity could result from the following: withdrawals of client deposits; draw-downs by our custody clients of lines of credit; advances to clients to settle securities transactions; increases in our investment and loan portfolios; or other permitted purposes. Such circumstances would generally arise under stress conditions including deterioration in credit ratings. A recurring use of our liquidity involves our deployment of HQLA from our investment portfolio to post collateral to financial institutions serving as sources of securities under our enhanced custody program.

We had unfunded commitments to extend credit with gross contractual amounts totaling $31.20 billion

State Street Corporation | 93

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

and $33.03 billion and standby letters of credit totaling $2.13 billion and $3.24 billion as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. These amounts do not reflect the value of any collateral. As of December 31, 2022, approximately 77% of our unfunded commitments to extend credit and 22% of our standby letters of credit expire within one year. Since many of our commitments are expected to expire or renew without being drawn upon, the gross contractual amounts do not necessarily represent our future cash requirements.

Information about our resolution planning and the impact actions under our resolution plans could have on our liquidity is provided in "Supervision and Regulation" in Business in this Form 10-K.

Funding

Deposits

We provide products and services including custody, accounting, administration, daily pricing, FX services, cash management, financial asset management, securities finance and investment advisory services. As a provider of these products and services, we generate client deposits, which have generally provided a stable, low-cost source of funds. As a global custodian, clients place deposits with our entities in various currencies. As of both December 31, 2022 and 2021, approximately 65% of our average total deposit balances were denominated in U.S. dollars, 15% in EUR, 10% in GBP and 10% in all other currencies.

Short-Term Funding

Our on-balance sheet liquid assets are also an integral component of our liquidity management strategy. These assets provide liquidity through maturities of the assets, but more importantly, they provide us with the ability to raise funds by pledging the securities as collateral for borrowings or through outright sales. In addition, our access to the global capital markets gives us the ability to source incremental funding from wholesale investors. As discussed earlier under “Asset Liquidity,” State Street Bank's membership in the FHLB allows for advances of liquidity with varying terms against high-quality collateral.

Short-term secured funding also comes in the form of securities lent or sold under agreements to repurchase. These transactions are short-term in nature, generally overnight and are collateralized by high-quality investment securities. These balances were $1.18 billion and $1.58 billion as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

State Street Bank currently maintains a line of credit with a financial institution of CAD $1.40 billion, or approximately $1.03 billion, as of December 31, 2022, to support its Canadian securities processing operations. The line of credit has no stated termination date and is cancelable by either party with prior notice. As of both December 31, 2022 and 2021, there was no balance outstanding on this line of credit.

Long-Term Funding

We have the ability to issue debt and equity securities under our current universal shelf registration statement to meet current commitments and business needs. In addition, State Street Bank also has current authorization from the Board to issue unsecured senior debt. The total amount remaining for issuance pursuant to this authority is $2.15 billion as of December 31, 2022.

On February 7, 2022, we issued $300 million aggregate principal amount of 1.746% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2026, $650 million aggregate principal amount of 2.203% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2028 and $550 million aggregate principal amount of 2.623% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2033.

On March 30, 2022, we redeemed $750 million aggregate principal amount of 2.825% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2023.

On May 13, 2022, we issued $500 million aggregate principal amount of 4.421% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2033.

On May 15, 2022, we redeemed $750 million aggregate principal amount of 2.653% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2023.

On August 4, 2022, we issued $750 million aggregate principal amount of 4.164% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2033.

On November 4, 2022, we issued $500 million aggregate principal amount of 5.751% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2026 and $500 million aggregate principal amount of 5.820% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2028.

On January 26, 2023, we issued $500 million aggregate principal amount of 4.857% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2026 and $750 million aggregate principal amount of 4.821% fixed-to-floating rate senior notes due 2034.

State Street Corporation | 94

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Agency Credit Ratings

Our ability to maintain consistent access to liquidity is fostered by the maintenance of high investment grade ratings as measured by the major independent credit rating agencies.

TABLE 29: CREDIT RATINGS
As of December 31, 2022
Standard & Poor’sMoody’s Investors ServiceFitch
State Street:
Senior debtAA1AA-
Subordinated debtA-A2A
Junior subordinated debtBBBA3NR
Preferred stockBBBBaa1BBB+
OutlookStableStableStable
State Street Bank:
Short-term depositsA-1+P-1F1+
Long-term depositsAA-Aa1AA+
Senior debt/Long-term issuerAA-Aa3AA
Subordinated debtAAa3NR
OutlookStableStableStable

Factors essential to maintaining high credit ratings include:

•diverse and stable core earnings;

•relative market position;

•strong risk management;

•strong capital ratios;

•diverse liquidity sources, including the global capital markets and client deposits;

•strong liquidity monitoring procedures; and

•preparedness for current or future regulatory developments.

High ratings limit borrowing costs and enhance our liquidity by:

•providing confidence for unsecured funding and depositors;

•increasing the potential market for our debt and improving our ability to offer products;

•facilitating reduced collateral haircuts in secured lending transactions; and

•engaging in transactions in which clients value high credit ratings.

A downgrade or reduction in our credit ratings could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity by restricting our ability to access the capital markets, which could increase the related cost of funds. In turn, this could cause the sudden and large-scale withdrawal of unsecured deposits by our clients, which could lead to drawdowns of unfunded commitments to extend credit or trigger requirements under securities purchase commitments; or require additional collateral or force terminations of certain trading derivative contracts.

A majority of our derivative contracts have been entered into under bilateral agreements with counterparties who may require us to post collateral or terminate the transactions based on changes in our credit ratings. We assess the impact of these arrangements by determining the collateral that would be required assuming a downgrade by the major rating agencies. The additional collateral or termination payments related to our net derivative liabilities under these arrangements that could have been called by counterparties in the event of a downgrade in our credit ratings below levels specified in the agreements is provided in Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K. Other funding sources, such as secured financing transactions and other margin requirements, for which there are no explicit triggers, could also be adversely affected.

State Street Corporation | 95

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Contractual Cash Obligations and Other Commitments

The long-term contractual cash obligations included within Table 30: Long-Term Contractual Cash Obligations were recorded in our consolidated statement of condition as of December 31, 2022, except for the interest portions of long-term debt and finance leases.

TABLE 30: LONG-TERM CONTRACTUAL CASH OBLIGATIONS
December 31, 2022Payments Due by Period
(In millions)Less than 1 year1-3 years4-5 yearsOver 5 yearsTotal
Long-term debt(1)(2)$1,991$3,661$2,607$6,561$14,820
Operating leases189232154101676
Finance lease obligations(2)5010431185
Tax liability104757
Total contractual cash obligations$2,240$4,044$2,792$6,662$15,738

(1) Long-term debt excludes finance lease obligations (presented as a separate line item) and the effect of interest rate swaps. Interest payments were calculated at the stated rate with the exception of floating-rate debt, for which payments were calculated using the indexed rate in effect as of December 31, 2022.

(2) Additional information about contractual cash obligations related to long-term debt and operating and finance leases is provided in Notes 9 and 20 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Total contractual cash obligations shown in Table 30: Long-Term Contractual Cash Obligations do not include:

•Obligations which will be settled in cash, primarily in less than one year, such as client deposits, federal funds purchased, securities sold under repurchase agreements and other short-term borrowings. Additional information about deposits, federal funds purchased, securities sold under repurchase agreements and other short-term borrowings is provided in Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

•Obligations related to derivative instruments because the derivative-related amounts recorded in our consolidated statement of condition as of December 31, 2022 did not represent the amounts that may ultimately be paid under the contracts upon settlement. Additional information about our derivative instruments is provided in Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K. We have obligations under pension and other post-retirement benefit plans, with additional information provided in Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K, which are not included in Table 30: Long-Term Contractual Cash Obligations.

TABLE 31: OTHER COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
Duration of Commitment as of December 31, 2022
(In millions)Less than 1 year1-3 years4-5 yearsOver 5 yearsTotal amountscommitted(1)
Indemnified securities financing$348,924$$$$348,924
Unfunded credit facilities21,6824,1705,17218431,208
Standby letters of credit4678128462,125
Purchase obligations(2)2365022971921,227
Total commercial commitments$371,309$5,484$6,315$376$383,484

(1) Total amounts committed reflect participations to independent third parties, if any.

(2) Amounts represent obligations pursuant to legally binding agreements, where we have agreed to purchase products or services with a specific minimum quantity defined at a fixed, minimum or variable price over a specified period of time.

Additional information about the commitments presented in Table 31: Other commercial commitments, except for purchase obligations, is provided in Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

State Street Corporation | 96

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Operational Risk Management

Overview

Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events.

Tight labor markets, challenging conditions in the global equity and fixed income markets, and heightened geopolitical tensions, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, are resulting in stress on the operating environment and have increased, and may continue to increase, operational risk. The war in Ukraine may also heighten information technology risk exposures, including cyber-threats. See also “Information Technology Risk Management” below.

Operational risk encompasses fiduciary risk and legal risk. Fiduciary risk is defined as the risk that we fail to properly exercise our fiduciary duties in our provision of products or services to clients. Legal risk is the risk of loss resulting from failure to comply with laws and contractual obligations.

Operational risk is inherent in the performance of investment servicing and investment management activities on behalf of our clients. Whether it be fiduciary risk, risk associated with execution and processing or other types of operational risk, a consistent, transparent and effective operational risk framework is key to identifying, monitoring and managing operational risk.

We have established an operational risk framework that is based on three major goals:

•Strong, active governance;

•Ownership and accountability; and

•Consistency and transparency.

Governance

Our Board is responsible for the approval and oversight of our overall operational risk framework. It does so through its TOPS, which reviews our operational risk framework and recommends RC approval of our operational risk policy annually.

Our operational risk policy establishes our approach to our management of operational risk across our business. The policy identifies the responsibilities of individuals and committees charged with oversight of the management of operational risk, and articulates a broad mandate that supports implementation of the operational risk framework.

ERM and other control groups provide the oversight, validation and verification of the management and measurement of operational risk.

Executive management actively manages and oversees our operational risk framework through membership on various risk management committees, including MRAC, the BCC, TORC, the

Operational Risk and Controls Committee, the Cybersecurity Risk Committee, the Enterprise Continuity Steering Committee, the Compliance and Ethics Committee, the Third Party and Outsourcing Risk Committee, and the Fiduciary Review Committee, all of which ultimately report to the appropriate committee of the Board.

The Operational Risk and Controls Committee, chaired by the global head of Operational Risk, provides cross-business oversight of operational risk, operational risk programs and their implementation to identify, measure, manage and control operational risk in an effective and consistent manner and reviews and approves operational risk guidelines intended to maintain a consistent implementation of our corporate operational risk policy and framework.

Ownership and Accountability

We have implemented our operational risk framework to support the broad mandate established by our operational risk policy. This framework represents a set of processes and tools that assists us in the management and measurement of operational risk, including our calculation of required capital and RWA.

The framework utilizes aspects of the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) framework and other industry leading practices, and is designed foremost to address our risk management needs while complying with regulatory requirements. The operational risk framework is intended to provide a number of important benefits, including:

•A common understanding of operational risk management and its supporting processes;

•The clarification of responsibilities for the management of operational risk across our business;

•The alignment of business priorities with risk management objectives;

•The active management of risk and early identification of emerging risks;

•The consistent application of policies and the collection of data for risk management and measurement; and

•The estimation of our operational risk capital requirement.

The operational risk framework employs a distributed risk management infrastructure executed by ERM groups aligned with the business units, which are responsible for the implementation of the operational risk framework at the business unit level.

As with other risks, senior business unit management is responsible for the day-to-day operational risk management of their respective

State Street Corporation | 97

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

businesses. It is business unit management's responsibility to provide oversight of the implementation and ongoing execution of the operational risk framework within their respective organizations, as well as coordination and communication with ERM.

Consistency and Transparency

A number of corporate control functions are directly responsible for implementing and assessing various aspects of our operational risk framework, with the overarching goal of consistency and transparency to meet the evolving needs of the business:

•The global head of Operational Risk, a member of the CRO’s executive management team, leads ERM’s corporate ORM group. ORM is responsible for the strategy, evolution and consistent implementation of our operational risk guidelines, framework and supporting tools across our business. ORM reviews and analyzes operational key risk information, events, metrics and indicators at the business unit and corporate level for purposes of risk management, reporting and escalation to the CRO, senior management and governance committees;

•ERM’s Centralized Modeling and Analytics group develops and maintains operational risk capital estimation models, and ORM's Capital Analysis group calculates our required capital for operational risk;

•ERM’s MVG validates the quantitative models used to measure operational risk, and ORM performs validation checks on the output of the model;

•GCS establishes the framework, policies and related programs to measure, monitor and report on information security risks, including the effectiveness of cybersecurity program protections. GCS defines and manages the enterprise-wide information security program. GCS coordinates with Information Technology, control functions and business units to support the confidentiality, integrity and availability of corporate information assets. GCS identifies and employs a risk-based methodology consistent with applicable regulatory cybersecurity requirements and monitors the compliance of our systems with information security policies; and

•Corporate Audit performs separate reviews of the application of operational risk management practices and methodologies utilized across our business.

