2005 Summary Annual Report: Form 10-K: Credit Risk Management

Credit Risk Management

Credit risk is the risk of loss arising from a borrower’s or counterparty’s inability to meet its obligations. Credit risk can also arise from operational failures that result in an advance, commitment or investment of funds. We define the credit exposure to a borrower or counterparty as the loss potential arising from all product classifications, including loans and leases, derivatives, trading account assets, assets held-for-sale, and unfunded lending commitments that include loan commitments, letters of credit and financial guarantees. For derivative positions, our credit risk is measured as the net replacement cost in the event the counterparties with contracts in a gain position to us completely fail to perform under the terms of those contracts. We use the current mark-to-market value to represent credit exposure without giving consideration to future mark-to-market changes. The credit risk amounts take into consideration the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements. Our consumer and commercial credit extension and review procedures take into account credit exposures that are funded or unfunded. For additional information on derivatives and credit extension commitments, see Note 5 and Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

We manage credit risk based on the risk profile of the borrower or counterparty, repayment sources, the nature of underlying collateral, and other support given current events, conditions and expectations. We classify our Loans and Leases as either consumer or commercial and monitor their credit risk separately as discussed below.

Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management

Credit risk management for the consumer portfolio begins with initial underwriting and continues throughout a borrower’s credit cycle. Statistical techniques are used to establish product pricing, risk appetite, operating processes and metrics to balance risks and returns. Consumer exposure is grouped by product and other attributes for purposes of evaluating credit risk. Statistical models are built using detailed behavioral information from external sources such as credit bureaus as well as internal historical experience. These models are essential to our consumer credit risk management process and are used in the determination of credit decisions, collections management strategies, portfolio management decisions, determination of the allowance for consumer loan and lease losses, and economic capital allocations for credit risk.

Table 8 presents outstanding consumer loans and leases for each year in the five-year period ending at December 31, 2005.

Concentrations of Consumer Credit Risk

Our consumer credit risk is diversified both geographically and through our various product offerings. In addition, credit decisions are statistically based with tolerances set to decrease the percentage of approvals as the risk profile increases.

From time to time, we purchase credit protection on certain portions of our consumer portfolio. This protection is designed to enhance our overall risk management strategy. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, we have mitigated a portion of our credit risk on approximately $110.4 billion and $88.7 billion of residential mortgage and indirect automobile loans through the purchase of credit protection. Our regulatory risk-weighted assets were reduced as a result of these transactions because we transferred a portion of our credit risk to unaffiliated parties. These transactions had the cumulative effect of reducing our risk-weighted assets by $30.6 billion and $25.5 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004, and resulted in 28 bp and 26 bp increases in our Tier 1 Capital ratio.

Consumer Portfolio Credit Quality Performance

Credit quality continued to be strong and consistent with performance from a year ago with the exception of the credit card portfolio.

Managed credit card performance was impacted by increased bankruptcy filings prior to legislation which became effective October 17, 2005, continued growth and seasoning of the portfolio, and increased minimum payment requirements implemented in April 2004. The year 2005 compared to 2004 was also impacted by the FleetBoston credit card portfolio.

The entire balance of an account is contractually delinquent if the minimum payment is not received by the specified date on the customer’s billing statement. Interest and fees continue to accrue on our past due loans until the date the loan goes into nonaccrual status, if applicable. Delinquency is reported on accruing loans that are 30 days or more past due.

Credit card loans are generally charged off at 180 days past due or 60 days from notification of bankruptcy filing and are not classified as nonperforming. Unsecured consumer loans and deficiencies in non-real estate secured loans and leases are charged off at 120 days past due and are generally not classified as nonperforming. Real estate secured consumer loans are placed on nonaccrual and are classified as nonperforming no later than 90 days past due. The amount deemed uncollectible on real estate secured loans is charged off at 180 days past due.

Table 9 presents consumer net charge-offs and net charge-off ratios on the held portfolio for 2005 and 2004.

