Goldman Sachs Group (GS) Risk Analysis

We are party to a large number of derivative transactions, including credit derivatives. Many of these derivative instruments are individually negotiated and non-standardized, which can make exiting, transferring or settling positions difficult. Many credit derivatives require that we deliver to the counterparty the underlying security, loan or other obligation in order to receive payment. In a number of cases, we do not hold the underlying security, loan or other obligation and may not be able to obtain the underlying security, loan or other obligation. This could cause us to forfeit the payments due to us under these contracts or result in settlement delays with the attendant credit and operational risk, as well as increased costs to us. Derivative transactions also involve the risk that documentation has not been properly executed, that executed agreements may not be enforceable against the counterparty, or that obligations under such agreements may not be able to be "netted" against other obligations with such counterparty. In addition, counterparties may claim that such transactions were not appropriate or authorized. As a signatory to the ISDA Universal Protocol and U.S. ISDA Protocol (ISDA Protocols) and being subject to the FRB's and FDIC's rules on QFCs and similar rules in other jurisdictions, we may not be able to exercise remedies against counterparties and, as this regime has not yet been tested, we may suffer risks or losses that we would not have expected to suffer if we could immediately close out transactions upon a termination event. The ISDA Protocols and these rules and regulations extend to repurchase agreements and other instruments that are not derivative contracts. Derivative contracts and other transactions, including secondary bank loan purchases and sales, entered into with third parties are not always confirmed by the counterparties or settled on a timely basis. While the transaction remains unconfirmed or during any delay in settlement, we are subject to heightened credit and operational risk and in the event of a default may find it more difficult to enforce our rights. In addition, as new complex derivative products are created, covering a wider array of underlying credit and other instruments, disputes about the terms of the underlying contracts could arise, which could impair our ability to effectively manage our risk exposures from these products and subject us to increased costs. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring central clearing of credit derivatives and other OTC derivatives, or a market shift toward standardized derivatives, could reduce the risk associated with these transactions, but under certain circumstances could also limit our ability to develop derivatives that best suit the needs of our clients and to hedge our own risks, and could adversely affect our profitability. In addition, these provisions have increased our credit exposure to central clearing platforms.

Concentration of risk increases the potential for significant losses in our market-making, underwriting, investing and financing activities. The number and size of these transactions has affected and may in the future affect our results of operations in a given period. Moreover, because of concentrated risk, we may suffer losses even when economic and market conditions are generally favorable for our competitors. Disruptions in the credit markets can make it difficult to hedge these credit exposures effectively or economically. In addition, we extend large commitments as part of our credit origination activities. Disruptions in the credit markets have in the past substantially curtailed or eliminated and may in the future substantially curtail or eliminate the trading markets for loans we originate. These disruptions have in the past made and may in the future make it difficult for us to sell or value such assets, which have in the past resulted and may in the future result in losses for us. Rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act, and similar rules adopted in other jurisdictions, require issuers of certain asset-backed securities and any person who organizes and initiates certain asset-backed securities transactions to retain economic exposure to the asset, which has affected the cost of and structures used in connection with these securitization activities. Our inability to reduce our credit risk by selling, syndicating or securitizing these positions, including during periods of market stress, has in the past negatively affected and may in the future negatively affect our results of operations due to a decrease in the fair value of the positions, including due to the insolvency or bankruptcy of borrowers, as well as the loss of revenues associated with selling such securities or loans. In the ordinary course of business, we are at times subject to a concentration of credit risk to a particular counterparty, borrower, issuer (including sovereign issuers) or geographic area or group of related countries, such as the E.U., and a failure or downgrade of, or default by, such entity could negatively impact our businesses, perhaps materially, and the systems by which we set limits and monitor the level of our credit exposure to individual entities, industries, countries and regions may not function as we have anticipated. Regulatory reform, including the Dodd-Frank Act, has led to increased centralization of trading activity through particular clearinghouses, agent banks or exchanges, which has significantly increased our concentration of risk with respect to these entities. Our activities expose us to many different counterparties and countries, as well as different industries, including new and emerging industries, such as those related to AI. In particular, we routinely execute a high volume of transactions with counterparties or extend credit to borrowers engaged in financial services activities, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, clearinghouses, exchanges, alternative asset managers and investment funds. This has resulted in significant credit concentration with respect to these counterparties.