Our operational risk framework consists of five components, each described below.

Risk Identification and Assessments

The objective of risk identification and assessments is to understand business unit strategy, risk profile and potential exposures. It is achieved through a series of risk assessments across our business using techniques for the identification, assessment and measurement of risk across a spectrum of potential frequency and severity combinations, including business-specific programs to identify, assess and measure risk, such as new business and product review and approval, new client screening, and, as deemed appropriate, targeted risk assessments. Two primary risk assessment programs, which occur annually, augmented by other business-specific programs, are the core of this component:

•The risk and control assessment program seeks to understand the risks associated with day-to-day activities, and the effectiveness of controls intended to manage potential exposures arising from these activities. These risks are typically frequent in nature but generally not severe in terms of exposure; and

•The Material Risk Identification process utilizes a bottom-up approach to identify our most significant risk exposures across all on- and off-balance sheet risk-taking activities. The program is specifically designed to consider risks that could have a material impact irrespective of their likelihood or frequency. This can include risks that may have an impact on longer-term business objectives, such as significant change management activities or long-term strategic initiatives.

Capital Analysis

The primary measurement tool used is an internally developed loss distribution approach (LDA) model. We use the LDA model to quantify required operational risk capital, from which we calculate RWA related to operational risk. Such required capital and RWA totaled $3.42 billion and $42.76 billion, respectively, as of December 31, 2022, compared to $3.64 billion and $45.60 billion, respectively, as of December 31, 2021; refer to the "Capital" section in "Financial Condition," of this Management's Discussion and Analysis.

The LDA model incorporates the three required operational risk elements described below:

•Internal loss event data is collected from across our business in conformity with our operating loss policy that establishes the

State Street Corporation | 98

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

requirements for collecting and reporting individual loss events. We categorize the data into seven Basel-defined event types and further subdivide the data by business unit, as deemed appropriate. Each of these loss events are represented in a UOM which is used to estimate a specific amount of capital required for the types of loss events that fall into each specific category. Some UOMs are measured at the corporate level because they are not “business specific,” such as damage to physical assets, where the cause of an event is not primarily driven by the behavior of a single business unit. Internal losses of $500 or greater are captured, analyzed and included in the modeling approach. Loss event data is collected using a corporate-wide data collection tool, Incident Capture and Management System (ICAMS), to support processes related to analysis, management reporting and the calculation of required capital. Internal loss event data provides our frequency and severity information to our capital calculation process for historical loss events experienced by us. Internal loss event data may be incorporated into our LDA model in a future quarter following the realization of the losses, with the timing and categorization dependent on the processes for model updates and, if applicable, model revalidation and regulatory review and related supervisory processes. An individual loss event can have a significant effect on the output of our LDA model and our operational risk RWA under the advanced approaches depending on the severity of the loss event, its categorization among the seven Basel-defined UOMs and the stability of the distributional approach for a particular UOM;

•External loss event data provides information with respect to loss event severity from other financial institutions to inform our capital estimation process of events in similar business units at other banking organizations. This information supplements the data pool available for use in our LDA model. Assessments of the sufficiency of internal data and the relevance of external data are completed before pooling the two data sources for use in our LDA model; and

•Business environment and internal control factors are gathered from internal loss event data and business-relevant metrics, such as risk assessment program results, along with industry loss event data and case studies where appropriate. Business environment

and internal control factors are those characteristics of a bank’s internal and external operating environment that bear an exposure to operational risk. The use of this information indirectly influences our calculation of required capital by providing additional relevant data to workshop participants when reviewing specific UOM risks.

Monitoring, Reporting and Analytics

The objective of risk monitoring is to proactively monitor the changing business environment and corresponding operational risk exposure. It is achieved through a series of quantitative and qualitative monitoring tools that are designed to allow us to understand changes in the business environment, internal control factors, risk metrics, risk assessments, exposures and operating effectiveness, as well as details of loss events and progress on risk initiatives implemented to mitigate potential risk exposures.

Operational risk reporting is intended to provide transparency, thereby enabling management to manage risk, provide oversight and escalate issues in a timely manner. It is designed to allow the business units, executive management, and the Board's control functions and committees to gain insight into activities that may result in risks and potential exposures. Reports are intended to identify business activities that are experiencing processing issues, whether or not they result in actual loss events. Reporting includes results of monitoring activities, internal and external examinations, regulatory reviews and control assessments. These elements combine in a manner designed to provide a view of potential and emerging risks facing us and information that details its progress on managing risks.

Effectiveness and Testing

The objective of effectiveness and testing is to verify that internal controls are designed appropriately, are consistent with corporate and regulatory standards, and are operating effectively. It is achieved through a series of assessments by both internal and external parties, independent registered public accounting firms, business self-assessments and other control function reviews, such as a Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) testing program.

Consistent with our standard model validation process, the operational risk LDA model is subject to a detailed review, overseen by the MRC. In addition, the model is subject to a rigorous internal governance process. All changes to the model or input parameters, and the deployment of model updates, are reviewed and approved by the Operational Risk and Controls Committee, which has oversight

State Street Corporation | 99

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

responsibility for the model, with technical input from the MRC.

Documentation and Guidelines

Documentation and guidelines allow for consistency and repeatability of the various processes that support the operational risk framework across our business.

Operational risk guidelines document our practices and describe the key elements in a business unit's operational risk management program. The purpose of the guidelines is to set forth and define key operational risk terms, provide further detail on our operational risk programs, and detail the business units' responsibilities to identify, assess, measure, monitor and report operational risk. The guideline supports our operational risk policy.

Data standards have been established with the intent of maintaining consistent data repositories and systems that are controlled, accurate and available on a timely basis to support operational risk management.

Information Technology Risk Management

Overview and Principles

We define information technology risk as the risk associated with the use, ownership, operation, involvement, influence and adoption of information technology. Information technology risk includes risks potentially triggered by technology non-compliance with regulatory obligations, information security and privacy incidents, business disruption, technology internal control and process gaps, technology operational events and adoption of new business technologies.

The principal technology risks within our technology risk policy and risk appetite framework include:

•Third party and vendor management risk;

•Business disruption and technology resiliency risk;

•Technology change management risk;

•Cyber and information security risk;

•Technology asset and configuration risk; and

•Technology obsolescence risk.

Governance

Our Board is responsible for the approval and oversight of our overall technology risk framework and program. It does so through its TOPS, which reviews and approves our technology risk policy and appetite framework annually.

Our technology risk policy establishes our approach to our management of technology risk across our business. The policy identifies the

responsibilities of individuals and committees charged with oversight of the management of technology risk and articulates a broad mandate that supports implementation of the technology risk framework.

Risk control functions in the business are responsible for adopting and executing the information technology risk framework and reporting requirements. They do this, in part, by developing and maintaining an inventory of critical applications and supporting infrastructure, as well as identifying, assessing and measuring technology risk utilizing the technology risk framework. They are also responsible for monitoring and evaluating risk on a continual basis using key risk indicators, risk reporting and adopting appropriate risk responses to risk issues.

The Chief Technology Risk Officer, a member of the CRO’s executive management team, leads the Enterprise Technology Risk Management (ETRM) function. ETRM is the separate risk function responsible for the technology risk strategy and appetite, and technology risk framework development and execution. ETRM also performs overall technology risk monitoring and reporting to the Board, and provides a separate view of the technology risk posture to executive leadership.

We manage technology risks by:

•Coordinating various risk assessment and risk management activities, including ERM operational risk programs;

•Establishing, through TORC and TOPS of the Board, the enterprise level technology risk and cyber risk appetite and limits;

•Producing enterprise level risk reporting, aggregation, dashboards, profiles and risk appetite statements;

•Validating appropriateness of reporting of information technology risks and risk acceptance to senior management risk committees and the Board;

•Promoting a strong technology risk culture through communication;

•Serving as an escalation and challenge point for technology risk policy guidance, expectations and clarifications;

•Assessing effectiveness of key enterprise information technology risk and internal control remediation programs; and

•Providing risk oversight, challenge and monitoring for the Global Continuity and Third Party Vendor Management Program, including the collection of risk appetite, metrics and key risk indicators, and reviewing issue management processes and consistent program adoption.

State Street Corporation | 100

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Cybersecurity Risk Management

Cybersecurity risk is managed as part of our overall information technology risk framework as outlined above under the direction of our Chief Information Security Officer.

We recognize the significance of cyber-attacks and have taken steps to mitigate the risks associated with them. We have invested in building a mature cybersecurity program to leverage people, technology and processes to protect our systems and the data in our care. We have also implemented a program to help us better measure and manage the cybersecurity risk we face when we engage with third parties for services.

All employees are required to adhere to our cybersecurity policy and standards. Our centralized information security group provides education and training. This training includes a required annual online training class for all employees, multiple simulated phishing attacks and regular information security awareness materials.

We employ Information Security Officers to help the business better understand and manage their information security risks, as well as to work with the centralized Information Security team to drive awareness and compliance throughout the business.

We use independent third parties to perform ethical hacks of key systems to help us better understand the effectiveness of our controls and to better implement more effective controls, and we engage with third parties to conduct reviews of our overall program to help us better align our cybersecurity program with what is required of a large financial services organization.

We have an incident response program in place that is designed to enable a well-coordinated response to mitigate the impact of cyber-attacks, recover from the attack and to drive the appropriate level of communication to internal and external stakeholders.

The TORC assesses and manages the effectiveness of our cybersecurity program, which is overseen by the TOPS of our Board. The TOPS receives regular cybersecurity updates throughout the year and is responsible for reviewing and approving the program on an annual basis.

Market Risk Management

Market risk is defined by U.S. banking regulators as the risk of loss that could result from broad market movements, such as changes in the general level of interest rates, credit spreads, foreign exchange rates or commodity prices. We are exposed to market risk in both our trading and certain of our non-trading, or asset-and-liability management, activities.

Information about the market risk associated with our trading activities is provided below under “Trading Activities.” Information about the market risk associated with our non-trading activities, which consists primarily of interest rate risk, is provided below under “Asset-and-Liability Management Activities.”

Trading Activities

In the conduct of our trading activities, we assume market risk, the level of which is a function of our overall risk appetite, business objectives and liquidity needs, our clients' requirements and market volatility and our execution against those factors.

We engage in trading activities primarily to support our clients' needs and to contribute to our overall corporate earnings and liquidity. In connection with certain of these trading activities, we enter into a variety of derivative financial instruments to support our clients' needs and to manage our interest rate and currency risk. These activities are generally intended to generate foreign exchange trading services revenue and to manage potential earnings volatility. In addition, we provide services related to derivatives in our role as both a manager and a servicer of financial assets.

Our clients use derivatives to manage the financial risks associated with their investment goals and business activities. With the growth of cross-border investing, our clients often enter into foreign exchange forward contracts to convert currency for international investments and to manage the currency risk in their international investment portfolios. As an active participant in the foreign exchange markets, we provide foreign exchange forward and option contracts in support of these client needs, and also act as a dealer in the currency markets.

As part of our trading activities, we assume positions in the foreign exchange and interest rate markets by buying and selling cash instruments and entering into derivative instruments, including foreign exchange forward contracts, foreign exchange and interest rate options and interest rate swaps, interest rate forward contracts and interest rate futures. As of December 31, 2022, the notional amount of these derivative contracts was $2.31 trillion, of which $2.28 trillion was composed of foreign exchange forward, swap and spot contracts. We seek to match positions closely with the objective of mitigating related currency and interest rate risk. All foreign exchange contracts are valued daily at current market rates.

State Street Corporation | 101

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Governance

Our assumption of market risk in our trading activities is an integral part of our corporate risk appetite. The RC of the Board reviews and oversees our management of market risk, including the approval of key market risk policies and the receipt and review of regular market risk reporting, as well as periodic updates on selected market risk topics.

The previously described CMRC (refer to "Risk Committees") oversees all market risk-taking activities across our business associated with trading. The CMRC, which reports to MRAC, is composed of members of ERM, our global markets business and our Global Treasury group, as well as our senior executives who manage our trading businesses and other members of management who possess specialized knowledge. The CMRC meets regularly to monitor the management of our trading market risk activities.

Our business units identify, manage and are responsible for the market risks inherent in their businesses. A dedicated market risk management group within ERM, and other groups within ERM, work with those business units to assist them in the identification, assessment, monitoring, management and control of market risk, and assist business unit managers with their market risk management and measurement activities. ERM provides an additional line of oversight, support and coordination designed to promote the consistent identification, measurement and management of market risk across business units, separate from those business units' discrete activities.