As presented in Table 9, consumer net charge-offs from on-balance sheet loans increased $1.5 billion to $4.2 billion in 2005. Of these increased amounts, $1.3 billion was related to credit card net charge-offs. Higher credit card net charge-offs were driven by an increase in bankruptcy net charge-offs of $578 million resulting from changes in bankruptcy legislation, organic portfolio growth and seasoning, increases effective in 2004 in credit card minimum payment requirements, the impact of the FleetBoston portfolio and new advances on accounts for which previous loan balances were sold to the securitization trusts. The increase in direct/indirect consumer charge-offs was driven primarily by the growth and seasoning of the auto loan portfolio. The increase in other consumer charge-offs was primarily driven by an increase in charge-offs for checking account overdraft balances due to deposit growth and a change in the fourth quarter of 2005 in our charge-off policy for overdraft balances from 120 days to 60 days.

Net losses for the managed credit card portfolio increased $1.3 billion to $4.1 billion, or 6.92 percent of total average managed credit card loans in 2005, compared to 5.62 percent of total average managed credit card loans in 2004. Higher managed credit card net losses were driven by an increase in bankruptcy net losses resulting from the change in bankruptcy law, continued portfolio growth and seasoning, increases effective in 2004 in credit card minimum payment requirements and the impact of the FleetBoston portfolio.

As presented in Table 10, nonperforming consumer assets increased $39 million from December 31, 2004 to $846 million at December 31, 2005. The increase was due to a $47 million increase in nonperforming consumer loans and leases to $785 million, representing 0.22 percent of outstanding consumer loans and leases at December 31, 2005 compared to $738 million, representing 0.23 percent of outstanding consumer loans and leases at December 31, 2004. Nonperforming residential mortgages increased $16 million primarily due to modest portfolio growth, partially offset by sales of $112 million in 2005. Nonperforming home equity lines increased $51 million due to the seasoning of the portfolio. Other consumer nonperforming loans and leases fell $24 million due to the continued liquidation of the portfolios in our previously exited consumer businesses and a decline in foreign nonperforming loans and leases. Broad-based loan growth offset the increase in nonperforming consumer loans resulting in an improvement in the nonperforming ratios.

Table 11 presents the additions and reductions to nonperforming assets in the consumer portfolio during 2005 and 2004. Net additions to nonperforming loans and leases in 2005 were $47 million compared to $100 million in 2004.

On-balance sheet consumer loans and leases 90 days or more past due and still accruing interest totaled $1.3 billion at December 31, 2005, and were up $131 million from December 31, 2004, primarily driven by a $122 million increase in credit card past due loans due to continued seasoning and growth.

Commercial Portfolio Credit Risk Management

Credit risk management for the commercial portfolio begins with an assessment of the credit risk profile of the borrower or counterparty based on an analysis of the borrower’s or counterparty’s financial position. As part of the overall credit risk assessment of a borrower or counterparty, each commercial credit exposure or transaction is assigned a risk rating and is subject to approval based on defined credit approval standards. Subsequent to loan origination, risk ratings are monitored on an ongoing basis. If necessary, risk ratings are adjusted to reflect changes in the borrower’s or counterparty’s financial condition, cash flow or financial situation. We use risk rating aggregations to measure and evaluate concentrations within portfolios. Risk ratings are a factor in determining the level of assigned economic capital and the allowance for credit losses. In making decisions regarding credit, we consider risk rating, collateral, country, industry and single name concentration limits while also balancing the total borrower or counterparty relationship and SVA.

Our lines of business and Risk Management personnel use a variety of tools to continuously monitor a borrower’s or counterparty’s ability to perform under its obligations. Additionally, we utilize syndication of exposure to other entities, loan sales and other risk mitigation techniques to manage the size and risk profile of the loan portfolio.

Table 12 presents outstanding commercial loans and leases for each year in the five-year period ending December 31, 2005.

Concentrations of Commercial Credit Risk

Portfolio credit risk is evaluated and managed with a goal that concentrations of credit exposure do not result in undesirable levels of risk. We review, measure, and manage concentrations of credit exposure by industry, product, geography and customer relationship. Distribution of loans and leases by loan size is an additional measure of the portfolio risk diversification. We also review, measure, and manage commercial real estate loans by geographic location and property type. In addition, within our international portfolio, we evaluate borrowings by region and by country. Tables 13 through 19 summarize these concentrations.

