HSBC Finance Corp 06 10-K P2

HSBC Holdings PLC 05 March 2007 CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. We believe our policies are appropriate and fairly present the financial position of HSBC Finance Corporation. The significant accounting policies used in the preparation of our financial statements are more fully described in Note 2, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Certain critical accounting policies, which affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, are complex and involve significant judgment by our management, including the use of estimates and assumptions. We recognize the different inherent loss characteristics in each of our loan products as well as the impact of operational policies such as customer account management policies and practices and risk management/collection practices. As a result, changes in estimates, assumptions or operational policies could significantly affect our financial position or our results of operations. We base and establish our accounting estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions, customer account management policies and practices, risk management/collection practices, or other conditions as discussed below. We believe that of the significant accounting policies used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements, the items discussed below involve critical accounting estimates and a high degree of judgment and complexity. Our management has discussed the development and selection of these critical accounting policies with our external auditors and the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors, including the underlying estimates and assumptions, and the Audit Committee has reviewed our disclosure relating to these accounting policies and practices in this MD&A. CREDIT LOSS RESERVES Because we lend money to others, we are exposed to the risk that borrowers may not repay amounts owed to us when they become contractually due. Consequently, we maintain credit loss reserves at a level that we consider adequate, but not excessive, to cover our estimate of probable losses of principal, interest and fees, including late, overlimit and annual fees, in the existing portfolio. Loss reserves are set at each business unit in consultation with Corporate Finance and Credit Risk Management. Loss reserve estimates are reviewed periodically, and adjustments are reflected through the provision for credit losses in the 40 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period when they become known. We believe the accounting estimate relating to the reserve for credit losses is a "critical accounting estimate" for the following reasons: - The provision for credit losses totaled $6.6 billion in 2006, $4.5 billion in 2005 and $4.3 billion in 2004 and changes in the provision can materially affect net income. As a percentage of average receivables, the provision was 4.31 percent in 2006 compared to 3.76 percent in 2005 and 4.28 percent in 2004. - Estimates related to the reserve for credit losses require us to anticipate future delinquency and charge-off trends which are uncertain and require a high degree of judgment. - The reserve for credit losses is influenced by factors outside of our control such as customer payment patterns, economic conditions such as national and local trends in housing markets, interest rates, bankruptcy trends and changes in laws and regulations. Because our loss reserve estimate involves judgment and is influenced by factors outside of our control, it is reasonably possible such estimates could change. Our estimate of probable net credit losses is inherently uncertain because it is highly sensitive to changes in economic conditions which influence growth, portfolio seasoning, bankruptcy trends, trends in housing markets, the ability of customers to refinance their adjustable rate mortgages, delinquency rates and the flow of loans through the various stages of delinquency, or buckets, the realizable value of any collateral and actual loss exposure. Changes in such estimates could significantly impact our credit loss reserves and our provision for credit losses. For example, a 10% change in our projection of probable net credit losses on receivables could have resulted in a change of approximately $656 million in our credit loss reserve for receivables at December 31, 2006. The reserve for credit losses is a critical accounting estimate for all three of our reportable segments. Credit loss reserves are based on estimates and are intended to be adequate but not excessive. We estimate probable losses for consumer receivables using a roll rate migration analysis which utilizes recent historical data to estimate the likelihood that a loan will progress through the various stages of delinquency, or buckets, and ultimately charge off. This analysis considers delinquency status, loss experience and severity and takes into account whether loans are in bankruptcy, have been restructured or rewritten, or are subject to forbearance, an external debt management plan, hardship, modification, extension or deferment. In addition, our loss reserves on consumer receivables are maintained to reflect our judgment of portfolio risk factors that may not be fully reflected in the statistical roll rate calculation. Risk factors considered in establishing loss reserves on consumer receivables include recent growth, product mix, bankruptcy trends, geographic concentrations, loan product features such as adjustable rate loans, economic conditions such as national and local trends in housing markets and interest rates, portfolio seasoning, account management policies and practices, current levels of charge-offs and delinquencies, changes in laws and regulations and other items which can affect consumer payment patterns on outstanding receivables, such as natural disasters and global pandemics. While our credit loss reserves are available to absorb losses in the entire portfolio, we specifically consider the credit quality and other risk factors for each of our products. We recognize the different inherent loss characteristics in each of our products as well as customer account management policies and practices and risk management/ collection practices. Charge-off policies are also considered when establishing loss reserve requirements to ensure the appropriate reserves exist for products with longer charge-off periods. We also consider key ratios such as reserves as a percentage of nonperforming loans, reserves as a percentage of net charge-offs and number of months charge-off coverage in developing our loss reserve estimate. In addition to the above procedures for the establishment of our credit loss reserves, our Retail Credit Risk Management department independently evaluates the adequacy of our loss reserve levels. We periodically re-evaluate our estimate of probable losses for consumer receivables. Changes in our estimate are recognized in our statement of income as provision for credit losses in the period that the estimate is changed. Our credit loss reserves for receivables increased $2.1 billion from December 31, 2005 to $6.6 billion at December 31, 2006 as a result of higher loss estimates in our Mortgage Services business due to the deteriorating performance in the second lien and portions of the first lien real estate secured loans acquired in 2005 and 2006, higher levels of receivables due in part to lower securitization levels, higher overall delinquency 41 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- levels in our portfolio driven by growth and portfolio seasoning and the impact of the acquisition of Metris in December 2005. These increases were partially offset by lower personal bankruptcy levels, a reduction in the estimated loss exposure resulting from Katrina and the benefits of stable unemployment in the United States. At December 31, 2006, we recorded loss reserves at our Mortgage Services business of $2.1 billion that included estimates of losses attributable to ARM resets on first and second liens, a higher charge-off rate and expected loss severity on second liens generally and particularly, second liens subordinate to ARMs held by other lenders that face a rate reset in the next three years. Our reserves as a percentage of receivables were 4.07 percent at December 31, 2006, 3.23 percent at December 31, 2005 and 3.39 percent at December 31, 2004. Reserves as a percentage of receivables increased compared to December 31, 2005 primarily due to higher real estate loss estimates as discussed above. For more information about our charge-off and customer account management policies and practices, see "Credit Quality - Delinquency and Charge-offs" and "Credit Quality - Customer Account Management Policies and Practices." GOODWILL AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS Goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives are not subject to amortization. Intangible assets with finite lives are amortized over their estimated useful lives. Goodwill and intangible assets are reviewed annually on July 1 for impairment using discounted cash flows, but impairment is reviewed earlier if circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. We consider significant and long-term changes in industry and economic conditions to be our primary indicator of potential impairment. We believe the impairment testing of our goodwill and intangibles is a critical accounting estimate due to the level of goodwill ($7.0 billion) and intangible assets ($2.2 billion) recorded at December 31, 2006 and the significant judgment required in the use of discounted cash flow models to determine fair value. Discounted cash flow models include such variables as revenue growth rates, expense trends, interest rates and terminal values. Based on an evaluation of key data and market factors, management's judgment is required to select the specific variables to be incorporated into the models. Additionally, the estimated fair value can be significantly impacted by the cost of capital used to discount future cash flows. The cost of capital percentage is generally derived from an appropriate capital asset pricing model, which itself depends on a number of financial and economic variables which are established on the basis of management's judgment. Because our fair value estimate involves judgment and is influenced by factors outside our control, it is reasonably possible such estimates could change. When management's judgment is that the anticipated cash flows have decreased and/or the cost of capital has increased, the effect will be a lower estimate of fair value. If the fair value is determined to be lower than the carrying value, an impairment charge will be recorded and net income will be negatively impacted. Impairment testing of goodwill requires that the fair value of each reporting unit be compared to its carrying amount. A reporting unit is defined as any distinct, separately identifiable component of an operating segment for which complete, discrete financial information is available that management regularly reviews. For purposes of the annual goodwill impairment test, we assigned our goodwill to our reporting units. At July 1, 2006, the estimated fair value of each reporting unit exceeded its carrying value, resulting in none of our goodwill being impaired. Impairment testing of intangible assets requires that the fair value of the asset be compared to its carrying amount. For all intangible assets, at July 1, 2006, the estimated fair value of each intangible asset exceeded it carrying value and, as such, none of our intangible assets were impaired. Included in the sale of our European Operations in November 2006, was $13 million of goodwill attributable to this business. Subsequent to the sale, we performed an interim goodwill impairment test for our business remaining in the U.K. and European operations as required by SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" ("SFAS No. 142"). As the estimated fair value of our remaining U.K. and European operations exceeded our carrying value subsequent to the sale, we concluded that the remaining goodwill assigned to this reporting unit was not impaired. 