Guarantees


	At December 31, 2021
	Maximum Potential Payout/Notional of Obligations by Years to Maturity				Carrying Amount Asset (Liability)
$ in millions	Less than 1	1-3	3-5	Over 5


Non-credit derivatives1	1,217,083	918,456	332,329	845,220	(48,231)
Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees issued2	1,354	1,068	862	2,701	45
Market value guarantees	88	2	—	—	—
Liquidity facilities	4,100	—	—	—	5
Whole loan sales guarantees	—	—	77	23,104	—
Securitization representations and warranties3	—	—	—	79,437	(42)
General partner guarantees	341	11	32	152	(77)
Client clearing guarantees	51	—	—	—	—

1.The carrying amounts of derivative contracts that meet the accounting definition of a guarantee are shown on a gross basis. For further information on derivative contracts, see Note 7.

2.These amounts include certain issued standby letters of credit participated to third parties, totaling $0.7 billion of notional and collateral/recourse, due to the nature of the Firm’s obligations under these arrangements. As of December 31, 2021, the carrying amount of standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees issued includes an allowance for credit losses of $84 million.

3.Related to commercial and residential mortgage securitizations.

Types of Guarantees

Non-Credit Derivatives. Certain derivative contracts meet the accounting definition of a guarantee, including certain written options, contingent forward contracts and CDS (see Note 7 regarding credit derivatives in which the Firm has sold credit protection to the counterparty which are excluded from the previous table). For non-credit derivative contracts that meet the accounting definition of a guarantee the notional amount is used as the maximum potential payout for certain derivative contracts, such as written interest rate caps and written foreign currency options. The Firm evaluates collateral requirements for all derivatives, including derivatives that do not meet the accounting definition of a guarantee. For the effects of cash collateral and counterparty netting, see Note 7.

In certain situations, collateral may be held by the Firm for those contracts that meet the definition of a guarantee. Generally, the Firm sets collateral requirements by counterparty so that the collateral covers various transactions and products and is not allocated specifically to individual contracts. Also, the Firm may recover amounts related to the underlying asset delivered to the Firm under the derivative contract.

Standby Letters of Credit and Other Financial Guarantees Issued. In connection with its corporate lending business and other corporate activities, the Firm provides standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees to counterparties. Such arrangements represent obligations to make payments to third parties if the counterparty fails to fulfill its obligation under a borrowing arrangement or other contractual obligation. A majority of the Firm’s standby letters of credit are provided on behalf of counterparties that are investment grade. If the counterparty fails to fulfill its contractual obligation, the Firm has access to collateral or recourse that would approximate its obligation.

Market Value Guarantees. Market value guarantees are issued to guarantee timely payment of a specified return to investors in certain affordable housing tax credit funds. These guarantees are designed to return an investor’s contribution to a fund and the investor’s share of tax losses and tax credits expected to be generated by a fund.

Liquidity Facilities. The Firm has entered into liquidity facilities with SPEs and other counterparties, whereby the Firm is required to make certain payments if losses or defaults occur. Primarily, the Firm acts as liquidity provider to municipal bond securitization SPEs and for standalone municipal bonds in which the holders of beneficial interests issued by these SPEs or the holders of the individual bonds, respectively, have the right to tender their interests for purchase by the Firm on specified dates at a specified price. The Firm often may have recourse to the underlying assets held by the SPEs in the event payments are required under such liquidity facilities, as well as make-whole or recourse provisions with the trust sponsors. The recourse amount often exceeds the maximum potential payout amount of the guarantee. Substantially all of the underlying assets in the SPEs are investment grade. Liquidity facilities provided to municipal tender option bond trusts are classified as derivatives.

Whole Loan Sales Guarantees. The Firm has provided, or otherwise agreed to be responsible for, representations and warranties regarding certain whole loan sales. Under certain circumstances, the Firm may be required to repurchase such assets or make other payments related to such assets if such representations and warranties are breached. The Firm’s maximum potential payout related to such representations and warranties is equal to the current UPB of such loans. Since the Firm no longer services these loans, it has no information on the current UPB of those loans, and, accordingly, the amount included in the previous table represents the UPB at the time of the whole loan sale or at the time when the Firm last serviced any of those loans. The current UPB balances could be substantially lower than the maximum potential payout amount included in the previous table. The related liability primarily relates to sales of loans to the federal mortgage agencies.