The ERM market risk management group is responsible for the management of corporate-wide market risk, the monitoring of key market risks and the development and maintenance of market risk management policies, guidelines and standards aligned with our corporate risk appetite. This group also establishes and approves market risk tolerance limits and trading authorities based on, but not limited to, measures of notional amounts, sensitivity, VaR and stress. Such limits and authorities are specified in our trading and market risk guidelines which govern our management of trading market risk.

Risk Appetite

Our corporate market risk appetite is specified in policy statements that outline the governance, responsibilities and requirements surrounding the identification, measurement, analysis, management and communication of market risk arising from our trading activities. These policy statements also set forth the market risk control framework designed to monitor, support, manage and control this portion of our risk appetite. All groups involved in the management and control of market risk associated

with trading activities are required to comply with the qualitative and quantitative elements of these policy statements. Our trading market risk control framework is composed of the following:

•A trading market risk management process led by ERM, separate from the business units' discrete activities;

•Defined responsibilities and authorities for the primary groups involved in trading market risk management;

•A trading market risk measurement methodology that captures correlation effects and allows aggregation of market risk across risk types, markets and business lines;

•Daily monitoring, analysis and reporting of market risk exposures associated with trading activities against market risk limits;

•A defined limit structure and escalation process in the event of a market risk limit excess;

•Use of VaR models to measure the one-day market risk exposure of trading positions;

•Use of VaR as a ten-day-based regulatory capital measure of the market risk exposure of trading positions;

•Use of non-VaR-based limits and other controls;

•Use of stressed-VaR models, stress-testing analysis and scenario analysis to support the trading market risk measurement and management process by assessing how portfolios and global business lines perform under extreme market conditions;

•Use of back-testing as a diagnostic tool to assess the accuracy of VaR models and other risk management techniques; and

•A new product approval process that requires market risk teams to assess trading-related market risks and apply risk tolerance limits to proposed new products and business activities.

We use our CAP to assess our overall capital and liquidity in relation to our risk profile and provide a comprehensive strategy for maintaining appropriate capital and liquidity levels. With respect to market risk associated with trading activities, our risk management and our calculations of regulatory capital are based primarily on our internal VaR models and stress testing analysis. As discussed in detail under “Value-at-Risk and Stressed VaR” below, VaR is measured daily by ERM.

The CMRC oversees our market risk exposure in relation to limits established within our risk appetite framework. These limits define threshold levels for

State Street Corporation | 102

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

VaR- and stressed VaR-based measures and are applicable to all trading positions subject to regulatory capital requirements. These limits are designed to mitigate undue concentration of market risk exposure, in light of the primarily non-proprietary nature of our trading activities. The risk appetite framework and associated limits are reviewed and approved by the Board's RC.

Covered Positions

Our trading positions are subject to regulatory market risk capital requirements if they meet the regulatory definition of a “covered position.” A covered position is generally defined by U.S. banking regulators as an on- or off-balance sheet position associated with the organization's trading activities that is free of any restrictions on its tradability, but does not include intangible assets, certain credit derivatives recognized as guarantees and certain equity positions not publicly traded. All FX and commodity positions are considered covered positions, regardless of the accounting treatment they receive. The identification of covered positions for inclusion in our market risk capital framework is governed by our trading and market risk guidelines, which outlines the standards we use to determine whether a trading position is a covered position.

Our covered positions consist primarily of the trading portfolios held by our global markets business. They also arise from certain positions held by our Global Treasury group. These trading positions include products such as foreign exchange spot, foreign exchange forwards, non-deliverable forwards, foreign exchange options, foreign exchange funding swaps, currency futures, financial futures and interest rate futures. New activities are analyzed to determine if the positions arising from such new activities meet the definition of a covered position and conform to our trading and market risk guidelines. This documented analysis, including any decisions with respect to market risk treatments, must receive approval from the CMRC.

We use spot rates, forward points, yield curves and discount factors imported from third-party sources to measure the value of our covered positions, and we use such values to mark our covered positions to market on a daily basis. These values are subject to separate validation by us in order to evaluate reasonableness and consistency with market experience. The mark-to-market gain or loss on spot transactions is calculated by applying the spot rate to the foreign currency principal and comparing the resultant base currency amount to the original transaction principal. The mark-to-market gain or loss on a forward foreign exchange contract or forward cash flow contract is determined as the difference between the life-to-date (historical) value of

the cash flow and the value of the cash flow at the inception of the transaction. The mark-to-market gain or loss on interest rate swaps is determined by discounting the future cash flows from each leg of the swap transaction.

Value-at-Risk and Stressed VaR

We use a variety of risk measurement tools and methodologies, including VaR, which is an estimate of potential loss for a given period within a stated statistical confidence interval. We use a risk measurement methodology to measure trading-related VaR daily. We have adopted standards for measuring trading-related VaR, and we maintain regulatory capital for market risk associated with our trading activities in conformity with currently applicable bank regulatory market risk requirements.

We utilize an internal VaR model to calculate our regulatory market risk capital requirements. We use a historical simulation model to calculate daily VaR- and stressed VaR-based measures for our covered positions in conformity with regulatory requirements. Our VaR model seeks to capture identified material risk factors associated with our covered positions, including risks arising from market movements such as changes in foreign exchange rates, interest rates and option-implied volatilities.

We have adopted standards and guidelines to value our covered positions which govern our VaR- and stressed VaR-based measures. Our regulatory VaR-based measure is calculated based on historical volatilities of market risk factors during a two-year observation period calibrated to a one-tail, 99% confidence interval and a ten-business-day holding period. We also use the same platform to calculate a one-tail, 99% confidence interval, one-business-day VaR for internal risk management purposes. A 99% one-tail confidence interval implies that daily trading losses are not expected to exceed the estimated VaR more than 1% of the time, or less than three business days out of a year.

Our market risk models, including our VaR model, are subject to change in connection with the governance, validation and back-testing processes described below. These models can change as a result of changes in our business activities, our historical experiences, market forces and events, regulations and regulatory interpretations and other factors. In addition, the models are subject to continuing regulatory review and approval. Changes in our models may result in changes in our measurements of our market risk exposures, including VaR, and related measures, including regulatory capital. These changes could result in material changes in those risk measurements and related measures as calculated and compared from period to period.

State Street Corporation | 103

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Value-at-Risk Measures

VaR measures are based on the most recent two years of historical price movements for instruments and related risk factors to which we have exposure. The instruments in question are limited to foreign exchange spot, forward and options contracts and interest rate contracts, including futures and interest rate swaps. Historically, these instruments have exhibited a higher degree of liquidity relative to other available capital markets instruments. As a result, the VaR measures shown reflect our ability to rapidly adjust exposures in highly dynamic markets. For this reason, risk inventory, in the form of net open positions, across all currencies is typically limited. In addition, long and short positions in major, as well as minor, currencies provide risk offsets that limit our potential downside exposure.

Our VaR methodology uses a historical simulation approach based on market-observed changes in foreign exchange rates, U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates and implied volatilities, and incorporates the resulting diversification benefits provided from the mix of our trading positions. Our VaR model incorporates approximately 5,000 risk factors and includes correlations among currency, interest rates and other market rates.

All VaR measures are subject to limitations and must be interpreted accordingly. Some, but not all, of the limitations of our VaR methodology include the following:

•Compared to a shorter observation period, a two-year observation period is slower to reflect increases in market volatility (although temporary increases in market volatility will affect the calculation of VaR for a longer period); consequently, in periods of sudden increases in volatility or increasing volatility, in each case relative to the prior two-year period, the calculation of VaR may understate current risk;

•Compared to a longer observation period, a two-year observation period may not reflect as many past periods of volatility in the markets, because such past volatility is no longer in the observation period; consequently, historical market scenarios of high volatility, even if similar to current or likely future market circumstances, may fall outside the two-year observation period, resulting in a potential understatement of current risk;

•The VaR-based measure is calibrated to a specified level of confidence and does not indicate the potential magnitude of losses beyond this confidence level;

•In certain cases, VaR-based measures approximate the impact of changes in risk factors on the values of positions and portfolios; this may happen because the number of inputs included in the VaR model is necessarily limited; for example, yield curve risk factors do not exist for all future dates;

•The use of historical market information may not be predictive of future events, particularly those that are extreme in nature; this “backward-looking” limitation can cause VaR to understate or overstate risk;

•The effect of extreme and rare market movements is difficult to estimate; this may result from non-linear risk sensitivities as well as the potential for actual volatility and correlation levels to differ from assumptions implicit in the VaR calculations; and

•Intra-day risk is not captured.

We calculate a stressed VaR-based measure using the same model we use to calculate VaR, but with model inputs calibrated to historical data from a range of continuous twelve-month periods that reflect significant financial stress. The stressed VaR model is designed to identify the second-worst outcome occurring in the worst continuous one-year rolling period since July 2007. This stressed VaR meets the regulatory requirement as the rolling ten-day period with an outcome that is worse than 99% of other outcomes during that twelve-month period of financial stress. For each portfolio, the stress period is determined algorithmically by seeking the one-year time horizon that produces the largest ten-business-day VaR from within the available historical data. This historical data set includes the financial crisis of 2008, the highly volatile period surrounding the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis and the Standard & Poor's downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt in August 2011. As the historical data set used to determine the stress period expands over time, future market stress events will be incorporated.

State Street Corporation | 104

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Stress Testing

We have a corporate-wide stress testing program in place that incorporates techniques to measure the potential loss we could suffer in a hypothetical scenario of adverse economic and financial conditions. We also monitor concentrations of risk such as concentration by branch, risk component, and currency pairs. We conduct stress testing on a daily basis based on selected historical stress events that are relevant to our positions in order to estimate the potential impact to our current portfolio should similar market conditions recur, and we also perform stress testing as part of the Federal Reserve's CCAR process. Stress testing is conducted, analyzed and reported at the corporate, trading desk, division and risk-factor level (for example, exchange risk, interest rate risk and volatility risk).

Stress testing results and limits are actively monitored on a daily basis by ERM and reported to the CMRC. Limit breaches are addressed by ERM risk managers in conjunction with the business units, escalated as appropriate, and reviewed by the CMRC if material. In addition, we have established several action triggers that prompt immediate review by management and the implementation of a remediation plan.

We perform scenario analysis daily based on selected historical stress events that are relevant to our positions in order to estimate the potential impact to our current portfolio should similar market conditions recur. Relevant scenarios are chosen from an inventory of historical financial stresses and applied to our current portfolio. These historical event scenarios involve spot foreign exchange, credit, equity, unforeseen geo-political events and natural disasters, and government and central bank intervention scenarios. Examples of the specific historical scenarios we incorporate in our stress testing program may include the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. and the 2008 financial crisis. We continue to update our inventory of historical stress scenarios as new stress conditions emerge in the financial markets.

As each of the historical stress events is associated with a different time horizon, we normalize results by scaling down the longer horizon events to a ten-day horizon and keeping the shorter horizon events (i.e., events that are shorter than ten days) at their original terms. We also conduct sensitivity analysis daily to calculate the impact of a large predefined shock in a specific risk factor or a group of

risk factors on our current portfolio. These predefined shocks include parallel and non-parallel yield curve shifts and foreign exchange spot and volatility surface shifts. In a parallel shift scenario, we apply a constant factor shift across all yield curve tenors. In a non-parallel shift scenario, we apply different shock levels to different tenors of a yield curve, rather than shifting the entire curve by a constant amount. Non-parallel shifts include steepening, flattening and butterflies.

Validation and Back-Testing

We perform frequent back-testing to assess the accuracy of our VaR-based model in estimating loss at the stated confidence level. This back-testing involves the comparison of estimated VaR model outputs to daily, actual profit-and-loss (P&L) outcomes observed from daily market movements. We back-test our VaR model using “clean” P&L, which excludes non-trading revenue such as fees, commissions and NII, as well as estimated revenue from intra-day trading.

Our VaR definition of trading losses excludes items that are not specific to the price movement of the trading assets and liabilities themselves, such as fees, commissions, changes to reserves and gains or losses from intra-day activity.

We experienced three back-testing exceptions in 2022 and one back-testing exception in 2021. At a 99% confidence interval, the statistical expectation for a VaR model is to witness one exception every hundred trading days (or two to three exceptions per year). Two 2022 back-testing exceptions occurred on days of higher volatility on the back of market concerns on economic outlook, inflation and central bank rate policy. A third back-testing exception occurred during the UK market turmoil in late September 2022. The 2021 back-testing exception has been attributed to dislocation in FX markets caused by greater demand for funding over year-end periods.

Our model validation process also evaluates the integrity of our VaR models through the use of regular outcome analysis. This outcome analysis includes back-testing, which compares the VaR model's predictions to actual outcomes using out-of-sample information. Consistent with regulatory guidance, the back-testing compared “clean” P&L, defined above, with the one-day VaR produced by the model. The back-testing was performed for a time period not used for model development. The number of occurrences where “clean” trading-book P&L exceeded the one-day VaR was within our expected VaR tolerance level.