42 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result of the adverse change in the business climate experienced by our Mortgage Services business in the second half of 2006, we performed an interim goodwill impairment test for this reporting unit as of December 31, 2006. As the estimated fair value of our Mortgage Services business exceeded our carrying value, we concluded that the remaining goodwill assigned to this reporting unit was not impaired. VALUATION OF DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND DERIVATIVE INCOME We regularly use derivative instruments as part of our risk management strategy to protect the value of certain assets and liabilities and future cash flows against adverse interest rate and foreign exchange rate movements. All derivatives are recognized on the balance sheet at fair value. As of December 31, 2006, the recorded fair values of derivative assets and liabilities were $1,461 million and $1,222 million, respectively. We believe the valuation of derivative instruments is a critical accounting estimate because certain instruments are valued using discounted cash flow modeling techniques in lieu of market value quotes. These modeling techniques require the use of estimates regarding the amount and timing of future cash flows, which are also susceptible to significant change in future periods based on changes in market rates. The assumptions used in the cash flow projection models are based on forward yield curves which are also susceptible to changes as market conditions change. We utilize HSBC Bank USA to determine the fair value of substantially all of our derivatives using these modeling techniques. We regularly review the results of these valuations for reasonableness by comparing to an internal determination of fair value or third party quotes. Significant changes in the fair value can result in equity and earnings volatility as follows: - Changes in the fair value of a derivative that has been designated and qualifies as a fair value hedge, along with the changes in the fair value of the hedged asset or liability (including losses or gains on firm commitments), are recorded in current period earnings. - Changes in the fair value of a derivative that has been designated and qualifies as a cash flow hedge are recorded in other comprehensive income to the extent of its effectiveness, until earnings are impacted by the variability of cash flows from the hedged item. - Changes in the fair value of a derivative that has not been designated as an effective hedge is reported in current period earnings. A derivative designated as an effective hedge will be tested for effectiveness in virtually all circumstances under the long-haul method (which at December 31, 2006 comprises 100 percent of our hedge portfolio based on notional amounts eligible for hedge accounting). For these transactions, we formally assess, both at the inception of the hedge and on a quarterly basis, whether the derivative used in a hedging transaction has been and is expected to continue to be highly effective in offsetting changes in fair values or cash flows of the hedged item. This assessment is conducted using statistical regression analysis. If it is determined as a result of this assessment that a derivative is not expected to be a highly effective hedge or that it has ceased to be a highly effective hedge, we discontinue hedge accounting as of the beginning of the quarter in which such determination was made. We also believe the assessment of the effectiveness of the derivatives used in hedging transactions is a critical accounting estimate due to the use of statistical regression analysis in making this determination. Similar to discounted cash flow modeling techniques, statistical regression analysis also requires the use of estimates regarding the amount and timing of future cash flows, which are susceptible to significant change in future periods based on changes in market rates. Statistical regression analysis also involves the use of additional assumptions including the determination of the period over which the analysis should occur as well as selecting a convention for the treatment of credit spreads in the analysis. The statistical regression analysis for our derivative instruments is performed by either HSBC Bank USA or an independent third party. The outcome of the statistical regression analysis serves as the foundation for determining whether or not the derivative is highly effective as a hedging instrument. This can result in earnings volatility as the mark-to-market on derivatives which do not qualify as effective hedges and the ineffectiveness associated with qualifying hedges are recorded in current period earnings. The mark-to market on derivatives which do not qualify as effective hedges was $28 million in 2006, $156 million in 2005 and $442 million in 2004. The 43 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ineffectiveness associated with qualifying hedges was $169 million in 2006, $41 million in 2005 and $1 million in 2004. See "Results of Operations" in Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for a discussion of the yearly trends. For more information about our policies regarding the use of derivative instruments, see Note 2, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," and Note 14, "Derivative Financial Instruments," to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Both we and certain of our subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings resulting from ordinary business activities relating to our current and/or former operations which affect all three of our reportable segments. Certain of these activities are or purport to be class actions seeking damages in significant amounts. These actions include assertions concerning violations of laws and/or unfair treatment of consumers. Due to the uncertainties in litigation and other factors, we cannot be certain that we will ultimately prevail in each instance. Also, as the ultimate resolution of these proceedings is influenced by factors that are outside of our control, it is reasonably possible our estimated liability under these proceedings may change. However, based upon our current knowledge, our defenses to these actions have merit and any adverse decision should not materially affect our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. RECEIVABLES REVIEW -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following table summarizes receivables at December 31, 2006 and increases (decreases) over prior periods: INCREASES (DECREASES) FROM --------------------------------- DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31, 2005 2004 DECEMBER 31, --------------- --------------- 2006 $ % $ % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Real estate secured(1)........................ $ 97,761 $14,935 18.0% $32,941 50.8% Auto finance.................................. 12,504 1,800 16.8 4,960 65.7 Credit card................................... 27,714 3,604 14.9 13,079 89.4 Private label................................. 2,509 (11) (0.4) (902) (26.4) Personal non-credit card...................... 21,367 1,822 9.3 5,239 32.5 Commercial and other.......................... 181 (27) (13.0) (136) (42.9) -------- ------- ----- ------- ----- Total receivables............................. $162,036 $22,123 15.8% $55,181 51.6% ======== ======= ===== ======= ===== --------------- (1) Real estate secured receivables are comprised of the following: INCREASES (DECREASES) FROM ------------------------------- DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31, 2005 2004 DECEMBER 31, -------------- -------------- 2006 $ % $ % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Mortgage Services........................................... $47,968 $ 6,413 15.4% $19,265 67.1% Consumer Lending............................................ 46,226 8,004 20.9 13,003 39.1 Foreign and all other....................................... 3,567 518 17.0 673 23.3 ------- ------- ---- ------- ---- Total real estate secured................................... $97,761 $14,935 18.0% $32,941 50.8% ======= ======= ==== ======= ==== 44 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REAL ESTATE SECURED RECEIVABLES Real estate secured receivables can be further analyzed as follows: INCREASES (DECREASES) FROM --------------------------------- DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31, 2005 2004 DECEMBER 31, --------------- --------------- 2006 $ % $ % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Real estate secured: Closed-end: First lien............................... $77,901 $11,082 16.6% $23,769 43.9% Second lien.............................. 15,090 3,275 27.7 7,168 90.5 Revolving: First lien............................... 556 (70) (11.2) (228) (29.1) Second lien.............................. 4,214 648 18.2 2,232 112.6 ------- ------- ----- ------- ----- Total real estate secured..................... $97,761 $14,935 18.0% $32,941 50.8% ======= ======= ===== ======= ===== Real estate secured receivables increased significantly over the year-ago period driven by growth in our branch and correspondent businesses. Growth in our branch-based Consumer Lending business improved because of higher sales volumes than in the prior year as we continue to emphasize real estate secured loans, including a near-prime mortgage product we first introduced in 2003. Also contributing to the increase was the acquisition of the $2.5 billion Champion portfolio in November 2006, as well as the $.4 billion in 2006 and the $1.7 billion in 2005 of acquisitions from a portfolio acquisition program. Our Mortgage Services correspondent business experienced growth in the first six months of 2006 as management continued to focus on junior lien loans through portfolio acquisitions and expanded our sources for purchasing newly originated loans from flow correspondents. This growth was partially offset when management revised its business plan and reduced purchases of second lien and selected higher risk products in the second half of 2006. These actions combined with normal portfolio attrition, resulted in a decline in the overall portfolio balance at our Mortgage Services business since June 2006. In addition, a decline in loan prepayments in 2006 due to the current rising interest rate environment resulted in lower run-off rates for our real estate secured portfolio. In 2005 we expanded our Canadian branch operations which has also experienced strong real estate secured receivable growth. 45 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following table summarizes various real estate secured receivables information for our Mortgage Services and Consumer Lending businesses: YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, --------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 2005 2004 ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- MORTGAGE CONSUMER MORTGAGE CONSUMER MORTGAGE CONSUMER SERVICES LENDING SERVICES LENDING SERVICES LENDING --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (IN MILLIONS) Fixed rate........................ $21,733 $42,675(1) $18,876 $36,415 $12,789 $31,947 Adjustable rate................... 26,235 3,551 22,679 $ 1,807 15,914 1,276 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Total............................. $47,968 $46,226 $41,555 $38,222 $28,703 $33,223 ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= First lien........................ $38,031 $39,684 $33,897 $33,017 $25,225 $29,287 Second lien....................... 9,937 6,542 7,658 5,205 3,478 3,936 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Total............................. $47,968 $46,226 $41,555 $38,222 $28,703 $33,223 ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= Adjustable rate................... $20,108 $ 3,551 $17,826 $ 1,807 $14,859 $ 1,276 Interest only..................... 6,127 - 4,853 - 1,055 - ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Total adjustable rate............. $26,235 $ 3,551 $22,679 $ 1,807 $15,914 $ 1,276 ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= Total stated income (low documentation).................. $11,772 $ - $ 7,344 $ - $ 3,112 $ - ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= --------------- (1) Includes interest-only loans of $46 million. At December 31, 2006 real estate secured loans originated and acquired subsequent to December 31, 2004 by our Mortgage Services business accounted for approximately 70 percent of total Mortgage Services receivables in a first lien and approximately 90 percent of total Mortgage Services receivables in a second lien position. AUTO FINANCE RECEIVABLES Auto finance receivables increased over the year-ago period due to organic growth principally in the near-prime portfolio. We experienced increases in newly originated loans acquired from our dealer network and growth in the consumer direct loan program. Additionally in 2006, we experienced continued growth from the expansion of an auto finance program introduced in Canada in the second quarter of 2004 which at December 31, 2006, has grown to a network of 2,000 active dealer relationships. CREDIT CARD RECEIVABLES Credit card receivables reflect strong domestic organic growth in our Union Privilege and non-prime portfolios including Metris. Also contributing to the growth was the successful launch of a MasterCard/Visa credit card program in Canada in 2005. Lower securitization levels also contributed to the increase at December 31, 2006. Receivable balances at December 31, 2005 were impacted by the $5.3 billion of receivables acquired as part of our acquisition of Metris as well as the sale of our U.K. credit card business which included $2.2 billion of MasterCard/Visa receivables. PRIVATE LABEL RECEIVABLES Private label receivables decreased in 2006 as a result of lower retail sales volumes in the U.K. and the termination of new domestic retail sales contract originations in October 2006, partially offset by growth in our Canadian business. 46 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERSONAL NON-CREDIT CARD RECEIVABLES Personal non-credit card receivables are comprised of the following: INCREASES (DECREASES) FROM ---------------------------------- DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31, 2005 2004 DECEMBER 31, --------------- --------------- 2006 $ % $ % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Domestic personal non-credit card........... $13,763 $2,369 20.8% $5,798 72.8% Union Plus personal non-credit card......... 235 (98) (29.4) (240) (50.5) Personal homeowner loans.................... 4,247 74 1.8 639 17.7 Foreign personal non-credit card............ 3,122 (523) (14.3) (958) (23.5) ------- ------ ----- ------ ----- Total personal non-credit card receivables............................... $21,367 $1,822 9.3% $5,239 32.5% ======= ====== ===== ====== ===== Personal non-credit card receivables increased during 2006 as a result of increased marketing, including several large direct mail campaigns. Domestic and foreign personal non-credit card loans (cash loans with no security) are made to customers who may not qualify for either a real estate secured or personal homeowner loan ("PHL"). The average personal non-credit card loan is approximately $6,600 and 46 percent of the personal non-credit card portfolio is closed-end with terms ranging from 12 to 60 months. The Union Plus personal non-credit card loans are part of our affinity relationship with the AFL-CIO and are underwritten similar to other personal non-credit card loans. PHL's typically have terms of 120 to 240 months and are subordinate lien, home equity loans with high (100 percent or more) combined loan-to-value ratios which we underwrite, price and manage like unsecured loans. The average PHL is approximately $14,000. Because recovery upon foreclosure is unlikely after satisfying senior liens and paying the expenses of foreclosure, we do not consider the collateral as a source for repayment in our underwriting. Historically, these loans have performed better from a credit loss perspective than traditional unsecured loans as consumers are more likely to pay secured loans than unsecured loans in times of financial distress. DISTRIBUTION AND SALES We reach our customers through many different distribution channels and our growth strategies vary across product lines. The Consumer Lending business originates real estate and personal non-credit card products through its retail branch network, direct mail, telemarketing, strategic alliances and Internet applications and purchases loans as part of a portfolio acquisition program. The Mortgage Services business originates real estate secured receivables sourced through brokers and purchases real estate secured receivables primarily through correspondents. Private label receivables are generated through point of sale, merchant promotions, application displays, Internet applications, direct mail and telemarketing. Auto finance receivables are generated primarily through dealer relationships from which installment contracts are purchased. Additional auto finance receivables are generated through direct lending which includes alliance partner referrals, Internet applications and direct mail as well as in our Consumer Lending branches. Credit card receivables are generated primarily through direct mail, telemarketing, Internet applications, application displays including in our Consumer Lending retail branch network, promotional activity associated with our co-branding and affinity relationships, mass media advertisements and merchant relationships sourced through our Retail Services business. We also supplement internally-generated receivable growth with strategic portfolio acquisitions. Our acquisition by HSBC enabled us to enlarge our customer base through cross-selling products to HSBC customers as well as generate new business with various major corporations. The rebranding of the majority of our U.S. and Canadian businesses to the HSBC brand has positively impacted these efforts. A Consumer Finance team, which was established in 2004, has worked throughout 2005 and 2006 on a consultative basis to extend consumer finance offerings in select emerging markets across the HSBC Group. Based on certain criteria, we offer personal non-credit card customers who meet our current underwriting standards the opportunity to convert their loans into real estate secured loans. This enables our customers to 47 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- have access to additional credit at lower interest rates. This also reduces our potential loss exposure and improves our portfolio performance as previously unsecured loans become secured. We converted approximately $665 million of personal non-credit card loans into real estate secured loans in 2006 and $652 million in 2005. It is not our practice to rewrite or reclassify delinquent secured loans (real estate or auto) into personal non-credit card loans. RESULTS OF OPERATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless noted otherwise, the following discusses amounts reported in our owned basis statement of income. NET INTEREST INCOME The following table summarizes net interest income: YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 (1) 2005 (1) 2004 (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Finance and other interest income......... $17,562 11.31% $13,216 10.61% $10,945 10.28% Interest expense.......................... 7,374 4.75 4,832 3.88 3,143 2.95 ------- ----- ------- ----- ------- ----- Net interest income....................... $10,188 6.56% $ 8,384 6.73% $ 7,802 7.33% ======= ===== ======= ===== ======= ===== --------------- (1) % Columns: comparison to average owned interest-earning assets. The increase in net interest income during 2006 was due to higher average receivables and higher overall yields, partially offset by higher interest expense. Overall yields increased due to increases in our rates on fixed and variable rate products which reflected market movements and various other repricing initiatives which in 2006 included reduced levels of promotional rate balances. Yields in 2006 were also favorably impacted by receivable mix with increased levels of higher yielding products such as credit cards, due in part to the full year benefit from the Metris acquisition and reduced securitization levels; higher levels of personal non-credit card receivables due to growth and higher levels of second lien real estate secured loans. The higher interest expense, which contributed to lower net interest margin, was due to a larger balance sheet and a significantly higher cost of funds due to a rising interest rate environment. In addition, as part of our overall liquidity management strategy, we continue to extend the maturity of our liability profile which results in higher interest expense. Our purchase accounting fair value adjustments include both amortization of fair value adjustments to our external debt obligations and receivables. Amortization of purchase accounting fair value adjustments increased net interest income by $418 million in 2006, which included $62 million relating to Metris and $520 million in 2005, which included $4 million relating to Metris. The increase in net interest income during 2005 was due to higher average receivables and a higher overall yield, partially offset by higher interest expense. Overall yields increased as our rates on variable rate products increased in line with market movements and other repricing initiatives more than offset a decline in real estate secured and auto finance yields. Changes in receivable mix also contributed to the increase in yield as the impact of increased levels of higher yielding credit card and personal non-credit card receivables due to lower securitization levels was partially offset by growth in lower yielding real estate secured receivables. Receivable mix was also significantly impacted by lower levels of private label receivables as a result of the sale of our domestic private label portfolio (excluding retail sales contracts at our consumer lending business) in December 2004. Amortization of purchase accounting fair value adjustments increased net interest income by $520 million in 2005 and $743 million in 2004. Net interest margin was 6.56 percent in 2006, 6.73 percent in 2005 and 7.33 percent in 2004. Net interest margin decreased in both 2006 and 2005 as the improvement in the overall yield on our receivable portfolio, as 48 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- discussed above, was more than offset by the higher funding costs. The following table shows the impact of these items on net interest margin: 2006 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Net interest margin - December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.............................................. 6.73% 7.33% Impact to net interest margin resulting from: Bulk sale of domestic private label portfolio in December 2004................................................... - (.24) Receivable pricing........................................ .32 .11 Receivable mix............................................ .07 .12 Sale of U.K. card business in December 2005............... .04 - Metris acquisition in December 2005....................... .34 .03 Cost of funds change...................................... (.89) (.79) Investment securities mix................................. - .06 Other..................................................... (.05) .11 ---- ---- Net interest margin - December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.............................................. 