From the perspective of portfolio risk management, customer concentration management is most relevant in Global Capital Markets and Investment Banking. Within that portfolio, concentrations are actively managed through the underwriting and ongoing monitoring processes, the established strategy of “originate to distribute”, and partly through the purchase of credit protection through credit derivatives. We utilize various risk mitigation tools to economically hedge our risk to certain credit counterparties. Credit derivatives are financial instruments that we purchase for protection against the deterioration of credit quality. Earnings volatility increases due to accounting asymmetry as we mark to market the CDS, as required by SFAS 133, while the loans are recorded at historical cost less an allowance for credit losses or, if held-for-sale, at the lower of cost or market.

At December 31, 2005 and 2004, we had a net notional amount of credit default protection purchased in our credit derivatives portfolio of $14.7 billion and $10.8 billion. Our credit portfolio hedges, including the impact of mark-to-market, resulted in net gains of $49 million in 2005 and net losses of $144 million in 2004. Gains for 2005 primarily reflected the impact of spread widening in certain industries in the first half of the year.

Table 13 shows commercial utilized credit exposure by industry based on Standard & Poor’s industry classifications and includes commercial loans and leases, SBLCs and financial guarantees, derivative assets, assets held-for-sale, and commercial letters of credit. These amounts exclude the impact of our credit hedging activities, which are separately included in the table. To lessen the cost of obtaining our desired credit protection levels, credit exposure may be added within an industry, borrower or counterparty group by selling protection. A negative notional amount indicates a net amount of protection purchased in a particular industry; conversely, a positive notional amount indicates a net amount of protection sold in a particular industry. Credit protection is purchased to cover the funded portion as well as the unfunded portion of credit exposure. As shown in the table below, commercial utilized credit exposure is diversified across a range of industries.

Table 14 shows the maturity profile of the net credit default protection portfolio at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

Table 15 shows our net credit default protection portfolio by credit exposure debt rating at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

Table 16 presents outstanding commercial real estate loans and the geographic region and property type diversification. The amounts outstanding exclude commercial loans and leases secured by owner-occupied real estate. Commercial loans and leases secured by owner-occupied real estate are made on the general creditworthiness of the borrower where real estate is obtained as additional security and the ultimate repayment of the credit is not dependent on the sale, lease and rental, or refinancing of the real estate. For purposes of this table, commercial real estate reflects loans dependent on the sale, lease and rental, or refinancing of the real estate as the primary source of repayment.

Foreign Portfolio

Table 17 sets forth total foreign exposure broken out by region at December 31, 2005 and 2004. Total foreign exposure is defined to include credit exposure, net of local liabilities, plus securities and other investments for all exposure with a country of risk other than the United States.

Our total foreign exposure was $92.2 billion at December 31, 2005, an increase of $2.0 billion from December 31, 2004. Our foreign exposure was concentrated in Europe, which accounted for $62.0 billion, or 67 percent, of total foreign exposure. The European exposure was mostly in Western Europe and was distributed across a variety of industries with the largest concentration in the banking sector that accounted for 47 percent of the total exposure in Europe. At December 31, 2005, the United Kingdom and Germany were the only countries whose total cross-border outstandings exceeded 0.75 percent of our total assets.

Our second largest foreign exposure of $14.1 billion, or 15 percent, was in Asia Pacific as growth in the total foreign exposure during 2005 was concentrated in that region. Our $3.0 billion equity investment in CCB was the most significant driver of the growth. Latin America accounted for $10.7 billion, or 12 percent, of total foreign exposure. The decline in exposure in Latin America during 2005 was primarily due to the sales of branch assets in Peru, Colombia and Panama as well as the reduction of exposure in Argentina, partially offset by an increase in Mexico. For more information on our Asia Pacific and Latin America exposure, see Table 19.

As shown in Table 18, at December 31, 2005 and 2004, the United Kingdom had total cross-border exposure of $22.9 billion and $11.9 billion, representing 1.78 percent and 1.07 percent of total assets. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, Germany had total cross-border exposure of $12.5 billion and $12.0 billion, representing 0.97 percent and 1.08 percent of total assets. At December 31, 2005, the largest concentration of the exposure to these countries was in the private sector.