State Street Corporation | 105

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Market Risk Reporting

Our ERM market risk management group is responsible for market risk monitoring and reporting. We use a variety of systems and controlled market feeds from third-party services to compile data for several daily, weekly and monthly management reports.

The following tables present VaR and stressed VaR associated with our trading activities for covered positions held during the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, as measured by our VaR methodology. Diversification effect in the tables below represents the difference between total VaR and the sum of the VaRs for each trading activity. This effect arises because the risks present in our trading activities are not perfectly correlated.

TABLE 32: TEN-DAY VALUE-AT-RISK ASSOCIATED WITH TRADING ACTIVITIES FOR COVERED POSITIONS
Year Ended December 31, 2022As of December 31, 2022Year Ended December 31, 2021As of December 31, 2021
(In thousands)AverageMaximumMinimumVaRAverageMaximumMinimumVaR
Global Markets$8,567$25,779$2,631$7,591$15,214$30,485$5,252$16,998
Global Treasury2,6617,2555595,6323,1899,7622203,556
Diversification(2,591)(6,959)311(6,075)(2,115)(7,958)1,024(4,519)
Total VaR$8,637$26,075$3,501$7,148$16,288$32,289$6,496$16,035
TABLE 33: TEN-DAY STRESSED VALUE-AT-RISK ASSOCIATED WITH TRADING ACTIVITIES FOR COVERED POSITIONS
Year Ended December 31, 2022As of December 31, 2022Year Ended December 31, 2021As of December 31, 2021
(In thousands)AverageMaximumMinimumVaRAverageMaximumMinimumVaR
Global Markets$35,391$97,420$16,413$30,778$41,698$101,535$13,037$65,840
Global Treasury4,62917,6957788,4319,60129,65181412,419
Diversification(5,693)(19,176)(1,014)(12,206)(5,607)(20,018)2,918(17,505)
Total Stressed VaR$34,327$95,939$16,177$27,003$45,692$111,168$16,769$60,754

The average and period-end stressed VaR-based measures were approximately $34 million and $27 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2022, compared to $46 million and $61 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2021. The decrease in the average and period-end VaR-based and stressed VaR-based measures is primarily attributed to lower foreign exchange and interest rate risk positions.

The VaR-based measures as presented in the preceding tables are primarily a reflection of the overall level of market volatility and our appetite for taking market risk in our trading activities. While overall levels of volatility have varied over the historical observation periods, smaller residual market risk positions during the quarter have led to a reduction in VaR measures presented.

We have in the past and may in the future modify and adjust our models and methodologies used to calculate VaR and stressed VaR, subject to regulatory review and approval, and any future modifications and adjustments may result in changes in our VaR-based and stressed VaR-based measures.

The following tables present the VaR and stressed-VaR associated with our trading activities attributable to foreign exchange risk, interest rate risk and volatility risk as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The totals of the VaR-based and stressed VaR-based measures for the three attributes in total exceeded the related total VaR and total stressed VaR presented in the foregoing tables as of each period-end, primarily due to the benefits of diversification across risk types. Diversification effect in the tables below represents the difference between total VaR and the sum of the VaRs for each trading activity. This effect arises because the risks present in our trading activities are not perfectly correlated.

TABLE 34: TEN-DAY VaR ASSOCIATED WITH TRADING ACTIVITIES BY RISK FACTOR(1)
Year Ended December 31, 2022Year Ended December 31, 2021
(In thousands)Foreign Exchange RiskInterest Rate RiskVolatility RiskForeign Exchange RiskInterest Rate RiskVolatility Risk
By component:
Global Markets$5,562$4,656$358$6,945$16,424$108
Global Treasury5,6021,4425313,688
Diversification(6,344)(1,155)(877)(3,682)
Total VaR$4,820$4,943$358$6,599$16,430$108

State Street Corporation | 106

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

TABLE 35: TEN-DAY STRESSED VaR ASSOCIATED WITH TRADING ACTIVITIES BY RISK FACTOR(1)
Year Ended December 31, 2022Year Ended December 31, 2021
(In thousands)Foreign Exchange RiskInterest Rate RiskVolatility RiskForeign Exchange RiskInterest Rate RiskVolatility Risk
By component:
Global Markets$9,527$37,077$565$9,445$63,368$157
Global Treasury7,6239,94166713,218
Diversification(8,189)(15,328)(1,551)(17,500)
Total Stressed VaR$8,961$31,690$565$8,561$59,086$157

(1) For purposes of risk attribution by component, foreign exchange refers only to the risk from market movements in period-end rates.  Forwards, futures, options and swaps with maturities greater than period-end have embedded interest rate risk that is captured by the measures used for interest rate risk.  Accordingly, the interest rate risk embedded in these foreign exchange instruments is included in the interest rate risk component.

Asset and Liability Management Activities

The primary objective of asset and liability management is to provide sustainable NII under varying economic conditions, while protecting the economic value of the assets and liabilities carried on our consolidated statement of condition from the adverse effects of changes in interest rates. While many market factors affect the level of NII and the economic value of our assets and liabilities, one of the most significant factors is our exposure to movements in interest rates. Most of our NII is earned from the investment of client deposits generated by our businesses. We invest these client deposits in assets that conform generally to the liquidity characteristics of our balance sheet liabilities, as well as the currency composition of our significant non-U.S. dollar denominated client deposits.

We quantify NII sensitivity using an earnings simulation model that includes our expectations for new business growth, changes in balance sheet mix and investment portfolio positioning. This measure compares our baseline view of NII over a twelve-month horizon, based on our internal forecast of interest rates, to a wide range of rate shocks. Our baseline view of NII is updated on a regular basis. Table 36, Key Interest Rates for Baseline Forecasts, presents the spot and 12-month forward rates used in our baseline forecasts at December 31, 2022 and 2021. Our baseline rate forecast as of December 31, 2022 was generally consistent with common market expectations for global central bank actions at that point in time, which implied rates to reach peak levels in the first half of 2023 and rate cuts to begin as early as the fourth quarter of 2023.

TABLE 36: KEY INTEREST RATES FOR BASELINE FORECASTS
December 31, 2022December 31, 2021
Fed Funds TargetECB Target(1)10-Year TreasuryFed Funds TargetECB Target(1)10-Year Treasury
Spot rates4.50%2.00%3.87%0.25%(0.50)%1.77%
12-month forward rates4.753.003.811.00(0.50)1.95

(1) European Central Bank deposit facility rate.

In Table 37: Net Interest Income Sensitivity, we report the expected change in NII over the next twelve months from instantaneous shocks to various tenors on the yield curve relative to our baseline rate forecast, including the impacts from U.S. and non-U.S. rates. Each scenario assumes no management action is taken to mitigate the adverse effects of changes in interest rates on our financial performance. While investment securities balances and composition can fluctuate with the level of rates as prepayment assumptions change, for purposes of this analysis our deposit balances and mix are assumed to remain consistent with the baseline forecast which assumes client deposit balance rotation including reductions in non-interest-bearing deposit balances. In lower rate scenarios, the full impact of the shock is realized for all currencies even if the result is negative interest rates.

TABLE 37: NET INTEREST INCOME SENSITIVITY
December 31, 2022December 31, 2021
(In millions)U.S. DollarAll Other CurrenciesTotalU.S. DollarAll Other CurrenciesTotal
Rate change:Benefit (Exposure)Benefit (Exposure)
Parallel shifts:
+100 bps shock$(225)$432$207$447$306$753
–100 bps shock207(419)(212)384(39)345
Steeper yield curve:
'+100 bps shift in long-end rates(1)42236511416130
'-100 bps shift in short-end rates(1)250(397)(147)519(22)497
Flatter yield curve:
'+100 bps shift in short-end rates(1)(267)409142337290627
'-100 bps shift in long-end rates(1)(43)(22)(65)(132)(16)(148)

(1) The short end is 0-3 months. The long end is 5 years and above. Interim term points are interpolated.

State Street Corporation | 107

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Our overall balance sheet, including all currencies, continues to be asset sensitive with an NII benefit in higher rate scenarios. However, our USD balance sheet has become liability sensitive driven by rising USD deposit betas and deposit balance rotation. Our NII sensitivities assumes no management actions are taken to change modeled outcomes including the +100 basis point scenario which assumes that the level of Fed Funds reaches a peak of 6.0%.

As of December 31, 2022,USD NII benefits in lower rate scenarios and is exposed to higher rates primarily driven by our sensitivities on the short-end of the yield curve. Compared to December 31, 2021, our short-end USD sensitivity has changed due to the higher level of market interest rates and the Federal Reserve’s quantitative tightening program resulting in higher deposit betas and deposit balance rotation and reductions. Long end USD sensitivities have decreased since December 31, 2021 as the implementation of investment portfolio risk reduction strategies lowered our forecasted long-end reinvestment.

As of December 31, 2022, non-USD NII benefits in higher rate scenarios and is exposed to lower rates primarily driven by our sensitivities on the short-end of the yield curve. Compared to December 31, 2021, our short-end non-USD sensitivity to higher rates has increased due to the ECB shifting from negative to positive interest rates resulting in lower deposit betas. Our short-end non-USD sensitivity to lower rates has become negative due to higher non-USD yield curves which are no longer impacted by negative interest rates in the -100bp scenario. The December 31, 2021 sensitivities included a significant NII benefit from negative rates by charging interest on client deposits and the impacts of contractual floors on loans and securities.

EVE sensitivity is a discounted cash flow model designed to estimate the fair value of assets and liabilities under a series of interest rate shocks over a long-term horizon. In the following table, we report our EVE sensitivity to 200 bps instantaneous rate shocks, relative to spot interest rates. Management compares the change in EVE sensitivity against our aggregate Tier 1 and Tier 2 risk-based capital, calculated in conformity with current applicable regulatory requirements. EVE sensitivity is dependent on the timing of interest and principal cash flows. Also, the measure only evaluates the spot balance sheet and does not include the impact of new business assumptions.

TABLE 38: ECONOMIC VALUE OF EQUITY SENSITIVITY
As of December 31,
(In millions)20222021
Rate change:Benefit (Exposure)
+200 bps shock$(917)$(1,380)
–200 bps shock1,0823,829

As of December 31, 2022, EVE sensitivity remains exposed to upward shifts in interest rates. Compared to December 31, 2021, our sensitivity in the up 200bp shock scenario decreased due to the implementation of investment portfolio risk reduction strategies resulting in lower securities duration, partially offset by-reduced deposit duration due to higher rates and modelling updates. Compared to December 31, 2021, the change in the down 200 bps scenario is primarily driven by deposit valuation changes between positive and negative rate environments.

Both NII sensitivity and EVE sensitivity are routinely monitored as market conditions change. For additional information about our Asset and Liability Management Activities, refer to Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, "Risk Management."

State Street Corporation | 108

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Model Risk Management

The use of models is widespread throughout the financial services industry, with large and complex organizations relying on sophisticated models to support numerous aspects of their financial decision making. The models contemporaneously represent both a significant advancement in financial management and a source of risk. In large banking organizations like us, model results influence business decisions, and model failure could have a harmful effect on our financial performance. As a result, the MRM Framework seeks to mitigate our model risk.

Our MRM program has three principal components:

•A model risk governance program that defines roles and responsibilities, including the authority to restrict model usage, provides policies and guidance, monitors compliance and reports regularly to the Board on the overall degree of model risk across the corporation;

•A model development process that focuses on sound design and computational accuracy, and includes activities designed to assess data quality, to test for robustness, stability and sensitivity to assumptions, and to conduct ongoing monitoring of model performance; and

•An independent model validation function designed to verify that models are conceptually sound, computationally accurate, are performing as expected, and are in line with their intended use.

The MRM Framework, highlighted above, also provides insight and guidance into addressing key model risks that arise.

Governance

Models used in the regulatory capital calculation can only be deployed for use after undergoing a model validation by ERM's MRM group. The model validation results and/or a decision by the Model Risk Committee must permit model usage or the model may not be used.

ERM’s MRM group is responsible for defining the corporate-wide model risk management framework, maintaining policies that are designed to achieve the framework’s objectives. All regulatory capital calculation models, including any artificial intelligence and machine learning models, must comply with the model risk management framework and corresponding policies. The team is responsible for overall model risk governance capabilities, with particular emphasis in the areas of model validation,

model risk reporting, model performance monitoring, tracking of new model development status and committee-level review and challenge.

MRC, which is composed of senior managers responsible for representing functional areas and business units with key models across the organization, reports to MRAC, and provides guidance and oversight to the MRM function.

Model Development and Ongoing Monitoring

Models are developed under standards governing data sourcing, methodology selection and model integrity testing. Model development includes a statement of purpose to align development with intended use. It may also include a comparison of alternative approaches to promote a sound modeling approach.

Model developers conduct an assessment of data quality and relevance. The development teams conduct a variety of tests of the accuracy, robustness and stability of each model.

Model owners submit models to the MVG for validation on a regular basis, as per the existing policy. The model owners also conduct ongoing monitoring of each model.