Securitization Representations and Warranties. As part of the Firm’s Institutional Securities business segment’s securitizations and related activities, the Firm has provided, or otherwise agreed to be responsible for, representations and warranties regarding certain assets transferred in securitization transactions sponsored by the Firm. The extent and nature of the representations and warranties, if any, vary among different securitizations. Under certain circumstances, the Firm may be required to repurchase certain assets or make other payments related to such assets if such representations and warranties are breached. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Firm could be required to make would be equal to the current outstanding balances of, or losses associated with, the assets subject to breaches of such representations and warranties. The amount included in the

previous table for the maximum potential payout includes the current UPB or historical losses where known and the UPB at the time of sale when the current UPB is not known.

General Partner Guarantees. As a general partner in certain investment management funds, the Firm receives certain distributions from the partnerships when the return exceeds specified performance targets according to the provisions of the partnership agreements. The Firm may be required to return all or a portion of such distributions to the limited partners in the event the limited partners do not achieve a certain return as specified in the various partnership agreements, subject to certain limitations.

Client Clearing Guarantees. The Firm is a sponsoring member of the Government Securities Division of the FICC's Sponsored Clearing Model. Clients of the Firm, as sponsored members, can transact in overnight and term securities repurchase and resale agreements, which are cleared through the FICC. As sponsoring member, the Firm guarantees to the FICC the prompt and full payment and performance of its clients’ obligations. In 2020, the FICC’s sponsored clearing model was updated such that the Firm could be responsible for liquidation of a sponsored member’s account and guarantees any resulting loss to the FICC in the event the sponsored member fails to fully pay any net liquidation amount due from the sponsored member to the FICC. Accordingly, the Firm’s maximum potential payout amount reflects the total of the estimated net liquidation amounts for sponsored member accounts. The Firm minimizes credit exposure under this guarantee by obtaining a security interest in its sponsored member clients’ collateral and their contractual rights under sponsored member transactions. Therefore, the Firm's exposure is estimated to be an amount substantially lower than the maximum potential payout amount. The collateral amount in which the Firm has a security interest is approximately equal to the maximum potential payout amount of the guarantee.

Other Guarantees and Indemnities

In the normal course of business, the Firm provides guarantees and indemnifications in a variety of transactions. These provisions generally are standard contractual terms. Certain of these guarantees and indemnifications are described below:

•Indemnities. The Firm provides standard indemnities to counterparties for certain contingent exposures and taxes, including U.S. and foreign withholding taxes, on interest and other payments made on derivatives, securities and stock lending transactions, certain annuity products and other financial arrangements. These indemnity payments could be required based on a change in the tax laws, a change in interpretation of applicable tax rulings or a change in factual circumstances. Certain contracts contain provisions that enable the Firm to terminate the agreement upon the occurrence of such events. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the Firm could be

required to make under these indemnifications cannot be estimated.

•Exchange/Clearinghouse Member Guarantees. The Firm is a member of various exchanges and clearinghouses that trade and clear securities and/or derivative contracts. Associated with its membership, the Firm may be required to pay a certain amount as determined by the exchange or the clearinghouse in case of a default of any of its members or pay a proportionate share of the financial obligations of another member that may default on its obligations to the exchange or the clearinghouse. While the rules governing different exchange or clearinghouse memberships and the forms of these guarantees may vary, in general the Firm’s obligations under these rules would arise only if the exchange or clearinghouse had previously exhausted its resources.

In addition, some clearinghouse rules require members to assume a proportionate share of losses resulting from the clearinghouse’s investment of guarantee fund contributions and initial margin and of other losses unrelated to the default of a clearing member, if such losses exceed the specified resources allocated for such purpose by the clearinghouse.

The maximum potential payout under these rules cannot be estimated. The Firm has not recorded any contingent liability in its financial statements for these agreements and believes that any potential requirement to make payments under these agreements is remote.

•Merger and Acquisition Guarantees. The Firm may, from time to time, in its role as investment banking advisor be required to provide guarantees in connection with certain European merger and acquisition transactions. If required by the regulating authorities, the Firm provides a guarantee that the acquirer in the transaction has or will have sufficient funds to complete the transaction and would then be required to make the acquisition payments in the event the acquirer’s funds are insufficient at the completion date of the transaction. These arrangements generally cover the time frame from the transaction offer date to its closing date and, therefore, are generally short term in nature. The Firm believes the likelihood of any payment by the Firm under these arrangements is remote given the level of its due diligence in its role as investment banking advisor.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, the Firm guarantees the debt and/or certain trading obligations (including obligations associated with derivatives, foreign exchange contracts and the settlement of physical commodities) of certain subsidiaries. These guarantees generally are entity or product specific and are required by investors or trading counterparties. The activities of the Firm’s subsidiaries covered by these guarantees (including any related debt or trading obligations) are included in the financial statements.