As shown in Table 19, at December 31, 2005, foreign exposure to borrowers or counterparties in emerging markets increased by $1.6 billion to $17.2 billion compared to $15.6 billion at December 31, 2004, and represented 19 percent and 17 percent of total foreign exposure at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

At December 31, 2005, 51 percent of the emerging markets exposure was in Asia Pacific, compared to 40 percent at December 31, 2004. Asia Pacific emerging markets exposure increased by $2.4 billion due to our $3.0 billion equity investment in CCB partially offset by declines in other countries.

At December 31, 2005, 48 percent of the emerging markets exposure was in Latin America compared to 58 percent at December 31, 2004. Driving the decrease in Latin America were mostly lower exposures in Other Latin America and Argentina, partially offset by an increase in Mexico. Lower exposures in Other Latin America were attributable to the sales of branch assets in Peru, Colombia and Panama, as well as lower securities trading exposure in Venezuela. The reduction in Argentina was mostly in cross-border exposure. Our 24.9 percent investment in Grupo Financiero Santander Serfin accounted for $2.1 billion and $1.9 billion of reported exposure in Mexico at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

Our largest exposure in Latin America was in Brazil. Our exposure in Brazil at December 31, 2005 and 2004 included $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion of traditional cross-border credit exposure (Loans and Leases, letters of credit, etc.), and $2.2 billion and $1.8 billion of local country exposure net of local liabilities.

We had risk mitigation instruments associated with certain exposures in Brazil, including structured trade related transfer risk mitigation of $830 million and $950 million, third party funding of $313 million and $286 million, and linked certificates of deposit of $59 million and $125 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004. The resulting total foreign exposure net of risk mitigation for Brazil was $2.3 billion and $2.2 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

On October 13, 2005, we announced an agreement to sell our asset management business in Mexico with $1.8 billion of assets under management to an entity in which we have a 24.9 percent investment. The sale will be completed in 2006.

In December 2005, we entered into a definitive agreement with a consortium led by Johannesburg-based Standard Bank Group Ltd for the sale of BankBoston Argentina assets and the assumption of liabilities. The transaction is subject to obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals.

Table 19 sets forth regional foreign exposure to selected countries defined as emerging markets.

Commercial Portfolio Credit Quality Performance

Overall commercial credit quality continued to improve in 2005; however, the rate of improvement slowed in the second half of the year.

Table 20 presents commercial net charge-offs and net charge-off ratios for 2005 and 2004.

Commercial net charge-offs were $329 million for 2005 compared to $356 million for 2004. Commercial lease financing net charge-offs increased $222 million in 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to the domestic airline industry. Commercial—foreign net recoveries were $72 million in 2005 compared to net charge-offs of $173 million in 2004. Recoveries were centered in Bermuda, Latin America, India and the United Kingdom. Commercial—foreign net charge-offs of $173 million in 2004 were primarily related to one borrower in the food products industry.

As presented in Table 21, commercial criticized credit exposure decreased $2.7 billion, or 27 percent, to $7.5 billion at December 31, 2005. The net decrease was driven by $9.9 billion of paydowns, payoffs, credit quality improvements, charge-offs principally related to the domestic airline industry, and loan sales. Reductions were distributed across many industries of which the largest were airlines, utilities and media. These decreases were partially offset by $7.2 billion of newly criticized exposure. Global Business and Financial Services accounted for 54 percent, or $1.5 billion, of the decrease in commercial criticized exposure centered in Commercial Aviation, Latin America and Middle Market Banking, which comprised 20 percent, 15 percent and 9 percent of the total decrease. Global Capital Markets and Investment Banking accounted for 33 percent, or $896 million, of the decrease in criticized exposure.

We routinely review the loan and lease portfolio to determine if any credit exposure should be placed on nonperforming status. An asset is placed on nonperforming status when it is determined that full collection of principal and/or interest in accordance with its contractual terms is not probable. As presented in Table 22, nonperforming commercial assets decreased $891 million to $757 million at December 31, 2005 due primarily to the $749 million decrease in nonperforming commercial loans and leases.

The decrease in total nonperforming commercial loans and leases primarily resulted from paydowns and payoffs of $686 million, gross charge-offs of $669 million, returns to performing status of $152 million and loan sales of $108 million. These decreases were partially offset by new nonaccrual loans of $929 million.