Model Validation

MVG is part of MRM within ERM and performs model validations and reviews. MVG is independent, as contemplated by applicable bank regulatory requirements, of both the developers and users of the models. MVG validates models through an evaluation process that assesses the appropriateness, accuracy, and suitability of data inputs, methodologies, documentation, assumptions, and processing code. Model validation also encompasses an assessment of model performance, sensitivity, and robustness, as well as a model’s potential limitations given its particular assumptions or deficiencies. Based on the results of its review, MVG issues a model use decision and may require remedial actions and/or compensating controls on model use. MVG also maintains a model risk rating system, which assigns a risk rating to each model based on an assessment of a model's inherent and residual risks. These ratings aid in the understanding and reporting of model risk across the model portfolio, and enable the triaging of needs for remediation.

Although model validation is the primary method of subjecting models to independent review and challenge, in practice, a multi-step governance process provides the opportunity for challenge by multiple parties. First, MVG conducts a model validation and issues a model use decision. MVG communicates their result as one of the following three outcomes: “Approved”, “Approved with conditions”, or “Not Approved”.  There are three ways

State Street Corporation | 109

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

in which a model can be deemed “Not approved for Use” given a validation:  1) the aggregation of the model scoring within MRM’s model risk rating system is poor enough to result in a “high” rating, 2) the scoring of one or more model risk rating system element(s) is deemed “critical” resulting in an automatic “high” rating irrespective of the other elements as the “critical” element(s) undermines the model, or 3) the remediation action is not properly taken by the due date resulting in a severe compliance breach that undercuts the model rating. Second, these decisions may be reviewed, challenged, and confirmed by the MRC. Finally, model use decisions, risk ratings, and overall levels of model risk may be reported to and reviewed by MRAC. MRM also reports regularly on model risk issues to the Board.

Strategic Risk Management

We define strategic risk as the current or prospective impact on earnings or capital arising from adverse business decisions, improper implementation of strategic initiatives, or lack of responsiveness to industry-wide changes. Strategic risks are influenced by changes in the competitive environment; decline in market performance or changes in our business activities; and the potential secondary impacts of reputational risks, not already captured as market, interest rate, credit, operational, model or liquidity risks. We incorporate strategic risk into our assessment of our business plans and risk and capital management processes. Management of strategic risk is an integral component of all aspects of our business.

Separating the effects of a potential material adverse event into operational and strategic risk is sometimes difficult. For instance, the direct financial impact of an unfavorable event in the form of fines or penalties would be classified as an operational risk loss, while the impact on our reputation and consequently the potential loss of clients and corresponding decline in revenue would be classified as a strategic risk loss. An additional example of strategic risk is the integration of a major acquisition. Failure to successfully integrate the operations of an acquired business, and the resultant inability to retain clients and the associated revenue, would be classified as a loss due to strategic risk.

Strategic risk is managed with a long-term focus. Techniques for its assessment and management include the development of business plans, which are subject to review and challenge from senior management and the Board of Directors, as well as a formal review and approval process for all new business and product proposals. The potential impact of the various elements of strategic risk is difficult to quantify with any degree of precision. We use a

combination of historical earnings volatility, scenario analysis, stress-testing and management judgment to help assess the potential effect on us attributable to strategic risk. Management and control of strategic risks are generally the responsibility of the business units, with oversight from the control functions, as part of their overall strategic planning and internal risk management processes.

CAPITAL

Managing our capital involves evaluating whether our actual and projected levels of capital are commensurate with our risk profile, are in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, and are sufficient to provide us with the financial flexibility to undertake future strategic business initiatives. We assess capital adequacy based on relevant regulatory capital requirements, as well as our own internal capital goals, targets and other relevant metrics.

Framework

Our objective with respect to management of our capital is to maintain a strong capital base in order to provide financial flexibility for our business needs, including funding corporate growth and supporting clients’ cash management needs, and to provide protection against loss to depositors and creditors. We strive to maintain an appropriate level of capital, commensurate with our risk profile, on which an attractive return to shareholders is expected to be realized over both the short and long-term, while protecting our obligations to depositors and creditors and complying with regulatory capital requirements.

Our capital management focuses on our risk exposures, the regulatory requirements applicable to us with respect to multiple capital measures, the evaluations and resulting credit ratings of the major independent rating agencies, our return on capital at both the consolidated and line-of-business level and our capital position relative to our peers.

Assessment of our overall capital adequacy includes the comparison of capital sources with capital uses, as well as the consideration of the quality and quantity of the various components of capital. The assessment seeks to determine the optimal level of capital and composition of capital instruments to satisfy all constituents of capital, with the lowest overall cost to shareholders. Other factors considered in our assessment of capital adequacy are strategic and contingency planning, stress testing and planned capital actions.

Capital Adequacy Process (CAP)

Our primary federal banking regulator is the Federal Reserve. Both we and State Street Bank are subject to the minimum regulatory capital requirements established by the Federal Reserve and defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

State Street Corporation | 110

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Improvement Act. State Street Bank must exceed the regulatory capital thresholds for “well capitalized” in order for our Parent Company to maintain its status as a financial holding company. Accordingly, one of our primary objectives with respect to capital management is to exceed all applicable minimum regulatory capital requirements and for State Street Bank to be “well capitalized” under the PCA guidelines established by the FDIC. Our capital management activities are conducted as part of our corporate-wide CAP and associated Capital Policy and Guidelines.

We consider capital adequacy to be a key element of our financial well-being, which affects our ability to attract and maintain client relationships; operate effectively in the global capital markets; and satisfy regulatory, security holders and shareholder needs. Capital is one of several elements that affect our credit ratings and the ratings of our principal subsidiaries.

In conformity with our Capital Policy and Guidelines, we strive to achieve and maintain specific internal capital levels, not just at a point in time, but over time and during periods of stress, to account for changes in our strategic direction, evolving economic conditions, and financial and market volatility. We have developed and implemented a corporate-wide CAP to assess our overall capital in relation to our risk profile and to provide a comprehensive strategy for maintaining appropriate capital levels. The CAP considers material risks under multiple scenarios, with an emphasis on stress scenarios, and encompasses existing processes and systems used to measure our capital adequacy.

Capital Contingency Planning

Contingency planning is an integral component of capital management. The objective of contingency planning is to monitor current and forecast levels of select capital, liquidity and other measures that serve as early indicators of a potentially adverse capital or liquidity adequacy situation. These measures are one of the inputs used to set our internal capital adequacy level. We review these measures annually for appropriateness and relevance in relation to our financial budget and capital plan. In addition, we maintain an inventory of capital contingency actions designed to conserve or generate capital to support the unique risks in our business model, our client and investor demands and regulatory requirements.

Stress Testing

We administer a robust business-wide stress-testing program that executes stress tests each year to assess the institution’s capital adequacy and/or future performance under adverse conditions. Our stress testing program is structured around what we determine to be the key risks inherent in our

business, as assessed through a recurring material risk identification process. The material risk identification process represents a bottom-up approach to identifying the institution’s most significant risk exposures across all on- and off-balance sheet risk-taking activities, including credit, market, liquidity, interest rate, operational, fiduciary, business, reputation and regulatory risks. These key risks serve as an organizing principle for much of our risk management framework, as well as reporting, including the “risk dashboard” provided to the Board.

In connection with the focus on our key risks, each stress test incorporates idiosyncratic loss events tailored to our unique risk profile and business activities. Due to the nature of our business model and our consolidated statement of condition, our risks differ from those of a traditional commercial bank. Over the past few years, stress scenarios have included a deep recession in the U.S., including impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, a break-up of the Eurozone, a severe recession in China and an oil shock precipitated by turmoil in the Middle East/North Africa region.

The Federal Reserve requires bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, which includes us, to submit a capital plan on an annual basis. The Federal Reserve uses its annual CCAR process, which incorporates hypothetical financial and economic stress scenarios, to review those capital plans and assess whether banking organizations have capital planning processes that account for idiosyncratic risks and provide for sufficient capital to continue operations throughout times of economic and financial stress. As part of its CCAR process, the Federal Reserve assesses each organization’s capital adequacy, capital planning process and plans to distribute capital, such as dividend payments or stock purchase programs. Management and Board risk committees review, challenge and approve CCAR results and assumptions before submission to the Federal Reserve.

Through the evaluation of our capital adequacy and/or future performance under adverse conditions, the stress testing process provides us important insights for capital planning, risk management and strategic decision-making.

Governance

In order to support integrated decision making, we have identified three management elements to aid in the compatibility and coordination of our CAP:

•Risk Management - identification, measurement, monitoring and forecasting of different types of risk and their combined impact on capital adequacy;

State Street Corporation | 111

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

•Capital management - determination of optimal capital levels; and

•Business Management - strategic planning, budgeting, forecasting and performance management.

We have a hierarchical structure supporting appropriate committee review of relevant risk and capital information. The ongoing responsibility for capital management rests with our Treasurer. The Capital Management group within Global Treasury is responsible for the Capital Policy and Guidelines, development of the Capital Plan, the oversight of global capital management and optimization.

The MRAC provides oversight of our capital management, our capital adequacy, our internal targets and the expectations of the major independent credit rating agencies. In addition, MRAC approves our balance sheet strategy and related activities. The Board’s RC assists the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities related to the assessment and management of risk and capital. Our Capital Policy is reviewed and approved annually by the Board's RC.

Global Systemically Important Bank

We have been identified by the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision as a G-SIB. Our designation as a G-SIB is based on a number of factors, as evaluated by banking regulators, and requires us to maintain an additional capital surcharge above the minimum capital ratios set forth in the Basel III rule.

We and our depositary institution subsidiaries are subject to the current Basel III minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratio guidelines.

Additional information about G-SIBs is provided under "Regulatory Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Standards" in "Supervision and Regulation" in Business in this Form 10-K.

Regulatory Capital

We and State Street Bank, as advanced approaches banking organizations, are subject to the U.S. Basel III framework. We are also subject to the final market risk capital rule issued by U.S. banking regulators.

The Basel III rule provides for two frameworks for monitoring capital adequacy: the “standardized approach" and the “advanced approaches", applicable to advanced approaches banking organizations, like us. The standardized approach prescribes standardized calculations for credit risk RWA, including specified risk weights for certain on- and off-balance sheet exposures. The advanced approaches consist of the Advanced Internal Ratings-Based Approach used for the calculation of RWA

related to credit risk, and the Advanced Measurement Approach used for the calculation of RWA related to operational risk.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act enacted in 2010, we and State Street Bank, as advanced approaches banking organizations, are subject to a "capital floor," also referred to as the Collins Amendment, in the assessment of our regulatory capital adequacy, such that our risk-based capital ratios for regulatory assessment purposes are the lower of each ratio calculated under the advanced approaches and the standardized approach. Under the advanced approaches, State Street and State Street Bank are subject to a 2.5% CCB requirement, plus any applicable countercyclical capital buffer requirement, which is currently set at 0%. Under the standardized approach, State Street Bank is subject to the same CCB and countercyclical capital buffer requirements, but for State Street, the 2.5% CCB requirement is replaced by the SCB requirement according to the SCB rule issued in 2020. In addition, State Street is subject to a G-SIB surcharge.

The SCB replaced, under the standardized approach, the CCB with a buffer calculated as the difference between the institution’s starting and lowest projected CET1 ratio under the CCAR severely adverse scenario plus planned common stock dividend payments (as a percentage of RWA) from the fourth through seventh quarter of the CCAR planning horizon. The SCB requirement can be no less than 2.5% of RWA. Breaching the SCB or other regulatory buffer or surcharge will limit a banking organization’s ability to make capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments to executive officers. The countercyclical capital buffer is currently set at zero by U.S. banking regulators.

Our minimum risk-based capital ratios as of January 1, 2022 include a CCB of 2.5% and a SCB of 2.5% for the advanced approaches and standardized approach, respectively, a G-SIB surcharge of 1.0%, and a countercyclical buffer of 0.0%. This results in minimum risk-based ratios of 8.0% for the Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio, 9.5% for the tier 1 capital ratio, and 11.5% for the total capital ratio.

Our current G-SIB surcharge, through December 31, 2023, is 1.0%. Based upon preliminary calculations using data as of December 31, 2022, we currently anticipate that our surcharge will remain at 1% through December 31, 2024; however, that calculation has not yet been finalized and is subject to many financial, balance sheet, market and other factors, and consequently there is a risk that a higher G-SIB surcharge of 1.5% will result from the final calculation.

State Street Corporation | 112

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

To maintain the status of the Parent Company as a financial holding company, we and our insured depository institution subsidiaries are required, among other requirements, to be "well capitalized" as defined by Regulation Y and Regulation H.