We are exposed to the risk that third parties that owe us money, securities or other assets will not perform their obligations. These parties may default on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons. A failure of a significant market participant, or even concerns about a default by such an institution, has in the past led and could in the future lead to significant liquidity problems, losses or defaults by other institutions, which in turn could adversely affect us. We are also exposed to the risk of a special assessment, including under the FDIA or OLA in the event of the failure of a bank or non-bank financial institution, which has in the past adversely affected and may in the future adversely affect our results of operations. We are also subject to the risk that our rights against third parties may not be enforceable in all circumstances. In addition, deterioration in the credit quality of third parties whose securities or obligations we hold, including a deterioration in the value of collateral posted by third parties to secure their obligations to us, including under derivative contracts and loan agreements, could result in losses and/or adversely affect our ability to rehypothecate or otherwise use those securities or obligations for liquidity purposes. A significant downgrade in the credit ratings of our counterparties could also have a negative impact on our results. While in many cases we are permitted to require additional collateral from counterparties that experience financial difficulty, disputes may arise as to the amount of collateral we are entitled to receive and the value of pledged assets. The termination of contracts and the foreclosure on collateral may subject us to claims for the improper exercise of our rights. Default rates, downgrades and disputes with counterparties as to the valuation of collateral typically increase significantly in times of market stress, increased volatility and illiquidity. As part of our clearing and prime financing activities, we finance our clients' positions, and we could be held responsible for the defaults or misconduct of our clients. Default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect or foresee.

Group Inc. is a holding company and, therefore, depends on dividends, distributions, loans and other payments from its subsidiaries to fund share repurchases and dividend payments and to fund payments on its obligations, including debt obligations. Many of our subsidiaries, including our broker-dealer and bank subsidiaries, are subject to laws that restrict dividend payments or authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the flow of funds from those subsidiaries to Group Inc. In addition, our broker-dealer and bank entities and their subsidiaries are subject to restrictions on their ability to lend or transact with affiliates and to minimum regulatory capital and other requirements, as well as restrictions on their ability to use funds deposited with them in brokerage or bank accounts to fund their businesses. Additional restrictions on related-party transactions, increased capital and liquidity requirements and additional limitations on the use of funds on deposit in bank or brokerage accounts, as well as lower earnings, can reduce the amount of funds available to meet the obligations of Group Inc., including under the FRB's source of strength requirement, and even require Group Inc. to provide additional funding to such subsidiaries. Restrictions or regulatory action of that kind could impede access to funds that Group Inc. needs to make payments on its obligations, including debt obligations, or dividend payments. In addition, Group Inc.'s right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary's liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary's creditors. There has been significant regulation and supervision of our branches and subsidiaries by the governments and regulators in the countries in which those branches and subsidiaries are located or do business. Concerns about protecting clients and creditors of branches and subsidiaries of financial institutions that are located outside of the country in which such branches or subsidiaries are located or do business have caused or may cause a number of governments and regulators to take additional steps to "ring fence" or require internal total loss-absorbing capacity (which may also be subject to "bail-in" powers, as described below) at those branches and subsidiaries in order to protect clients and creditors of those branches and subsidiaries in the event of financial difficulties involving those branches and subsidiaries. The result has been and may continue to be additional limitations on our ability to efficiently move capital and liquidity among our affiliated entities, or to Group Inc., including in times of stress, thereby increasing the overall level of capital and liquidity required by us on a consolidated basis. Furthermore, Group Inc. has guaranteed the payment obligations of certain of its subsidiaries, including GS&Co. and GS Bank USA, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, Group Inc. guarantees many of the obligations of other of its consolidated subsidiaries on a transaction-by-transaction basis, as negotiated with counterparties. These guarantees may require Group Inc. to provide substantial funds or assets to its subsidiaries or their creditors or counterparties at a time when Group Inc. is in need of liquidity to fund its own obligations. The requirements for us and certain of our subsidiaries to develop and submit recovery and resolution plans to regulators, and the incorporation of feedback received from regulators, may require us to increase capital or liquidity levels or issue additional long-term debt at Group Inc. or particular subsidiaries or otherwise incur additional or duplicative operational or other costs at multiple entities, and may reduce our ability to provide Group Inc. guarantees of the obligations of our subsidiaries or raise debt at Group Inc. Resolution planning may also impair our ability to structure our intercompany and external activities in a manner that we may otherwise deem most operationally efficient. Furthermore, arrangements to facilitate our resolution planning may cause us to be subject to additional taxes. Any such limitations or requirements would be in addition to the legal and regulatory restrictions described above on our ability to engage in capital actions or make intercompany dividends or payments. See "Business - Regulation" in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-K for further information about regulatory restrictions.