6.56% 6.73% ==== ==== The varying maturities and repricing frequencies of both our assets and liabilities expose us to interest rate risk. When the various risks inherent in both the asset and the debt do not meet our desired risk profile, we use derivative financial instruments to manage these risks to acceptable interest rate risk levels. See "Risk Management" for additional information regarding interest rate risk and derivative financial instruments. PROVISION FOR CREDIT LOSSES The provision for credit losses includes current period net credit losses and an amount which we believe is sufficient to maintain reserves for losses of principal, interest and fees, including late, overlimit and annual fees, at a level that reflects known and inherent losses in the portfolio. Growth in receivables and portfolio seasoning ultimately result in higher provision for credit losses. The provision for credit losses may also vary from year to year depending on a variety of additional factors including product mix and the credit quality of the loans in our portfolio including, historical delinquency roll rates, customer account management policies and practices, risk management/collection policies and practices related to our loan products, economic conditions such as national and local trends in housing markets and interest rates, changes in laws and regulations and our analysis of performance of products originated or acquired at various times. The following table summarizes provision for owned credit losses: YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (IN MILLIONS) Provision for credit losses................................. $6,564 $4,543 $4,334 Our provision for credit losses increased $2,021 million during 2006. The provision for credit losses in 2005 included increased provision expense of $185 million relating to Katrina and $113 million in the fourth quarter due to bankruptcy reform legislation. Excluding these adjustments and a subsequent release of $90 million of Katrina reserves in 2006, the provision for credit losses increased $2,409 million or 57 percent in 2006. The increase in the provision for credit losses was largely driven by deterioration in the performance of mortgage loans acquired in 2005 and 2006 by our Mortgage Services business, particularly in the second lien and portions of the first lien portfolios which has resulted in higher delinquency, charge-off and loss estimates in these portfolios. This deterioration worsened considerably in the fourth quarter of 2006, largely related to the first lien adjustable rate mortgage portfolio as well as loans in the second lien portfolio. We have now been able to determine that a significant number of our second lien customers have underlying adjustable rate first mortgages that face repricing in the near-term which has impacted the probability of repayment on the related second lien mortgage loan. As the interest rate adjustments will occur in an environment of substantially higher interest rates, lower home value appreciation and tightening credit, we expect the probability of default 49 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- for adjustable rate first mortgages subject to repricing as well as any second lien mortgage loans that are subordinate to an adjustable rate first lien will be greater than what we have historically experienced. Also contributing to this increase in provision in 2006 was the impact of higher receivable levels and normal portfolio seasoning including the Metris portfolio acquired in December 2005. These increases were partially offset by reduced bankruptcy filings, the benefit of stable unemployment levels in the United States and the sale of the U.K. card business in December 2005. Net charge-off dollars for 2006 increased $866 million compared to 2005 driven by our Mortgage Services business, as loans originated and acquired in 2005 and early 2006 are experiencing higher charge-offs. Also contributing to the increase in net charge-off dollars was higher credit card charge-off due to the full year impact of the Metris portfolio, the one-time accelerations of charge-offs at our Auto Finance business due to a change in policy, the discontinuation of a forbearance program at our U.K. business (see "Credit Quality" for further discussion) and the impact of higher receivable levels and portfolio seasoning in our auto finance and personal non-credit card portfolios. These increases were partially offset by the impact of reduced bankruptcy levels following the spike in filings and subsequent charge-off we experienced in the fourth quarter of 2005 as a result of the legislation enacted in October 2005, the benefit of stable unemployment levels in the United States, and the sale of the U.K. card business in December 2005. Our provision for credit losses increased during 2005 primarily due to increased credit loss exposure as a result of Katrina and higher bankruptcy losses due to increased bankruptcy filings as a result of a new bankruptcy law in the United States. Excluding the increased credit loss provision related to Katrina and the impact from the increased bankruptcy filings in 2005, our provision for credit losses declined in 2005 as a shift in portfolio mix to higher levels of secured receivables, primarily as a result of the sale of our domestic private label portfolio (excluding retail sales contracts at our Consumer Lending business) in December 2004, were partially offset by increased requirements due to receivable growth, including lower securitization levels and higher credit loss exposure in the U.K. Net charge-off dollars decreased in 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to the lower delinquency levels we experienced as a result of the strong economy. These improvements were partially offset by receivable growth as well as higher bankruptcy related charge-offs in the fourth quarter of 2005 as a result of a new bankruptcy law in the United States. We increased our credit loss reserves in both 2006 and 2005 as the provision for credit losses was $2,045 million greater than net charge-offs in 2006 (which included $1,668 million related to our Mortgage Services business) and $890 million greater than net charge-off in 2005. The provision as a percent of average owned receivables was 4.31 percent in 2006, 3.76 percent in 2005 and 4.28 percent in 2004. The increase in 2006 reflects higher loss estimates and charge-offs at our Mortgage Services business as discussed above, as well as higher dollars of delinquency in our other businesses driven by growth and portfolio seasoning. Reserve levels also increased due to higher early stage delinquency consistent with the industry trend in certain Consumer Lending real estate secured loans originated since late 2005. The decrease in 2005 reflects receivable growth, partially offset by the impact of Katrina and higher provision resulting from the increased bankruptcy filings as a result of new bankruptcy legislation in the United States. See "Critical Accounting Policies," "Credit Quality," "Analysis of Credit Loss Reserves Activity" and "Reconciliations to U.S. GAAP Financial Measures" for additional information regarding our loss reserves and the adoption of FFIEC policies. See Note 7, "Credit Loss Reserves" in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional analysis of loss reserves. 50 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER REVENUES The following table summarizes other revenues: YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (IN MILLIONS) Securitization related revenue.............................. $ 167 $ 211 $1,008 Insurance revenue........................................... 1,001 997 882 Investment income........................................... 274 134 137 Derivative income........................................... 190 249 511 Fee income.................................................. 1,911 1,568 1,091 Enhancement services revenue................................ 515 338 251 Taxpayer financial services revenue......................... 258 277 217 Gain on bulk sale of private label receivables.............. - - 663 Gain on receivable sales to HSBC affiliates................. 422 413 39 Servicing fees from HSBC affiliates......................... 506 440 57 Other income................................................ 179 336 307 ------ ------ ------ Total other revenues........................................ $5,423 $4,963 $5,163 ====== ====== ====== Securitization related revenue is the result of the securitization of our receivables and includes the following: YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (IN MILLIONS) Net initial gains(1)........................................ $ - $ - $ 25 Net replenishment gains(2).................................. 30 154 414 Servicing revenue and excess spread......................... 137 57 569 ---- ---- ------ Total....................................................... $167 $211 $1,008 ==== ==== ====== --------------- ()(1) Net initial gains reflect inherent recourse provisions of $47 million in 2004. ()(2) Net replenishment gains reflect inherent recourse provisions of $41 million in 2006, $252 million in 2005 and $850 million in 2004. The decline in securitization related revenue in 2006 and 2005 was due to decreases in the level of securitized receivables and higher run-off due to shorter expected lives of securitization trusts as a result of our decision in the third quarter of 2004 to structure all new collateralized funding transactions as secured financings. Because existing public credit card transactions were structured as sales to revolving trusts that require replenishments of receivables to support previously issued securities, receivables continue to be sold to these trusts until the revolving periods end, the last of which is currently projected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2007. We will continue to replenish at reduced levels, certain non-public personal non-credit card securities issued to conduits and record the resulting replenishment gains for a period of time in order to manage liquidity. While the termination of sale treatment on new collateralized funding activity and the reduction of sales under replenishment agreements reduced our reported net income under U.S. GAAP, there is no impact on cash received from operations. See Note 2, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," and Note 8, "Asset Securitizations," to the accompanying consolidated financial statements and "Off Balance Sheet Arrangements and Secured Financings" for further information on asset securitizations. Insurance revenue increased in 2006 primarily due to higher sales volumes and new reinsurance activity beginning in the third quarter of 2006 in our domestic operations. These increases in 2006 were partially offset by lower insurance sales volumes in our U.K. operations. The increase in 2005 was due to increased sales volumes for many of our insurance products in both our U.K. and domestic operations. 51 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Investment income, which includes income on securities available for sale in our insurance business and realized gains and losses from the sale of securities, increased in 2006 primarily due to the $123 million gain on sale of our investment in Kanbay. In 2005, the lower average investment balances and lower gains from security sales were largely offset by higher yields on our investments. Derivative income, which includes realized and unrealized gains and losses on derivatives which do not qualify as effective hedges under SFAS No. 133 as well as the ineffectiveness on derivatives associated with our qualifying hedges is summarized in the table below: 2006 2005 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (IN MILLIONS) Net realized gains (losses)................................. $ (7) $ 52 $ 68 Mark-to-market on derivatives which do not qualify as effective hedges.......................................... 