The market risk capital rule requires us to use internal models to calculate daily measures of VaR, which reflect general market risk for certain of our trading positions defined by the rule as “covered positions,” as well as stressed-VaR measures to supplement the VaR measures. The rule also requires a public disclosure composed of qualitative and quantitative information about the market risk associated with our trading activities and our related VaR and stressed-VaR measures. The qualitative and quantitative information required by the rule is provided under "Market Risk Management" included in this Management's Discussion and Analysis.

The following table presents the regulatory capital structure and related regulatory capital ratios for us and State Street Bank as of the dates indicated. We are subject to the more stringent of the risk-based capital ratios calculated under the standardized approach and those calculated under the advanced approaches in the assessment of our capital adequacy under applicable bank regulatory standards.

TABLE 39: REGULATORY CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND RELATED REGULATORY CAPITAL RATIOS
State Street CorporationState Street Bank
(Dollars in millions)Basel III Advanced Approaches December 31, 2022Basel III Standardized Approach December 31, 2022Basel III Advanced Approaches December 31, 2021Basel III Standardized Approach December 31, 2021Basel III Advanced Approaches December 31, 2022Basel III Standardized Approach December 31, 2022Basel III Advanced Approaches December 31, 2021Basel III Standardized Approach December 31, 2021
Common shareholders' equity:
Common stock and related surplus$11,234$11,234$11,291$11,291$13,033$13,033$13,047$13,047
Retained earnings27,02827,02825,23825,23816,97516,97515,70015,700
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)(3,711)(3,711)(1,133)(1,133)(3,428)(3,428)(926)(926)
Treasury stock, at cost(11,336)(11,336)(10,009)(10,009)
Total23,21523,21525,38725,38726,58026,58027,82127,821
Regulatory capital adjustments:
Goodwill and other intangible assets, net of associated deferred tax liabilities(8,545)(8,545)(8,935)(8,935)(8,288)(8,288)(8,667)(8,667)
Other adjustments(1)(123)(123)(505)(505)(19)(19)(309)(309)
Common equity tier 1 capital14,54714,54715,94715,94718,27318,27318,84518,845
Preferred stock1,9761,9761,9761,976
Tier 1 capital16,52316,52317,92317,92318,27318,27318,84518,845
Qualifying subordinated long-term debt1,3761,3761,5881,588542542752752
Allowance for credit losses120108120108
Total capital$17,899$18,019$19,511$19,619$18,815$18,935$19,597$19,705
Risk-weighted assets:
Credit risk(2)$61,108$105,739$63,735$109,554$54,675$104,184$57,405$106,405
Operational risk(3)42,763NA45,550NA42,325NA42,813NA
Market risk1,4881,4882,1132,1131,4881,4882,1132,113
Total risk-weighted assets$105,359$107,227$111,398$111,667$98,488$105,672$102,331$108,518
Capital Ratios:2022 Minimum Requirements Including Capital Conservation Buffer and G-SIB Surcharge(4)2021 Minimum Requirements Including Capital Conservation Buffer and G-SIB Surcharge(4)
Common equity tier 1 capital8.0%8.0%13.8%13.6%14.3%14.3%18.6%17.3%18.4%17.4%
Tier 1 capital9.59.515.715.416.116.118.617.318.417.4
Total capital11.511.517.016.817.517.619.117.919.218.2

(1) Other adjustments within CET1 capital include accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) on cash flow hedges that are not recognized at fair value on the balance sheet, the overfunded portion of our defined benefit pension plan obligation net of associated deferred tax liabilities, disallowed deferred tax assets, and other required credit risk-based deductions.

(2) Under the advanced approaches, credit risk RWA includes a CVA which reflects the risk of potential fair value adjustments for credit risk reflected in our valuation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivative contracts. We used a simple CVA approach in conformity with the Basel III advanced approaches.

(3) Under the current advanced approaches rules and regulatory guidance concerning operational risk models, RWA attributable to operational risk can vary substantially from period-to-period, without direct correlation to the effects of a particular loss event on our results of operations and financial condition and impacting dates and periods that may differ from the dates and periods as of and during which the loss event is reflected in our financial statements, with the timing and categorization dependent on the processes for model updates and, if applicable, model revalidation and regulatory review and related supervisory processes. An individual loss event can have a significant effect on the output of our operational RWA under the advanced approaches depending on the severity of the loss event and its categorization among the seven Basel-defined UOMs.

(4) Minimum requirements include a CCB of 2.5% and a SCB of 2.5% for the advanced approaches and the standardized approach, respectively, a G-SIB surcharge of 1.0% and a countercyclical capital buffer of 0%.

NA Not applicable

State Street Corporation | 113

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Our CET1 capital decreased $1.40 billion as of December 31, 2022 compared to December 31, 2021, primarily reflecting lower AOCI from unrealized losses related to AFS securities, largely recognized in the first half of 2022 driven by the significant increase in rates across the yield curve and the resumption of common share repurchases in the fourth quarter of 2022, partially offset by net income. We utilize a hedging program that is designed to minimize volatility in our capital ratios due to impacts of foreign exchange translation on both the numerator (capital) and denominator (RWA and leverage assets). This hedging program, which includes net investment hedging with derivatives, investing in foreign currency and capital repatriation, was generally effective in 2022, contributing to limit the foreign exchange translation impact on CET1 capital ratio. Our Tier 1 capital decreased $1.40 billion as of December 31, 2022 compared to December 31, 2021 under both the advanced approaches and standardized approach, primarily due to the decrease in CET1 capital.

Our Tier 2 capital decreased under the advanced approaches and standardized approach, as of December 31, 2022 compared to December 31, 2021, by $0.21 billion and $0.20 billion, respectively, mainly driven by the maturity of our Tier 2 qualifying debt.

Total capital decreased under the advanced approaches and standardized approach, as of December 31, 2022 compared to December 31, 2021, by $1.61 billion and $1.60 billion, respectively, mainly driven by the decrease in CET1 capital.

The table below presents a roll-forward of CET1 capital, Tier 1 capital and total capital for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021.

TABLE 40: CAPITAL ROLL-FORWARD
(In millions)Basel III Advanced Approaches December 31, 2022Basel III Standardized Approach December, 31, 2022Basel III Advanced Approaches December 31, 2021Basel III Standardized Approach December 31, 2021
Common equity tier 1 capital:
Common equity tier 1 capital balance, beginning of period$15,947$15,947$14,377$14,377
Net income2,7742,7742,6932,693
Changes in treasury stock, at cost(1,327)(1,327)600600
Dividends declared(984)(984)(897)(897)
Goodwill and other intangible assets, net of associated deferred tax liabilities3903908484
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)(1)(2,578)(2,578)(1,320)(1,320)
Other adjustments(1)325325410410
Changes in common equity tier 1 capital(1,400)(1,400)1,5701,570
Common equity tier 1 capital balance, end of period14,54714,54715,94715,947
Additional tier 1 capital:
Tier 1 capital balance, beginning of period17,92317,92316,84816,848
Changes in common equity tier 1 capital(1,400)(1,400)1,5701,570
Net issuance (redemption) of preferred stock(495)(495)
Changes in tier 1 capital(1,400)(1,400)1,0751,075
Tier 1 capital balance, end of period16,52316,52317,92317,923
Tier 2 capital:
Tier 2 capital balance, beginning of period1,5881,6969621,109
Net issuance (redemption) and changes in long-term debt qualifying as tier 2 capital(212)(212)627627
Changes in allowance for credit losses12(1)(40)
Changes in tier 2 capital(212)(200)626587
Tier 2 capital balance, end of period1,3761,4961,5881,696
Total capital:
Total capital balance, beginning of period19,51119,61917,81017,957
Changes in tier 1 capital(1,400)(1,400)1,0751,075
Changes in tier 2 capital(212)(200)626587
Total capital balance, end of period$17,899$18,019$19,511$19,619

(1) Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) includes losses on cash flow hedges where the hedged exposures are not recognized at fair value on the balance sheet, which, under the Capital Rule, must be excluded from CET1 capital. This adjustment is captured in the Other Adjustments line.

State Street Corporation | 114

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following table presents a roll-forward of the Basel III advanced approaches and standardized approach RWA for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021.

TABLE 41: ADVANCED & STANDARDIZED APPROACHES RISK-WEIGHTED ASSETS ROLL-FORWARD
(In millions)Basel III Advanced Approaches December 31, 2022Basel III Advanced Approaches December 31, 2021Basel III Standardized Approach December 31, 2022Basel III Standardized Approach December 31, 2021
Total risk-weighted assets, beginning of period$111,398$109,705$111,667$117,080
Changes in credit risk-weighted assets:
Net increase (decrease) in investment securities-wholesale(4,850)(476)(3,591)(707)
Net increase (decrease) in loans(3,054)2,017(5,387)946
Net increase (decrease) in securitization exposures(5)(404)(5)(489)
Net increase (decrease) in repo-style transaction exposures(1,420)(440)(5,157)(1,658)
Net increase (decrease) in over-the-counter derivatives exposures(1)2,161(1,353)6,295(863)
Net increase (decrease) in all other(2)4,5411,0244,030(2,567)
Net increase (decrease) in credit risk-weighted assets(2,627)368(3,815)(5,338)
Net increase (decrease) in market risk-weighted assets(625)(75)(625)(75)
Net increase (decrease) in operational risk-weighted assets(2,787)1,400N/AN/A
Total risk-weighted assets, end of period$105,359$111,398$107,227$111,667

(1) Under the advanced approaches, includes CVA RWA.

(2) Includes assets not in a definable category, non-material portfolio, cleared transactions, other wholesale, cash and due from banks, interest-bearing deposits with banks and equity exposures.

NA Not applicable.

As of December 31, 2022, total advanced approaches RWA decreased $6.04 billion compared to December 31, 2021, mainly driven by a decrease in operational risk and credit risk RWA. The decrease in operational risk RWA was primarily due to a decrease in the frequency of certain operational loss events. The decrease in credit risk RWA was primarily driven by a net decrease in wholesale investment securities, loans, and repo-style transactions RWA, partially offset by an increase in all other and OTC derivatives RWA.

As of December 31, 2022, total standardized approach RWA decreased $4.44 billion compared to December 31, 2021, mainly driven by a decrease in credit risk RWA. The decrease in credit risk RWA was primarily driven by a net decrease in loans, repo-style transactions, and wholesale investment securities RWA, partially offset by an increase in OTC derivatives and all other RWA.

The regulatory capital ratios as of December 31, 2022, presented in Table 39: Regulatory Capital Structure and Related Regulatory Capital Ratios, are calculated under the advanced approaches and standardized approach in conformity with the Basel III final rule. The advanced approaches based ratios reflect calculations and determinations with respect to our capital and related matters as of December 31, 2022, based on our and external data, quantitative formulae, statistical models, historical correlations and assumptions, collectively referred to as “advanced systems,” in effect and used by us for those purposes as of the time we first reported such ratios in a quarterly report on Form 10-Q or an annual report on Form 10-K. Significant components of these advanced systems involve the exercise of judgment by us and our regulators, and our advanced systems may not, individually or collectively, precisely represent or calculate the scenarios, circumstances, outputs or other results for which they are designed or intended.

Our advanced systems are subject to update and periodic revalidation in response to changes in our business activities and our historical experiences, forces and events experienced by the market broadly or by individual financial institutions, changes in regulations and regulatory interpretations and other factors, and are also subject to continuing regulatory review and approval. For example, a significant operational loss experienced by another financial institution, even if we do not experience a related loss, could result in a material change in the output of our advanced systems and a corresponding material change in our risk exposures, our total RWA, and our capital ratios compared to prior periods. An operational loss that we experience could also result in a material change in our capital requirements for operational risk under the advanced approaches, depending on the severity of the loss event, its characterization among the seven Basel-defined UOM, and the stability of the distributional approach for a particular UOM, and without direct correlation to the effects of the loss event, or the timing of such effects, on our results of operations.

Due to the influence of changes in these advanced systems, whether resulting from changes in data inputs, regulation or regulatory supervision or interpretation, specific to us or market activities or experiences or other updates or factors, we expect that our advanced systems and our capital ratios calculated in conformity with the Basel III final rule will change and may be volatile over time, and that those latter changes or volatility could be material as calculated and measured from period to period. We and State Street Bank are subject to further regulatory guidance, action, and rule-making.

State Street Corporation | 115

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Tier 1 and Supplementary Leverage Ratios

We are subject to a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio and a supplementary leverage ratio. The Tier 1 leverage ratio is based on Tier 1 capital and adjusted quarterly average on-balance sheet assets. The Tier 1 leverage ratio differs from the SLR primarily in that the denominator of the Tier 1 leverage ratio is a quarterly average of on-balance sheet assets, while the SLR additionally includes off-balance sheet exposures. We must maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%.

We are also subject to a minimum SLR of 3%, and as a U.S. G-SIB, we must maintain a 2% SLR buffer in order to avoid any limitations on distributions to shareholders and discretionary bonus payments to certain executives. If we do not maintain this buffer, limitations on these distributions and discretionary bonus payments would be increasingly stringent based upon the extent of the shortfall.