Contingencies

Legal

In addition to the matters described in the following paragraphs, in the normal course of business, the Firm has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In some cases, the entities that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or are in financial distress. These actions have included, but are not limited to, antitrust, false claims act, residential mortgage and credit crisis-related matters.

While the Firm has identified below any individual proceedings where the Firm believes a material loss to be reasonably possible and reasonably estimable, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or those where potential losses have not yet been determined to be probable or possible and reasonably estimable.

The Firm contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. Where available information indicates that it is probable a liability had been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the Firm can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Firm accrues the estimated loss by a charge to income.


$ in millions	2021		2020		2019
Legal expenses	$	157	$	336	$	221

The Firm’s legal expenses can, and may in the future, fluctuate from period to period, given the current environment regarding government investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Firm.

In many proceedings and investigations, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. In addition, even where a loss is possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the size of the possible loss or range of loss, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government entities seek substantial or indeterminate damages, restitution, disgorgement or penalties. Numerous issues may need to be resolved before a loss or additional loss, or range of loss or additional range of loss, can be reasonably estimated for a proceeding or investigation, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, determination of issues related to class certification and the calculation of damages or other relief, and consideration of novel or

unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings or investigations in question.

For certain other legal proceedings and investigations, the Firm can estimate reasonably possible losses, additional losses, ranges of loss or ranges of additional loss in excess of amounts accrued but does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses could have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s financial statements as a whole, other than the matters referred to in the following paragraphs.

On September 23, 2014, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (“FGIC”) filed a complaint against the Firm in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County (“Supreme Court of NY”) styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. relating to the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties and that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to induce FGIC to issue a financial guaranty policy on certain classes of certificates that had an original balance of approximately $876 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs. On January 23, 2017, the court denied the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 13, 2018, the Appellate Division, First Department (“First Department”) affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court’s order denying the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 20, 2018, the First Department denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) or, in the alternative, for re-argument. On July 30, 2021, the Firm filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 4, 2022, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement, which is conditioned on consummation of the Firm’s agreement to settle Deutsche Bank National Trust Company solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $277 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Firm received repurchase demands from a certificate holder and FGIC that the Firm did not repurchase, plus pre- and post- judgment interest, fees and costs, as well as claim payments that FGIC has made and will make in the future. In addition, plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On January 23, 2015, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee, filed a complaint against the Firm styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.05 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential, rescissory, equitable and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other related expenses, and interest. On December 11, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 19, 2018, the court granted the Firm’s motion for leave to amend its answer and to stay the case pending resolution of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s appeal to the Court of Appeals in another case, styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Barclays Bank PLC, regarding the applicable statute of limitations. On January 17, 2019, the First Department reversed the trial court’s order to the extent that it had granted in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 4, 2019, the First Department granted the Firm’s motion for leave to appeal its January 17, 2019 decision to the Court of Appeals. On March 19, 2020, the Firm filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On December 22, 2020, the Court of Appeals reversed the First Department and reinstated the trial court's order to the extent it had granted in part the Firm's motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 4, 2022, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation, which is conditioned on approval by either certificateholders in a consent solicitation or a court in a trust instructional proceeding. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $277 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Firm received repurchase demands from a certificate holder and a monoline insurer that the Firm did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

Tax

In matters styled Case number 15/3637 and Case number 15/4353, the Dutch Tax Authority (“Dutch Authority”) is challenging in the Dutch courts the prior set-off by the Firm of approximately €124 million (approximately $141 million) plus accrued interest of withholding tax credits against the Firm’s corporation tax liabilities for the tax years 2007 to 2012. The Dutch Authority alleges that the Firm was not entitled to receive the withholding tax credits on the basis, inter alia, that a Firm subsidiary did not hold legal title to certain securities subject to withholding tax on the relevant dates. The Dutch Authority has also alleged that the Firm failed to provide certain information to the Dutch Authority and to keep adequate books and records. On April 26, 2018,

the District Court in Amsterdam issued a decision dismissing the Dutch Authority’s claims with respect to certain of the tax years in dispute. On May 12, 2020, the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam granted the Dutch Authority’s appeal in matters re-styled Case number 18/00318 and Case number 18/00319. On June 22, 2020, the Firm filed an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam before the Dutch High Court. On January 29, 2021, the Advocate General of the Dutch High Court issued an advisory opinion on the Firm’s appeal, which rejected the Firm’s principal grounds of appeal. On February 11, 2021, the Firm and the Dutch Authority each responded to this opinion. On June 22, 2021, Dutch criminal authorities sought various documents in connection with an investigation of the Firm related to the civil claims asserted by the Dutch Authority concerning the accuracy of the Firm subsidiary’s tax returns and the maintenance of its books and records for 2007 to 2012.