28 156 442 Ineffectiveness............................................. 169 41 1 ---- ---- ---- Total....................................................... $190 $249 $511 ==== ==== ==== In 2006, derivative income decreased primarily due to a significant reduction during 2005 in the population of interest rate swaps which do not qualify for hedge accounting under SFAS No. 133. In addition, during 2006 we have experienced a rising interest rate environment compared to a yield cure that generally flattened in the comparable period of 2005. The income from ineffectiveness in both periods resulted from the designation during 2005 of a significant number of our derivatives as effective hedges under the long-haul method of accounting. These derivatives had not previously qualified for hedge accounting under SFAS No. 133. In addition, all of the hedge relationships which qualified under the shortcut method provisions of SFAS No. 133 have now been redesignated, substantially all of which are hedges under the long-haul method of accounting. Redesignation of swaps as effective hedges reduces the overall volatility of reported mark-to-market income, although establishing such swaps as long-haul hedges creates volatility as a result of hedge ineffectiveness. All derivatives are economic hedges of the underlying debt instruments regardless of the accounting treatment. Net income volatility, whether based on changes in interest rates for swaps which do not qualify for hedge accounting or ineffectiveness recorded on our qualifying hedges under the long haul method of accounting, impacts the comparability of our reported results between periods. Accordingly, derivative income for the year ended December 31, 2006 should not be considered indicative of the results for any future periods. Fee income, which includes revenues from fee-based products such as credit cards, increased in 2006 and 2005 due to higher credit card fees, particularly relating to our non-prime credit card portfolio due to higher levels of credit card receivables, including the Metris portfolio acquired in December 2005 and in 2005, improved interchange rates. Increases in 2006 were partially offset by the impact of FFIEC guidance which limits certain fee billings for non-prime credit card accounts and higher rewards program expenses. Increases in 2005 were partially offset by lower private label credit card fees and higher rewards program expenses. The lower private label credit card fees were the result of the bulk sale of domestic private label receivables to HSBC Bank USA in December 2004. Enhancement services revenue, which consists of ancillary credit card revenue from products such as Account Secure Plus (debt waiver) and Identity Protection Plan, was higher in 2006 and 2005 primarily as a result of higher levels of credit card receivables and higher customer acceptance levels. Additionally, the acquisition of Metris in December 2005 contributed to higher enhancement services revenue in 2006. Taxpayer financial services ("TFS") revenue decreased as 2005 TFS revenues reflects gains of $24 million on the sales of certain bad debt recovery rights to a third party. Excluding the impact of these gains in the prior year, TFS revenue increased due to increased loan volume during the 2006 tax season. The increase in 2005 was a result of increased loan volume in the 2005 tax season as well as the gains on the sale of bad debt recovery rights discussed above. 52 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gain on bulk sale of private label receivables resulted from the sale of $12.2 billion of domestic private label receivables including the retained interests associated with securitized private label receivables to HSBC Bank USA in December 2004. See Note 4, "Sale of Domestic Private Label Receivable Portfolio and Adoption of FFIEC Policies," to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further information. Gains on receivable sales to HSBC affiliates in 2006 and 2005 includes the daily sales of domestic private label receivable originations (excluding retail sales contracts) and certain credit card account originations to HSBC Bank USA as well as gains on bulk sales of real estate secured receivables to HSBC Bank USA by our Decision One mortgage operations in 2006. In 2004, gains on receivable sales to HSBC affiliates includes the bulk sale of real estate secured receivables in March 2004 as well as certain credit card account originations to HSBC Bank USA. See Note 4, "Sale of Domestic Private Label Receivable Portfolio and Adoption of FFIEC Policies," to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further information. Servicing fees from HSBC affiliates represents revenue received under service level agreements under which we service credit card and domestic private label receivables as well as real estate secured and auto finance receivables for HSBC affiliates. The increases primarily relate to higher levels of receivables being serviced on behalf of HSBC Bank USA and in 2006 the servicing fees we receive for servicing the credit card receivables sold to HBEU in December 2005. Other income decreased in 2006 primarily due to lower gains on sales of real estate secured receivables by our Decision One mortgage operations and an increase in the liability for estimated losses from indemnification provisions on Decision One loans previously sold. Lower gains on miscellaneous asset sales, including real estate investments also contributed to the decrease in other income. The increase in 2005 was primarily due to higher gains on miscellaneous asset sales, including the sale of a real estate investment. COSTS AND EXPENSES The following table summarizes total costs and expenses: YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (IN MILLIONS) Salaries and employee benefits.............................. $2,333 $2,072 $1,886 Sales incentives............................................ 358 397 363 Occupancy and equipment expenses............................ 317 334 323 Other marketing expenses.................................... 814 731 636 Other servicing and administrative expenses................. 1,115 917 958 Support services from HSBC affiliates....................... 1,087 889 750 Amortization of intangibles................................. 269 345 363 Policyholders' benefits..................................... 467 456 412 ------ ------ ------ Total costs and expenses.................................... $6,760 $6,141 $5,691 ====== ====== ====== Salaries and employee benefits increased in 2006 and 2005 as a result of additional staffing, primarily in our Consumer Lending, Mortgage Services, Retail Services and Canadian operations as well as in our corporate functions to support growth. Salaries in 2006 were also higher due to additional staffing in our Credit Card Services operations as a result of the acquisition of Metris in December 2005 which was partially offset by lower staffing levels in our U.K. business as a result of the sale of the cards business in 2005. Effective December 20, 2005, our U.K. based technology services employees were transferred to HBEU. As a result, operating expenses relating to information technology, which were previously reported as salaries and fringe benefits, are now billed to us by HBEU and reported as support services from HSBC affiliates. Sales incentives decreased in 2006 due to lower origination volumes in our Mortgage Services business due to the decision to reduce purchases including second lien and selected higher risk products in the second half of 2006. Also contributing to the decrease in 2006 was lower volumes in our U.K. business partially offset by 53 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- increases in our Canadian operations. Sales incentives increased in 2005 due to higher volumes in both our Consumer Lending and Mortgage Services businesses. Occupancy and equipment expenses decreased in 2006 as a result of the sale of our U.K. credit card business in December 2005 which included the lease associated with the credit card call center as well as lower repairs and maintenance costs. These decreases were partially offset by higher occupancy and equipment expenses resulting from our acquisition of Metris in December 2005. Occupancy and equipment expenses increased in 2005 as higher occupancy expense and higher repairs and maintenance costs were partially offset by lower depreciation. Other marketing expenses includes payments for advertising, direct mail programs and other marketing expenditures. The increase in 2006 was primarily due to increased domestic credit card marketing expense including the Metris portfolio acquired in December 2005, and expenses related to the launch of a co-brand credit card in the third quarter of 2006, partially offset by decreased expenses in our U.K. operations as a result of the sale of our U.K. card business in December 2005. The increase in 2005 was primarily due to increased domestic credit card marketing expenses due to higher non-prime marketing expense and investments in new marketing initiatives. Changes in contractual marketing responsibilities in July 2004 associated with the General Motors ("GM") co-branded credit card also resulted in increased expenses in 2005. Other servicing and administrative expenses increased in 2006 as a result of higher REO expenses due to higher volumes and higher losses, higher systems costs and higher insurance operating expense in our U.K. operations. The increase in 2006 also reflects lower deferred origination costs at our Mortgage Services business due to lower volumes. Other servicing and administrative expenses decreased in 2005 due to lower REO expenses and a lower estimate of exposure relating to accrued finance charges associated with certain loan restructures which were partially offset by higher systems costs. Support services from HSBC affiliates, which includes technology and other services charged to us by HTSU since January 1, 2004 and by HBEU since December 20, 2005, increased in 2006 and 2005 primarily due to growth. Amortization of intangibles decreased in 2006 and 2005 due to lower intangible amortization related to our purchased credit card relationships due to a contract renegotiation with one of our co-branded credit card partners in 2005 and lower amortization associated with an individual contractual relationship. These decreases in 2006 were partially offset by amortization expense associated with the Metris cardholder relationships. Additionally, 2006 amortization expense was lower following the sale of the U.K. card business in 2005 and the write-off related to a trade name in the U.K. in 2005. Policyholders' benefits increased in 2006 due to higher sales volumes and new reinsurance activity in our domestic operations beginning in the third quarter of 2006, partially offset by decreased sales volumes in our U.K. operations as well as lower amortization of fair value adjustments relating to our insurance business. Policyholders' benefits increased in 2005 due to a continuing increase in insurance sales volumes in both our U.K. and domestic operations, partially offset by lower amortization of fair value adjustments relating to our insurance business. The following table summarizes our efficiency ratio: YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. GAAP basis efficiency ratio............................ 41.55% 44.10% 42.05% Operating basis efficiency ratio(1)......................... 41.89 44.10 43.84 --------------- (1) Represents a non-U.S. GAAP financial measure. See "Basis of Reporting" for additional discussion on the use of this non-U.S. GAAP financial measure and "Reconciliations to U.S. GAAP Financial Measures" for quantitative reconciliations of our operating efficiency ratio to our owned basis U.S. GAAP efficiency ratio. 