Nonperforming commercial—domestic loans and leases decreased by $274 million and represented 0.41 percent of commercial—domestic loans and leases at December 31, 2005 compared to 0.70 percent at December 31, 2004. The improvement in the percentage of nonperforming commercial—domestic to total commercial—domestic was driven by a broad-based decrease in nonperforming loans and leases across several industries, the largest of which were utilities, and metals and mining. Nonperforming commercial lease financing decreased $204 million primarily due to the previously mentioned charge-offs associated with the domestic airline industry, and represented 0.30 percent of commercial lease financing at December 31, 2005 compared to 1.26 percent at December 31, 2004. Nonperforming commercial—foreign decreased $233 million and represented 0.16 percent of commercial—foreign at December 31, 2005 compared to 1.45 percent at December 31, 2004. The improvement in the percentage of nonperforming commercial—foreign to total commercial—foreign was attributable to Latin America.

The $140 million decrease in nonperforming securities from December 31, 2004 was primarily driven by an exchange of nonperforming securities for performing securities in Argentina that resulted from the completion of a government mandated securities exchange program.

Table 22 presents nonperforming commercial assets for each year in the five-year period ending December 31, 2005.

Table 23 presents the additions and reductions to nonperforming assets in the commercial portfolio during 2005 and 2004.

At December 31, 2005, Other Assets included commercial loans held-for-sale of $7.3 billion, of which $45 million was nonperforming, and leveraged lease partnership interests of $183 million. At December 31, 2005, there were no nonperforming leveraged lease partnership interests. At December 31, 2004, Other Assets included $1.3 billion and $198 million of commercial loans held-for-sale and leveraged lease partnership interests, of which, $100 million and $23 million were nonperforming.

Commercial loans and leases 90 days or more past due and still accruing interest, were $168 million at December 31, 2005, an increase of $30 million compared to December 31, 2004. The increase was driven by commercial —foreign loans in the U.K. See Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on past due commercial loans and leases.

Provision for Credit Losses

The Provision for Credit Losses was $4.0 billion, a 45 percent increase over 2004.

The consumer portion of the Provision for Credit Losses increased $992 million to $4.4 billion in 2005, primarily driven by consumer net charge-offs of $4.2 billion. Credit card net charge-offs increased $1.3 billion from 2004 to $3.7 billion with an estimated $578 million related to the increase in bankruptcy filings as customers rushed to file ahead of the new law. Also contributing to the increase in credit card net charge-offs were organic growth and seasoning of the portfolio, increases effective in 2004 in credit card minimum payment requirements, the impact of the FleetBoston portfolio and the impact of new advances on accounts for which previous loan balances were sold to the securitization trusts. We estimate that approximately 70 percent of the bankruptcy-related charge-offs represent acceleration of charge-offs from 2006. Excluding bankruptcy-related charge-offs representing acceleration from 2006 and charge-offs associated with the 2004 changes in credit card minimum payment requirements that were provided for in late 2004, the increased credit card net charge-offs were the primary driver of higher Provision for Credit Losses. In addition, the Provision for Credit Losses was impacted by new advances on accounts for which previous loan balances were sold to the securitization trusts, and the establishment of reserves in 2005 for additional changes made in late 2005 in credit card minimum payment requirements. The establishment of a $50 million reserve associated with Hurricane Katrina for estimated losses on residential mortgage, home equity and indirect automobile products also contributed to the provision increase.

The commercial portion of the Provision for Credit Losses increased $161 million to negative $370 million. The negative provision in 2005 reflects continued improvement in commercial credit quality, although at a slower pace than experienced in 2004. An improved risk profile in Latin America and reduced uncertainties resulting from the completion of credit-related integration activities for FleetBoston also drove the negative provision.

The Provision for Credit Losses related to unfunded lending commitments increased $92 million to negative $7 million as the rate of improvement in commercial credit quality slowed.

Allowance for Credit Losses

Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses

The Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses is allocated based on two components. We evaluate the adequacy of the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses based on the combined total of these two components.

The first component of the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses covers those commercial loans that are either nonperforming or impaired. An allowance is allocated when the discounted cash flows (or collateral value or observable market price) are lower than the carrying value of that loan. For purposes of computing the specific loss component of the allowance, larger impaired loans are evaluated individually and smaller impaired loans are evaluated as a pool using historical loss experience for the respective product type and risk rating of the loans.