Our credit ratings are important to our liquidity. A reduction in our credit ratings could adversely affect our liquidity and competitive position, increase our borrowing costs, limit our access to the capital markets or trigger our obligations under certain provisions in some of our trading and collateralized financing contracts. Under these provisions, counterparties could be permitted to terminate contracts with us or require us to post additional collateral. Termination of our trading and collateralized financing contracts could cause us to sustain losses and impair our liquidity by requiring us to find other sources of financing or to make significant cash payments or securities movements. As of December 2025, our counterparties could have called for additional collateral or termination payments related to our net derivative liabilities under bilateral agreements in an aggregate amount of $224 million in the event of a one-notch downgrade of our credit ratings and $1.80 billion in the event of a two-notch downgrade of our credit ratings. A downgrade by any one rating agency, depending on the agency's relative ratings of us at the time of the downgrade, may have an impact which is comparable to the impact of a downgrade by all rating agencies. For further information about our credit ratings, see "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Risk Management - Liquidity Risk Management - Credit Ratings" in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K. Our cost of obtaining long-term unsecured funding is directly related to our credit spreads (the amount in excess of the interest rate of benchmark securities that we need to pay). Increases in our credit spreads can significantly increase our cost of this funding. Changes in credit spreads are market-driven, and subject at times to unpredictable and highly volatile movements. Our credit spreads are also influenced by market perceptions of our creditworthiness and movements in the costs to purchasers of credit default swaps referenced to our long-term debt. The market for credit default swaps has proven to be extremely volatile and at times has lacked a high degree of transparency or liquidity.

Widening credit spreads, as well as significant declines in the availability of credit, have in the past adversely affected our ability to borrow on a secured and unsecured basis and may do so in the future. We fund ourselves on an unsecured basis by primarily issuing long-term debt and commercial paper, by raising deposits at our bank subsidiaries, by issuing structured debt and by obtaining loans or lines of credit from commercial or other banking entities. We seek to finance many of our assets on a secured basis. Any disruptions in the credit markets may make it harder and more expensive to obtain funding for our businesses. If our available funding is limited or we are forced to fund our operations at a higher cost, these conditions may require us to curtail our business activities and increase our cost of funding, both of which could reduce our profitability, particularly in our businesses that involve investing, lending and market making. Our clients engaging in mergers, acquisitions and other types of strategic transactions often rely on access to the secured and unsecured credit markets to finance their transactions. A lack of available credit or an increased cost of credit can adversely affect the size, volume and timing of our clients' mergers and acquisitions transactions, particularly large transactions, and adversely affect our advisory and underwriting businesses. Our credit businesses have been and may in the future be negatively affected by a lack of liquidity in credit markets. A lack of liquidity reduces price transparency, increases price volatility and decreases transaction volumes and size, all of which can increase transaction risk or decrease the profitability of these businesses.