54 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our efficiency ratios improved due to higher net interest income and higher fee income and enhancement services revenues due to higher levels of receivables, partially offset by an increase in total costs and expenses to support receivable growth as well as higher losses on REO properties. Our efficiency ratio in 2005 was significantly impacted by the results of the domestic private label receivable portfolio which was sold in December 2004. Excluding the results of this domestic private label portfolio from both the 2005 and 2004 periods, our 2005 efficiency ratio improved 259 basis points as compared to 2004. This improvement is primarily a result of higher net interest income and other revenues due to higher levels of owned receivables, partially offset by the increase in total costs and expenses to support receivable growth. INCOME TAXES Our effective tax rates were as follows: YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, EFFECTIVE TAX RATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006........................................................ 36.9% 2005........................................................ 33.5 2004........................................................ 34.0 The increase in the effective tax rate for 2006 was due to higher state income taxes and lower tax credits as a percentage of income before taxes. The increase in state income taxes was primarily due to an increase in the blended statutory tax rate of our operating companies. The decrease in the effective tax rate in 2005 is attributable to lower state tax rates and lower pretax income with low income housing tax credits remaining constant. The effective tax rate differs from the statutory federal income tax rate primarily because of the effects of state and local income taxes and tax credits. SEGMENT RESULTS - IFRS MANAGEMENT BASIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have three reportable segments: Consumer, Credit Card Services and International. Our Consumer segment consists of our Consumer Lending, Mortgage Services, Retail Services and Auto Finance businesses. Our Credit Card Services segment consists of our domestic MasterCard and Visa and other credit card business. Our International segment consists of our foreign operations in the United Kingdom, Canada, the Republic of Ireland, and prior to November 2006 our operations in Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. The composition of our business segments is consistent with that reported in our 2005 Form 10-K. However, as previously discussed, corporate goals and individual goals of executives are currently calculated in accordance with IFRSs under which HSBC prepares its consolidated financials statements. In 2006 we initiated a project to refine the monthly internal management reporting process to place a greater emphasis on IFRS Management Basis reporting (a non-U.S. GAAP financial measure). As a result, operating results are now monitored and reviewed, trends are being evaluated and decisions about allocating resources, such as employees, are now being made almost exclusively on an IFRS Management Basis. As previously discussed, IFRS Management Basis results are IFRSs results which assume that the private label and real estate secured receivables transferred to HSBC Bank USA have not been sold and remain on our balance sheet. Operations are monitored and trends are evaluated on an IFRS Management Basis because the customer loan sales to HSBC Bank USA were conducted primarily to appropriately fund prime customer loans within HSBC and such customer loans continue to be managed and serviced by us without regard to ownership. Therefore, we have changed the measurement of segment profit to an IFRS Management Basis in order to align with our revised internal reporting structure. However, we continue to monitor capital adequacy, establish dividend policy and report to regulatory agencies on an U.S. GAAP basis. A summary of the significant differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRSs as they impact our results are summarized in Note 21, "Business Segments," in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. For comparability purposes, we have restated segment results for the year ended December 31, 2005 to the IFRS Management Basis. When HSBC began reporting IFRS results in 2005, it elected to take advantage of certain options available during the year of transition from U.K. GAAP to IFRSs which provided, among 55 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- other things, an exemption from applying certain IFRSs retrospectively. Therefore, the segment results reported for the year ended December 31, 2004 are presented on an IFRS Management Basis excluding the retrospective application of IAS 32, "Financial Instruments: Presentation" and IAS 39, "Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement" which took effect on January 1, 2005 and, as a result, the accounting for credit loss impairment provisioning, deferred loan origination costs and premiums and derivative income for the year ended December 31, 2004 remain in accordance with U.K. GAAP, HSBC's previous basis of reporting. Credit loss provisioning under U.K. GAAP differs from IFRSs in that IFRSs require a discounted cash flow methodology for estimating impairment as well as accruing for future recoveries of charged-off loans on a discounted basis. Under U.K. GAAP, only sales incentives were treated as deferred loan origination costs which results in lower deferrals than those reported under IFRSs. Additionally, deferred costs and fees could be amortized over the contractual life of the underlying receivable rather than the expected life as required under IFRSs. Derivative and hedge accounting under U.K. GAAP differs from U.S. GAAP in many respects, including the determination of when a hedge exists as well as the reporting of gains and losses. For a more detailed discussion of the differences between IFRSs and U.K. GAAP, see Exhibit 99.2 to this Form 10-K. CONSUMER SEGMENT The following table summarizes the IFRS Management Basis results for our Consumer segment for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004. YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Net income.................................................. $ 988 $ 1,981 $ 1,737 Operating net income........................................ 988 1,981 1,324 Net interest income......................................... 8,588 8,401 8,180 Other operating income...................................... 909 814 502 Intersegment revenues....................................... 242 108 101 Loan impairment charges..................................... 4,983 3,362 3,151 Operating expenses.......................................... 2,998 2,757 2,777 Customer loans.............................................. 144,573 128,095 107,769 Assets...................................................... 146,395 130,375 109,238 Net interest margin......................................... 6.23% 7.15% 8.38% Return on average assets.................................... .71 1.68 1.77 2006 compared to 2005 Our Consumer segment reported lower net income in 2006 due to higher loan impairment charges and operating expenses, partially offset by higher net interest income and higher other operating income. Loan impairment charges for the Consumer segment increased significantly during 2006. The increase in loan impairment charges was largely driven by deterioration in the performance of mortgage loans acquired in 2005 and 2006 by our Mortgage Services business, particularly in the second lien and portions of the first lien portfolios which has resulted in higher delinquency, charge-off and loss estimates in these portfolios. These increases were partially offset by a reduction in the estimated loss exposure resulting from Katrina of approximately $68 million in 2006 as well as the benefit of low unemployment levels in the United States. In 2006, we increased loss reserve levels as the provision for credit losses was greater than net charge-offs by $1,597 million, which included $1,627 million related to our Mortgage Services business. Operating expenses were higher in 2006 due to lower deferred loan origination costs in our Mortgage Services business as mortgage origination volumes have declined, higher marketing expenses due to the launch of a new co-brand credit card in our Retail Services business, higher salary expense and higher support services from affiliates to support growth. Net interest income increased during 2006 primarily due to higher average customer loans and higher overall yields, partially offset by higher interest expense. Overall yields reflect strong growth in real estate secured 56 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- customer loans at current market rates and a higher mix of higher yielding second lien real estate secured loans and personal non-credit card customer loans due to growth. These increases were partially offset by a reduction in net interest income of $120 million due to an adjustment to recognize prepayment penalties on real estate secured loans over the expected life of the product. Net interest margin decreased from the prior year as the higher yields discussed above were offset by higher interest expense due to a larger balance sheet and a significantly higher cost of funds resulting from a rising interest rate environment. The increase in other operating income in 2006 was primarily due to higher credit insurance commissions, higher late fees and a higher fair value adjustment for our loans held for sale, partially offset by higher REO expense due to higher volumes and losses. Customer loans increased 13 percent to $144.6 billion at December 31, 2006 as compared to $128.1 billion at December 31, 2005. Real estate growth in 2006 was strong as a result of strong growth in our branch-based Consumer Lending business. In addition, our correspondent business experienced growth during the first six months of 2006 as management continued to focus on junior lien loans and expanded our sources for purchasing newly originated loans from flow correspondents. However, in the second half of 2006, management revised its business plan and began tightening underwriting standards on loans purchased from correspondents including reducing purchases of second lien and selected higher risk segments. These activities have reduced, and will continue to reduce, the volume of correspondent purchases in the future which will have the effect of slowing growth in the real estate secured portfolio. Growth in our branch-based Consumer Lending business reflects higher sales volumes than in the prior year as we continue to emphasize real estate secured loans, including a near-prime mortgage product we first introduced in 2003. Real estate secured customer loans also increased as a result of portfolio acquisitions, including the $2.5 billion of customer loans related to the Champion portfolio purchased in November 2006 as well as $.4 billion in 2006 and $1.7 billion in 2005 of purchases from a portfolio acquisition program. In addition, a decline in loan prepayments in 2006 resulted in lower run-off rates for our real estate secured portfolio which also contributed to overall growth. Our Auto Finance business also reported organic growth, principally in the near-prime portfolio, from increased volume in both the dealer network and the consumer direct loan program. The private label portfolio increased in 2006 due to strong growth within consumer electronics and powersports as well as new merchant signings. Growth in our personal non-credit card portfolio was the result of increased marketing, including several large direct mail campaigns. In the fourth quarter of 2006, our Consumer Lending business completed the acquisition of Solstice Capital Group Inc. ("Solstice") with assets of approximately $49 million, in an all cash transaction for approximately $50 million. Additional consideration may be paid based on Solstice's 2007 pre-tax income. Solstice markets a range of mortgage and home equity products to customers through direct mail. This acquisition will add momentum to our origination growth plan by providing an additional channel to customers. ROA was .71 percent in 2006 and 1.68 percent in 2005. The decrease in the ROA ratio in 2006 is due to the decrease in net income discussed above as well as the growth in average assets. In accordance with Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council ("FFIEC") guidance, the required minimum monthly payment amounts for domestic private label credit card accounts have changed. The implementation of these new requirements began in the fourth quarter of 2005 and was completed in the first quarter of 2006. Implementation did not have a material impact on either the results of the Consumer segment or our consolidated results. 