TABLE 42: TIER 1 AND SUPPLEMENTARY LEVERAGE RATIOS
(Dollars in millions)December 31, 2022December 31, 2021
State Street:
Tier 1 capital$16,523$17,923
Average assets284,346303,007
Less: adjustments for deductions from tier 1 capital and other(8,668)(9,440)
Adjusted average assets for Tier 1 leverage ratio275,678293,567
Additional SLR exposure40,12632,985
Adjustments for deductions of qualifying central bank deposits(78,455)(84,113)
Total assets for SLR$237,349$242,439
Tier 1 leverage ratio(1)6.0%6.1%
Supplementary leverage ratio7.07.4
State Street Bank(2):
Tier 1 capital$18,273$18,845
Average assets281,527299,379
Less: adjustments for deductions from tier 1 capital and other(8,307)(8,976)
Adjusted average assets for Tier 1 leverage ratio273,220290,403
Additional SLR exposure42,04332,985
Adjustments for deductions of qualifying central bank deposits(78,455)(84,113)
Total assets for SLR$236,808$239,275
Tier 1 leverage ratio (1)6.7%6.5%
Supplementary leverage ratio7.77.9

(1) Tier 1 leverage ratios were calculated in conformity with the Basel III final rule.

(2) The SLR rule requires that, as of January 1, 2018, (i) State Street Bank maintains an SLR of at least 6.0% to be well capitalized under the U.S. banking regulators’ Prompt Corrective Action Framework and (ii) we maintain an SLR of at least 5.0% to avoid limitations on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments. In addition to the SLR, State Street Bank is subject to a well capitalized Tier 1 leverage ratio requirement of 5.0%.

Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC)

The Federal Reserve's final rule on TLAC, LTD and clean holding company requirements for U.S. domiciled G-SIBs, such as us, is intended to improve the resiliency and resolvability of certain U.S. banking organizations through enhanced prudential standards, and requires us, among other things, to comply with minimum requirements for external TLAC (combined eligible tier 1 regulatory capital and LTD) and LTD. Specifically, we must hold:

Amount equal to:
External TLACGreater of:•21.5% of total RWA (18.0% minimum plus 2.5% plus a G-SIB surcharge calculated for these purposes under Method 1 of 1.0% plus any applicable counter- cyclical buffer, which is currently 0%); and •9.5% of total leverage exposure (7.5% minimum plus the SLR buffer of 2.0%), as defined by the SLR final rule.
Qualifying external LTDGreater of:•7.0% of RWA (6.0% minimum plus a G-SIB surcharge calculated for these purposes under method 2 of 1.0%); and •4.5% of total leverage exposure, as defined by the SLR final rule.

As of April 1, 2020, the TLAC and LTD requirements calibrated to the SLR denominator reflect the deduction of certain central bank balances as prescribed by the regulatory relief implemented under the EGRRCPA.

The following table presents external LTD and external TLAC as of December 31, 2022.

TABLE 43: TOTAL LOSS-ABSORBING CAPACITY
As of December 31, 2022
(Dollars in millions)ActualRequirement
Total loss-absorbing capacity:
Risk-weighted assets$29,67627.7%$23,05421.5%
Total leverage exposure29,67612.522,5489.5
Long-term debt:
Risk-weighted assets12,40311.67,5067.0
Total leverage exposure12,4035.210,6814.5

Additional information about TLAC is provided under "Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity" in "Supervision and Regulation" in Business in this Form 10-K.

State Street Corporation | 116

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Regulatory Developments

In April 2018, the Federal Reserve issued a proposed rule which would replace the current 2.0% SLR buffer for G-SIBs, with a buffer equal to 50% of their G-SIB surcharge. This proposal would also make conforming modifications to our TLAC and eligible LTD requirements applicable to G-SIBs. At this point in time, it is unclear whether this proposal will be implemented as proposed.

In November 2019, the Federal Reserve and other U.S. federal banking agencies issued a final rule that, among other things, implemented the SA-CCR, a methodology for calculating the exposure amount for derivative contracts. Under the final rule, which became effective on January 1, 2022, we have the option to use the SA-CCR or the IMM to measure the exposure amount of our cleared and uncleared derivative transactions under our advanced approaches calculation. We have elected to use the SA-CCR for purposes of our advanced approach capital calculations. We are required to determine the amount of these exposures using the SA-CCR under our standardized approach capital calculation. Additionally, we have to apply a revised formula to determine the RWA amount of our central counterparty default fund contributions.

On March 4, 2020, the U.S. federal banking agencies issued the SCB final rule that replaces, under the standardized approach, the capital conservation buffer (2.5%) with a SCB calculated as the difference between an institution’s starting and lowest projected CET1 ratio under the CCAR severely adverse scenario plus planned common stock dividend payments (as a percentage of RWA) from the fourth through seventh quarter of the CCAR planning horizon.

The Federal Reserve and other U.S. federal banking agencies issued an interim final rule effective in March 2020 and later finalized on a permanent basis on August 26, 2020, which revised the definition of eligible retained income for all U.S. banking organizations. The revised definition of eligible retained income makes any automatic limitations on capital distributions, where a banking organization's regulatory ratios were to decline below the respective minimum requirements, take effect on a more gradual basis.

Effective April 1, 2020, the Federal Reserve and other U.S. federal banking agencies adopted a final

rule under EGRRCPA that establishes a deduction for qualifying central bank deposits from a custodial banking organization’s total leverage exposure equal to the lesser of (i) the total amount of funds the custodial banking organization and its consolidated subsidiaries have on deposit at qualifying central banks and (ii) the total amount of client funds on deposit at the custodial banking organization that are linked to fiduciary or custodial and safekeeping accounts. For the quarter ended December 31, 2022, we deducted $78.5 billion of average balances held on deposit at central banks from the denominator used in the calculation of our SLR, based on this custodial banking deduction.

On October 20, 2020, the Federal Reserve and other U.S. federal banking agencies issued a final rule that requires us and State Street Bank to make certain deductions from regulatory capital for investments in certain unsecured debt instruments, including eligible LTD under the TLAC rule, issued by the Parent Company and other U.S. and foreign G-SIBs. The final rule became effective on April 1, 2021.

On June 23, 2022, we were notified by the Federal Reserve of the results from the 2022 supervisory stress test. Our SCB calculated under this supervisory stress test was well below the 2.5% minimum, resulting in an SCB at that floor, which was effective starting October 1, 2022 and will run through September 30, 2023.

On September 7, 2022, the Federal Reserve's Vice Chair For Supervision stated that the Federal Reserve was undertaking a holistic review of U.S. capital requirements that will help the regulator consider adjustments to the current framework. In addition, on September 9, 2022, the U.S. Banking Agencies reaffirmed their commitment to implementing revised regulatory capital requirements that align with the final set of Basel III standards (Basel IV package) issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2017. They intend to seek public comments on a joint proposed rule in the coming months.

For additional information about regulatory developments, refer to the "Regulatory Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Standards" section of "Supervision and Regulation" in Business in this Form 10-K.

State Street Corporation | 117

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Capital Actions

Preferred Stock

The following table summarizes selected terms of each of the series of the preferred stock issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2022:

TABLE 44: PREFERRED STOCK ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING
Preferred Stock(1):Issuance DateDepositary Shares IssuedAmount outstanding (in millions)Ownership Interest Per Depositary ShareLiquidation Preference Per ShareLiquidation Preference Per Depositary SharePer Annum Dividend RateDividend Payment FrequencyCarrying Value as of December 31, 2022 (In millions)Redemption Date(2)
Series D(3)February 201430,000,000$7501/4,000th$100,000$255.90% to but excluding March 15, 2024, then a floating rate equal to the three-month LIBOR plus 3.108%Quarterly: March, June, September and December$742March 15, 2024
Series F(4)(5)May 2015250,0002501/100th100,0001,0005.25% to but excluding September 15, 2020, then a floating rate equal to the three-month LIBOR plus 3.597%, or 8.366% effective December 15, 2022Quarterly: March, June, September and December247September 15, 2020
Series G(6)April 201620,000,0005001/4,000th100,000255.35% to but excluding March 15, 2026, then a floating rate equal to the three-month LIBOR plus 3.709%Quarterly: March, June, September and December493March 15, 2026
Series H(7)September 2018500,0005001/100th100,0001,0005.625% to but excluding December 15, 2023, then a floating rate equal to the three-month LIBOR plus 2.539%Semi-annually: June and December494December 15, 2023

(1) The preferred stock and corresponding depositary shares may be redeemed at our option in whole, but not in part, prior to the redemption date upon the occurrence of a regulatory capital treatment event, as defined in the certificate of designation, at a redemption price equal to the liquidation price per share and liquidation price per depositary share plus any declared and unpaid dividends, without accumulation of any undeclared dividends.

(2) On the redemption date, or any dividend payment date thereafter, the preferred stock and corresponding depositary shares may be redeemed by us, in whole or in part, at the liquidation price per share and liquidation price per depositary share plus any declared and unpaid dividends, without accumulation of any undeclared dividends.

(3) The dividend rate for the floating rate period of the Series D preferred stock that begins on March 15, 2024 and all subsequent floating rate periods will transition to a new, fixed rate in accordance with the LIBOR Act and the contractual terms of the Series D preferred stock.

(4) Series F preferred stock is redeemable on September 15, 2020 and on each succeeding dividend payment date.

(5) In accordance with the LIBOR Act, the benchmark interest rate used to calculate the dividend rate of the Series F preferred stock issued and outstanding will transition from LIBOR to CME Term SOFR, plus 0.26161%, beginning with the September 15, 2023 dividend period.

(6) The dividend rate for the floating rate period of the Series G preferred stock that begins on March 15, 2026 and all subsequent floating rate periods will remain at the current fixed rate in accordance with the LIBOR Act and the contractual terms of the Series G preferred stock.

(7) In accordance with the LIBOR Act, the benchmark interest rate to be used to calculate the dividend rate during the floating rate period of the Series H preferred stock that begins on December 15, 2023 will transition from LIBOR to CME Term SOFR, plus 0.26161%.

On March 15, 2021, we redeemed an aggregate of $500 million, or 5,000 of the 7,500 outstanding shares of our non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, Series F, for cash at a redemption price of $100,000 per share (equivalent to $1,000 per depositary share) plus all declared and unpaid dividends.

The following table presents the dividends declared for each of the series of preferred stock issued and outstanding for the periods indicated:

TABLE 45: PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

Years Ended December 31,
20222021
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)Dividends Declared per ShareDividends Declared per Depositary ShareTotalDividends Declared per ShareDividends Declared per Depositary ShareTotal
Preferred Stock:
Series D$5,900$1.48$44$5,900$1.48$44
Series F5,20852.08133,80838.0815
Series G5,3521.32275,3521.3227
Series H5,62556.25285,62556.2528
Total$112$114

State Street Corporation | 118

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Common Stock

In July 2021, our Board approved a share repurchase program authorizing the purchase of up to $3.0 billion of our common stock through the end of 2022. We did not repurchase any common stock during the first three quarters of 2022. In October 2022, we resumed our share repurchases and purchased $1.5 billion of our common stock in the fourth quarter of 2022 under the 2021 Program. In January 2023, our Board approved a share repurchase program authorizing the purchase of up to $4.5 billion of our common stock through December 31, 2023.

The table below presents the activity under our common share repurchase program for the period indicated:

TABLE 46: SHARES REPURCHASED
Year Ended December 31,
2022
Shares Acquired (In millions)Average Cost per ShareTotal Acquired (In millions)
2021 Program19.5$76.81$1,500

The table below presents the dividends declared on common stock for the periods indicated:

TABLE 47: COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS
Years Ended December 31,
20222021
Dividends Declared per ShareTotal (In millions)Dividends Declared per ShareTotal (In millions)
Common Stock$2.40$871$2.18$779

Federal and state banking regulations place certain restrictions on dividends paid by subsidiary banks to the parent holding company. In addition, banking regulators have the authority to prohibit bank holding companies from paying dividends. For information concerning limitations on dividends from our subsidiary banks, refer to "Related Stockholder Matters" included under Item 5, Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities, and to Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K. Our common stock and preferred stock dividends, including the declaration, timing and amount thereof, are subject to consideration and approval by the Board at the relevant times.

Stock purchases under our common share repurchase program may be made using various types of transactions, including open market purchases, accelerated share repurchases or other transactions off the market, and may be made under Rule 10b5-1 trading programs. The timing and amount of any stock purchases and the type of transaction may not be ratable over the duration of the program, may vary from reporting period to reporting period and will depend on several factors, including our capital position and our financial performance, investment opportunities, market conditions, the nature and timing of implementation of revisions to the Basel III framework and the amount of common stock issued as part of employee compensation programs. The common share repurchase program does not have specific price targets and may be suspended at any time.