The second component of the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses covers performing commercial loans and leases, and consumer loans. The allowance for commercial loan and lease losses is established by product type after analyzing historical loss experience by internal risk rating, current economic conditions, industry performance trends, geographic or obligor concentrations within each portfolio segment, and any other pertinent information. The commercial historical loss experience is updated quarterly to incorporate the most recent data reflective of the current economic environment. As of December 31, 2005, quarterly updating of historical loss experience did not have a material impact to the allowance for commercial loan and lease losses. The allowance for consumer loan and lease losses is based on aggregated portfolio segment evaluations, generally by product type. Loss forecast models are utilized for consumer products that consider a variety of factors including, but not limited to, historical loss experience, estimated defaults or foreclosures based on portfolio trends, delinquencies, economic trends and credit scores. These consumer loss forecast models are updated on a quarterly basis in order to incorporate information reflective of the current economic environment. As of December 31, 2005, quarterly updating of the loss forecast models to reflect estimated bankruptcy-related net charge-offs accelerated from 2006 resulted in a decrease in the allowance for consumer loan and lease losses.

Included within the second component of the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses are previously unallocated reserves maintained to cover uncertainties that affect our estimate of probable losses including the imprecision inherent in the forecasting methodologies, domestic and global economic uncertainty, large single name defaults and event risk. In the fourth quarter of 2005, we assigned these reserves to our individual products to better reflect our view of risk in these portfolios.

We monitor differences between estimated and actual incurred loan and lease losses. This monitoring process includes periodic assessments by senior management of loan and lease portfolios and the models used to estimate incurred losses in those portfolios.

Additions to the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses are made by charges to the Provision for Credit Losses. Credit exposures deemed to be uncollectible are charged against the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses. Recoveries of previously charged off amounts are credited to the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses.

The Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses for the consumer portfolio as presented in Table 25 increased $137 million from December 31, 2004 to $4.5 billion at December 31, 2005. Credit card accounted for $153 million of this increase and was primarily driven by new advances on accounts for which previous loan balances were sold to the securitization trusts, organic growth and continued seasoning which resulted in higher loss expectations. These increases were mostly offset by the use of reserves to absorb the estimated bankruptcy net charge-off acceleration from 2006. Increases in the allowance for non-credit card consumer products were driven by broad-based loan growth and seasoning, with the exception of the other consumer product category which decreased as a result of the run-off portfolios from our previously exited consumer businesses.

The allowance for commercial loan and lease losses was $3.5 billion at December 31, 2005, a $718 million decrease from December 31, 2004. This decrease resulted from continued improvement in commercial credit quality, including reduced exposure and an improved risk profile in Latin America, the use of reserves to absorb a portion of domestic airline charge-offs and a reduction of reserves due to reduced uncertainties resulting from the completion of credit-related integration activities for FleetBoston during 2005.

Reserve for Unfunded Lending Commitments

In addition to the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses, we also estimate probable losses related to unfunded lending commitments, such as letters of credit and financial guarantees, and binding unfunded loan commitments. Unfunded lending commitments are subject to individual reviews, and are analyzed and segregated by risk according to our internal risk rating scale. These risk classifications, in conjunction with an analysis of historical loss experience, current economic conditions and performance trends within specific portfolio segments, and any other pertinent information result in the estimation of the reserve for unfunded lending commitments. The reserve for unfunded lending commitments is included in Accrued Expenses and Other Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

We monitor differences between estimated and actual incurred credit losses upon draws of the commitments. This monitoring process includes periodic assessments by senior management of credit portfolios and the models used to estimate incurred losses in those portfolios.

Changes to the reserve for unfunded lending commitments are made through the Provision for Credit Losses. The reserve for unfunded lending commitments at December 31, 2005 was $395 million, a decrease of $7 million from December 31, 2004.

Table 24 presents a rollforward of the allowance for credit losses for five years ending December 31, 2005.

For reporting purposes, we allocate the allowance for credit losses across products. However, the allowance is available to absorb any credit losses without restriction. Table 25 presents our allocation by product type.