2005 compared to 2004 Our Consumer segment reported higher operating net income in 2005. Operating net income is a non-U.S. GAAP financial measure of net income which excludes in 2004 the $97 million decrease in net income relating to the adoption of FFIEC charge-off policies for our domestic private label customer loans (excluding the retail sales contracts at our Consumer Lending business). In 2005, the increase in operating net income was primarily due to higher other operating income and higher net interest income, partially offset by higher loan impairment charges. 57 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The increase in other operating income was due to higher late and other account services fees and lower losses on REO properties. Additionally, as IAS 39 was not adopted until January 1, 2005, other operating income in 2005 includes amounts which were classified differently in 2004. Under IAS 39, interest income and deferred loan origination fees for loans held for sale are recorded as trading income and included in other operating income. In 2004 under U.K. GAAP, these items were not included in other operating income but continued to be reported as components of interest income and deferred loan origination fees. Therefore, the 2005 results include $79 million in other operating income for loans held for sale for which the comparable 2004 amounts were included in interest income and deferred loan origination fees in 2004. Net interest income increased in 2005 primarily due to higher average customer loans, partially offset by higher interest expense. Net interest margin decreased in 2005 as a result of lower yields on real estate secured and auto finance customer loans as a result of competitive pressure on pricing and product expansion into near-prime consumer segments, as well as the run-off of higher yielding real estate secured customer loans, including second lien loans, largely due to refinance activity. Our Auto Finance business experienced lower yields as we targeted higher credit quality customers. Although higher credit quality customer loans generate lower yields, such customer loans are expected to result in lower operating costs, delinquency ratios and charge-off. The decreases in yield for our consumer segment receivable portfolio discussed above were partially offset by higher pricing on our variable rate products. A higher cost of funds due to a rising interest rate environment also contributed to the decrease in net interest margin. Loan impairment charges increased in 2005 as a result of increased provision requirements associated with receivable growth, the impact from Katrina and the new bankruptcy law in the United States, which are discussed more fully below. Excluding the impact of Katrina and the new bankruptcy law in the United States, loan impairment charges were lower in 2005 driven by lower net charge-off due to improved credit quality, partially offset by increased provision requirements due to portfolio growth. In 2005 we experienced lower dollars of net charge-offs than in the prior year. In 2005, we increased IFRS Management Basis loss reserves as the provision for credit losses was higher than net charge-offs by $261 million. As previously mentioned, loan impairment charges in 2005 also reflected an estimate of incremental credit loss exposure relating to Katrina. The incremental provision for credit losses for Katrina in the Consumer segment in 2005 was $130 million and represented our best estimate of Katrina's impact on our loan portfolio. In an effort to assist our customers affected by the disaster, we initiated various programs including extended payment arrangements for up to 90 days or more depending upon customer circumstances. These interest and fee waivers were not material to the Consumer segment's 2005 results. As previously discussed, the United States enacted new bankruptcy legislation which resulted in a spike in bankruptcy filings prior to the October 2005 effective date. As a result, our 2005 fourth quarter results included an increase of approximately $130 million in loan impairment charges due to this spike in bankruptcy filings. However, in accordance with our charge-off policy for real estate secured and personal non-credit card customer loans, the associated accounts did not begin to migrate to charge-off until 2006. Customer loans increased 19 percent to $128.1 billion at December 31, 2005 as compared to $107.8 billion at December 31, 2004. We experienced strong growth in 2005 in our real estate secured portfolio in both our correspondent and branch-based businesses. In 2005 we continued to focus on junior lien loans through portfolio acquisitions and expanded our sources for purchasing newly originated loans from flow correspondents. Growth in real estate secured customer loans was also supplemented by purchases from a single correspondent relationship which totaled $1.1 billion in 2005. Also contributing to the increase were purchases of $1.7 billion in 2005 from a portfolio acquisition program. Our auto finance portfolio also reported growth due to strong organic growth, principally in the near-prime portfolios. This came from newly originated loans acquired from our dealer network, growth in the consumer direct loan program and expanded distribution through alliance channels. Our private label portfolio experienced growth as a result of strong merchant renewals including nine new retail merchants in 2005 as well as an increase in the commercial card capacity. Personal non-credit card customer loans increased from the prior year as we began to increase the availability 58 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of this product in the second half of 2004 as a result of an improving U.S. economy as well as the success of several large direct mail campaigns that occurred in 2005. ROA was 1.68 percent in 2005 and 1.77 percent in 2004. The decrease in 2005 was a result of the growth in average assets outpacing the increase in net income. CREDIT CARD SERVICES SEGMENT The following table summarizes the IFRS Management Basis results for our Credit Card Services segment for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004. YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Net income.................................................. $ 1,386 $ 813 $ 521 Net interest income......................................... 3,151 2,150 2,226 Other operating income...................................... 2,360 1,892 1,581 Intersegment revenues....................................... 20 21 25 Loan impairment charges..................................... 1,500 1,453 1,786 Operating expenses.......................................... 1,841 1,315 1,205 Customer loans.............................................. 28,221 25,979 19,615 Assets...................................................... 28,780 28,453 19,702 Net interest margin......................................... 11.85% 10.42% 10.78% Return on average assets.................................... 5.18 4.13 2.55 2006 compared to 2005 Our Credit Card Services segment reported higher net income in 2006. The increase in net income was primarily due to higher net interest income and higher other operating income, partially offset by higher operating expenses and higher loan impairment charges. The acquisition of Metris, which was completed in December 2005, contributed $147 million of net income during 2006 as compared to $4 million in 2005. Net interest income increased in 2006 largely as a result of the Metris acquisition, which contributed to higher overall yields due in part to higher levels of non-prime customer loans, partially offset by higher interest expense. Net interest income in 2006 also benefited from the implementation in the second quarter of 2006 of a methodology for calculating the effective interest rate for introductory rate credit card customer loans under IFRSs over the expected life of the product which increased net interest income by $154 million for the year. Net interest margin increased primarily due to higher overall yields due to increases in non-prime customer loans, including the customer loans acquired as part of Metris, higher pricing on variable rate products and other repricing initiatives. These increases were partially offset by a higher cost of funds. Net interest margin in 2006 was also positively impacted by the adjustments recorded for the effective interest rate for introductory rate MasterCard/Visa customer loans discussed above. Although our non-prime customer loans tend to have smaller balances, they generate higher returns both in terms of net interest margin and fee income. Increases in other operating income resulted from portfolio growth, including the Metris portfolio acquired in December 2005 which has resulted in higher late fees, higher interchange revenue and higher enhancement services revenue from products such as Account Secure Plus (debt waiver) and Identity Protection Plan. This increase in fee income was partially offset by adverse impacts of limiting certain fee billings on non-prime credit card accounts as discussed below. Higher operating expenses were incurred to support receivable growth, including the Metris portfolio acquisition, and increases in marketing expenses. The increase in marketing expenses in 2006 was primarily due to the Metris portfolio acquired in December 2005 and increased investment in our non-prime portfolio. Loan impairment charges were higher in 2006. Loan impairment charges in 2005 were impacted by incremental credit loss provisions relating to the spike in bankruptcy filings experienced in the period leading up to October 17, 2005, which was the effective date of new bankruptcy laws in the United States and higher 59 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- provisions relating to Katrina. Excluding these items, provisions in 2006 nonetheless increased, reflecting receivable growth and portfolio seasoning, including the full year impact of the Metris portfolio, partially offset by the impact of lower levels of bankruptcy filings following the enactment of new bankruptcy laws in October 2005, higher recoveries as a result of better rates available in the non-performing asset sales market and a reduction of our estimate of incremental credit loss exposure related to Katrina of approximately $26 million. We increased loss reserves by recording loss provision greater than net charge-off of $328 million in 2006. Customer loans increased 9 percent to $28.2 billion at December 31, 2006 compared to $26.0 billion at December 31, 2005. The increase reflects strong domestic organic growth in our Union Privilege as well as other non-prime portfolios including Metris. The increase in ROA in 2006 is primarily due to the higher net income as discussed above, partially offset by higher average assets. In accordance with FFIEC guidance, our Credit Card Services business adopted a plan to phase in changes to the required minimum monthly payment amount and limit certain fee billings for non-prime credit card accounts. The implementation of these new requirements began in July 2005 with the requirements fully phased in by December 31, 2005. These changes resulted in lower non-prime credit card fee income in 2006. In addition, roll rate trends in the prime book have been slightly higher than those experienced prior to the changes in minimum payment. These changes have resulted in fluctuations in loan impairment charges as credit loss provisions for prime accounts has increased as a result of higher required monthly payments while the non-prime provision decreased due to lower levels of fees incurred by customers. The impact of these changes has not had a material impact on our consolidated results, but has had a material impact to the Credit Card Services segment in 2006. 