State Street Corporation | 119

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

On behalf of clients enrolled in our securities lending program, we lend securities to banks, broker/dealers and other institutions. In most circumstances, we indemnify our clients for the fair market value of those securities against a failure of the borrower to return such securities. Though these transactions are collateralized, the substantial volume of these activities necessitates detailed credit-based underwriting and monitoring processes. The aggregate amount of indemnified securities on loan totaled $348.92 billion and $385.74 billion as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. We require the borrower to provide collateral in an amount in excess of 100% of the fair market value of the securities borrowed. We hold the collateral received in connection with these securities lending services as agent, and the collateral is not recorded in our consolidated statement of condition. We revalue the securities on loan and the collateral daily to determine if additional collateral is necessary or if excess collateral is required to be returned to the borrower. We held, as agent, cash and securities totaling $366.90 billion and $404.12 billion as collateral for indemnified securities on loan as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

The cash collateral held by us as agent is invested on behalf of our clients. In certain cases, the cash collateral is invested in third-party repurchase agreements, for which we indemnify the client against loss of the principal invested. We require the counterparty to the indemnified repurchase agreement to provide collateral in an amount in excess of 100% of the amount of the repurchase agreement. In our role as agent, the indemnified repurchase agreements and the related collateral held by us are not recorded in our consolidated statement of condition. Of the collateral of $366.90 billion and $404.12 billion, referenced above, $54.11 billion and $61.56 billion was invested in indemnified repurchase agreements as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. We or our agents held $57.90 billion and $67.01 billion as collateral for indemnified investments in repurchase agreements as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Additional information about our securities finance activities and other off-balance sheet arrangements is provided in Notes 10, 12 and 14 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP, and we apply accounting policies that affect the determination of amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements.

Certain of our accounting policies, by their nature, require management to make judgments, involving significant estimates and assumptions, about the effects of matters that are inherently uncertain. These estimates and assumptions are based on information available as of the date of the consolidated financial statements, and changes in this information over time could materially affect the amounts of assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses reported in subsequent consolidated financial statements.

Based on the sensitivity of reported financial statement amounts to the underlying estimates and assumptions, the more significant accounting policies identified by management are:

•Recurring fair value measurements;

•Allowance for credit losses;

•Impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets; and

•Contingencies.

These policies require the most subjective or complex judgments, and underlying estimates and assumptions could be most subject to revision as new information becomes available. An understanding of the judgments, estimates and assumptions underlying these accounting policies is essential to the understanding of our reported results of operations and financial condition.

The following is a discussion of the above-mentioned significant accounting estimates. Additional information on our significant accounting policies, including references to applicable footnotes, is provided in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Fair Value Measurements

We carry certain of our financial assets and liabilities at fair value in our consolidated financial statements on a recurring basis, including trading account assets and liabilities, AFS debt securities, certain equity securities and various types of derivative financial instruments.

Changes in the fair value of these financial assets and liabilities are recorded either as components of our consolidated statement of income or as components of other comprehensive income within shareholders' equity in our consolidated statement of condition. In addition to those financial assets and liabilities that we carry at fair value in our consolidated financial statements on a recurring basis, we estimate the fair values of other financial assets and liabilities that we carry at amortized cost in our consolidated statement of condition, and we disclose these fair value estimates in the notes to our consolidated financial statements. We estimate the

State Street Corporation | 120

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

fair values of these financial assets and liabilities using the definition of fair value described below.

U.S. GAAP defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market for an asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. When we measure fair value for our financial assets and liabilities, we consider the principal or the most advantageous market in which we would transact; we also consider assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. When possible, we look to active and observable markets to measure the fair value of identical, or similar, financial assets and liabilities. When identical financial assets and liabilities are not traded in active markets, we look to market-observable data for similar assets and liabilities. In some instances, certain assets and liabilities are not actively traded in observable markets; as a result, we use alternate valuation techniques to measure their fair value.

We categorize the financial assets and liabilities that we carry at fair value in our consolidated statement of condition on a recurring basis based on U.S. GAAP's prescribed three-level valuation hierarchy. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1) and the lowest priority to valuation methods using significant unobservable inputs (level 3).

With respect to derivative instruments, we evaluate the fair value impact of the credit risk of our counterparties. We consider such factors as the market-based probability of default by our counterparties, and our current and expected potential future net exposures by remaining maturities, in determining the appropriate measurements of fair value.

Additional information with respect to the assets and liabilities carried by us at fair value on a recurring basis is provided in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Allowance for Credit Losses

We record an allowance for credit losses related to certain on-balance sheet credit exposures, including our financial assets held at amortized cost, as well as certain off-balance sheet credit exposures, including unfunded commitments and letters of credit.

Determining the appropriateness of the allowance is complex and requires judgment by management about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. In future periods, factors and forecasts then prevailing may result in significant changes in the allowance for credit losses in those future periods. We estimate credit losses over the

contractual life of the financial asset while factoring in prepayment activity where supported by data over a three year reasonable and supportable forecast period. We utilize baseline, upside and downside scenarios that are applied based on a probability weighting, in order to better reflect management’s expectation of expected credit losses given existing market conditions and the changes in the economic environment. The multiple scenarios are based on a three year horizon (or less depending on contractual maturity) and then revert linearly over a two year period to a ten-year historical average thereafter. The contractual term excludes expected extensions, renewals and modifications, but includes prepayment assumptions where applicable.

Our allowance for credit losses is sensitive to a number of inputs, including macroeconomic forecast assumptions and credit rating migrations during the period. Our macroeconomic forecasts used in determining the December 31, 2022 allowance for credit losses consisted of three scenarios reflecting contractions in GDP and rising unemployment of varying severity, with the baseline scenario generally in line with market consensus of economic forecasts for GDP and unemployment. We placed the most weight on our baseline scenario, with the remaining weighting split equally between the upside and downside scenarios.

Keeping all other factors constant, we estimate that if we had applied 100% weighting to the downside scenario, the allowance for credit losses as of December 31, 2022 would have been approximately $67 million higher. This estimate is intended to reflect the sensitivity of the allowance for credit losses to changes in our scenario weights and is not intended to be indicative of future changes in the allowance for credit losses.

Additional information about our allowance for credit losses is provided in Notes 3 and 4 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

State Street Corporation | 121

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

Goodwill represents the excess of the cost of an acquisition over the fair value of the net tangible and other intangible assets acquired at the acquisition date. Other intangible assets represent purchased long-lived intangible assets, primarily client relationships, core deposit intangible assets and technology that can be distinguished from goodwill because of contractual rights or because the asset can be exchanged on its own or in combination with a related contract, asset or liability. Other intangible assets are initially measured at their acquisition date fair value, the determination of which requires management judgment. Goodwill is not amortized, while other intangible assets are amortized over their estimated useful lives.

Management reviews goodwill for impairment annually or more frequently if circumstances arise or events occur that indicate an impairment of the carrying amount may exist. We begin our review by first assessing qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. Events that may indicate impairment include: significant or adverse changes in the business, economic or political climate; an adverse action or assessment by a regulator; unanticipated competition; and a more-likely-than-not expectation that we will sell or otherwise dispose of a business to which the goodwill or other intangible assets relate. If we conclude from the qualitative assessment of goodwill impairment that it is more likely than not that a reporting unit’s fair value is greater than its carrying amount, quantitative tests are not required. However, if we determine it is more likely than not that a reporting unit’s fair value is less than its carrying amount, then we complete a quantitative assessment to determine if there is goodwill impairment. We may elect to bypass the qualitative assessment and complete a quantitative assessment in any given year.

In 2022, we assessed goodwill for impairment using a qualitative assessment. Based on our evaluation of the qualitative factors noted above, we determined that it was more likely than not that the fair value of each of the reporting units exceeded its respective carrying amount. We determined there was no goodwill impairment in 2022.

Other intangible assets are supported by the future cash flows that are directly associated with and expected to arise as a direct result of the use of the intangible asset, less any costs associated with the intangible asset’s eventual disposition. We evaluate other intangible assets for impairment at the lowest level for which there are identifiable cash flows that are largely independent of the cash flows from other groups of assets using the following process.  First,

we routinely assess whether impairment indicators are present. When impairment indicators are identified as being present, we compare the estimated future net undiscounted cash flows of the intangible asset with its carrying value. If the future net undiscounted cash flows are greater than the carrying value, then there is no impairment, but if the intangible asset's net undiscounted cash flows are less than its carrying value, we are required to calculate impairment. An impairment is recognized by writing the intangible asset down to its fair value.  We evaluate intangible assets for indicators of impairment on a quarterly basis. There were no impairments taken on other intangible assets in 2022.

Additional information about goodwill and other intangible assets, including information by line of business, is provided in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

Contingencies

Information on significant estimates and judgments related with establishing litigation reserves is discussed in Note 13 of the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

RECENT ACCOUNTING DEVELOPMENTS

Information with respect to recent accounting developments is provided in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K.

OTHER MATTERS

Replacement of Interbank Offered Rates including LIBOR

On March 5, 2021, the Intercontinental Exchange Benchmark Administration (IBA) announced, in conjunction with the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), that it would cease the publication of all EUR and Swiss Franc LIBOR settings, the overnight, one week, two week, two month and twelve month GBP LIBOR and Japanese yen (JPY) LIBOR settings, and the one week and two month USD LIBOR settings, as of December 31, 2021. Furthermore, the IBA announced that as of June 30, 2023, it would cease the publication of the overnight and twelve month USD LIBOR settings and that as of June 30, 2023 the one month, three month and six month USD LIBOR settings would become non-representative.

On September 29, 2021, the FCA announced that it would compel the IBA to continue the publication of the one month, three month and six month GBP and JPY LIBOR settings, on a synthetic, non-representative basis from year-end 2021 for a period of at least one year. On June 30, 2022, the FCA issued a consultation on winding down synthetic tenors of GBP LIBOR and on the potential introduction of a synthetic version of certain USD LIBOR settings as of June 30, 2023. On September

State Street Corporation | 122

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

29, 2022, the FCA confirmed the cessation of all synthetic JPY LIBOR settings as of December 31, 2022, and the cessation of the one month and six month synthetic GBP LIBOR settings as of March 30, 2023. On November 23, 2022, the FCA issued a proposal to compel publication of a synthetic version of the one month, three month and six month USD LIBOR settings until September 30, 2024, while also confirming that the publication of a synthetic version of the three month GBP LIBOR setting would end as of March 30, 2024. A final decision from the FCA on the status of a synthetic version of the one month, three month and six month USD LIBOR settings beyond June 30, 2023 is expected in early 2023.

On March 15, 2022, the U.S. Congress adopted, as part of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2022, the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act which provides certain statutory requirements and guidance for the selection and use of alternative reference rates in legacy financial contracts governed by U.S. law that do not provide for the use of a clearly defined or practicable alternative reference rate. On July 19, 2022, the Federal Reserve issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on a proposal to implement the LIBOR Act, as required by its terms. On December 16, 2022, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule implementing the LIBOR Act. The final rule is effective February 27, 2023.

We have established a process to identify, assess, plan for and remediate the use of LIBOR and other reference rates affected by reference rate reform that addresses both direct exposures on our balance sheet, and, more importantly, the use of LIBOR in our various service provider roles to our customers.

This process is led by a multidisciplinary LIBOR program management office (LIBOR PMO), established in September 2018. The LIBOR PMO will continue to drive firm-wide results throughout 2023. The LIBOR PMO reports regularly to executive management of the firm, and our key regulators, on progress with respect to the adoption of alternative reference rates for various financial products and services, client communications, updating of our quantitative models and information technology systems, managing third-party vendors, contracts remediation, evaluation of fallback provisions contained in LIBOR-priced loans, investment securities, derivatives and long-term debt and general operational readiness for each stage of the transition.

Most of the LIBOR PMO's work for implementation of the transition to alternate reference rates is substantially complete, and contingency plans have been developed with respect to identified uncertainties. No incremental material investments are expected to be needed for systems and

processes related to the transition. Potential risks that could impact our remediation efforts include overall transition readiness across the industry, third-party vendor dependencies and resource constraints from the concentration of remediation activities at key points in the transition process.

Our direct on-balance sheet exposures to LIBOR are limited and primarily include assets held in the investment portfolio, certain loans made through Global Credit Finance and issuances of long-term debt and preferred stock. We have planned for, and are prepared to transition, our remaining balance sheet exposures in a manner consistent with regulatory guidance and the availability of interim solutions for various legacy LIBOR contracts. We will not originate or issue new LIBOR-based loans or long-term debt, and any purchases of LIBOR-based investment securities will be screened for adequate fallback language. Our remaining exposure outstanding at the end of June 2023 is largely governed by existing fallback language or the LIBOR Act which provides for appropriate fallback provisions. Substantial risks and uncertainties are associated with the market transition away from the use of LIBOR as an interest rate benchmark in financial instruments and contracts. Our financial performance depends, in part, on our ability to adapt to market changes promptly, while avoiding increased related expenses or operational errors.

Back to the STT company profile or the MD&A index.