2005 compared to 2004 Our Credit Card Services segment reported higher net income in 2005. The increase in net income was primarily due to higher other operating income and lower loan impairment charges, partially offset by higher operating expenses and lower net interest income. The acquisition of Metris, which was completed in December 2005, did not have a significant impact to the results of the Credit Card Services segment in 2005. Increases in other operating income resulted from portfolio growth, higher late and overlimit fees and improved interchange rates. Loan impairment charges decreased in 2005 due to improved credit quality, partially offset by receivable growth as well as the increased credit loss provision relating to the impact of Katrina and the increased bankruptcy filings resulting from the new bankruptcy law in the United States. We experienced higher dollars of net charge-offs in our portfolio due to higher receivable levels as well as the increased credit card charge-offs in the fourth quarter of 2005 which resulted from the spike in bankruptcy filings prior to the October 2005 effective date of the new bankruptcy law. We had been maintaining credit loss reserves in anticipation of the impact this new law would have on net charge-offs. However, the magnitude of the spike in bankruptcies experienced immediately before the new law became effective was larger than anticipated which resulted in an additional $100 million credit loss provision being recorded during the third quarter of 2005. Our fourth quarter of 2005 results included an estimated $125 million in incremental charge-offs of principal, interest and fees attributable to bankruptcy reform which was offset by a release of our owned credit loss reserves of $125 million. As expected, the number of bankruptcy filings subsequent to the enactment of this new law has decreased dramatically. In 2005, we increased our loss reserves by recording loss provision greater than net charge-offs of $20 million. Loan impairment charges in 2005 also reflects an estimate of incremental credit loss exposure relating to Katrina. The incremental provision for credit losses for Katrina in the Credit Card Services segment in 2005 was $55 million and represented our best estimate of Katrina's impact on our loan portfolio. In an effort to assist our customers affected by the disaster, we initiated various programs including extended payment arrangements and interest and fee waivers for up to 90 days or more depending upon customer circumstances. These interest and fee waivers were not material to the Credit Card Services segment's 2005 results. 60 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Higher operating expenses were to support receivable growth and increases in marketing expenses. The increase in marketing expenses was due to higher non-prime marketing expense, investments in new marketing initiatives and changes in contractual marketing responsibilities in July 2004 associated with the domestic co-branded GM credit card. Net interest income decreased due to higher interest expense in 2005 due to a higher cost of funds, partially offset by increases in finance and interest income. The increase in finance and interest income from our credit card customer loans reflects increased pricing on variable yield products and higher receivable balances. Yields increased in 2005 primarily due to increases in non-prime receivable levels, higher pricing on variable rate products as well as other repricing initiatives. Lower average interest earning assets due to lower levels of low yielding investment securities and the impact of lower amortization from receivable origination costs resulting from changes in the contractual marketing responsibilities in July 2004 associated with the co- branded GM credit card also contributed to the increase in yield. These increases to net interest margin were offset by higher interest expense resulting in lower net interest margin. Although our non-prime customer loans tend to have smaller balances, they generate higher returns both in terms of net interest margin and fee income. Customer loans increased 32 percent to $26.0 billion at December 31, 2005 compared to $19.6 billion at December 31, 2004. As discussed above, the increase was primarily due to the acquisition of Metris in December 2005 which increased customer loans by $5.3 billion on an IFRS Management Basis. Organic growth in our HSBC branded prime, Union Privilege and non-prime portfolios, partially offset by the continued decline in certain older acquired portfolios, also contributed to the increase. The increase in ROA in 2005 was primarily due to the higher net income discussed above as well as the impact of lower average assets. The decrease in average assets was due to lower investment securities during 2005 as a result of the elimination of investments dedicated to our credit card bank in 2003 resulting from our acquisition by HSBC. INTERNATIONAL SEGMENT The following table summarizes the IFRS Management Basis results for our International segment for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004. YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Net income.................................................. $ 42 $ 481 $ 122 Net interest income......................................... 826 971 899 Gain on sales to affiliates................................. 29 464 - Other operating income, excluding gain on sales to affiliates................................................ 254 306 313 Intersegment revenues....................................... 33 17 15 Loan impairment charges..................................... 535 620 408 Operating expenses.......................................... 495 635 615 Customer loans.............................................. 9,520 9,328 13,102 Assets...................................................... 10,764 10,905 14,263 Net interest margin......................................... 8.22% 7.35% 7.57% Return on average assets.................................... .37 3.52 .98 2006 compared to 2005 Our International segment reported lower net income in 2006. However, net income in 2006 includes the $29 million gain on the sale of the European Operations to HBEU and in 2005 includes the $464 million gain on the sale of the U.K. credit card business to HBEU. As discussed more fully below, the gains reported by the International segment exclude the write-off of goodwill and intangible assets associated with these transactions. Excluding the gain on sale from both periods, the International segment reported higher net income in 2006 primarily due to lower loan impairment charges and lower operating expenses, partially offset by lower net interest income and lower other operating income. Applying constant 61 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- currency rates, which uses the average rate of exchange for 2005 to translate current period net income, the net income in 2006 would have been lower by $2 million. Loan impairment charges decreased in 2006 primarily due to the sale of our U.K. credit card business partially offset by increases due to the deterioration of the financial circumstances of our customers across the U.K. and increases at our Canadian business due to receivable growth. We increased loss reserves by recording loss provision greater than net charge-offs of $3 million in 2006. Operating expenses decreased as a result of the sale of our U.K. credit card business in December 2005. The decrease in operating expenses was partially offset by increased costs associated with growth in the Canadian business. Net interest income decreased during 2006 primarily as a result of lower receivable levels in our U.K. subsidiary. The lower receivable levels were due to the sale of our U.K. credit card business in December 2005, including $2.5 billion in customer loans, to HBEU as discussed more fully below, as well as decreased sales volumes in the U.K. resulting from a continuing challenging credit environment in the U.K. This was partially offset by higher net interest income in our Canadian operations due to growth in customer loans. Net interest margin increased in 2006 primarily due to lower cost of funds partially offset by the change in receivable mix resulting from the sale of our U.K. credit card business in December 2005. Other operating income decreased in 2006, in part, due to the aforementioned sale of the U.K. credit card business which resulted in lower credit card fee income partially offset by higher servicing fee income from affiliates. Other operating income was also lower in 2006 due to lower income from our insurance operations. Customer loans of $9.5 billion at December 31, 2006 increased 2 percent compared to $9.3 billion at December, 2005. Our Canadian operations experienced strong growth in its receivable portfolios. Branch expansions, the addition of 1,000 new auto dealer relationships and the successful launch of a MasterCard credit card program in Canada in 2005 have resulted in growth in both the secured and unsecured receivable portfolios. The increases in our Canadian portfolio were partially offset by lower customer loans in our U.K. operations. Our U.K. based unsecured customer loans decreased due to continuing lower retail sales volume following a slow down in retail consumer spending as well as the sale of $203 million of customer loans related to our European operations in November 2006 as discussed more fully below. Applying constant currency rates, which uses the December 31, 2005 rate of exchange to translate current customer loan balances, customer loans would have been lower by $708 million at December 31, 2006. ROA was .37 percent in 2006 and 3.52 percent in 2005. These ratios have been impacted by the gains on asset sales to affiliates. Excluding the gain on sale from both periods, ROA was essentially flat as ROA was .11 percent in 2006 and .12 percent in 2005. As previously disclosed, in November 2006, we sold the capital stock of our operations in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia to a wholly owned subsidiary of HBEU, a U.K. based subsidiary of HSBC, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $46 million. The International segment recorded a gain on sale of $29 million as a result of this transaction. As the fair value adjustments related to purchase accounting resulting from our acquisition by HSBC and the related amortization are allocated to Corporate, which is included in the "All Other" caption within our segment disclosures, the gain recorded in the International segment does not include the goodwill write-off resulting from this transaction of $15 million on an IFRS Management Basis. We continue to evaluate the scope of our other U.K. operations. 2005 compared to 2004 Our International segment reported higher net income in 2005. However, net income in 2005 includes the $464 million gain on the sale of the U.K. credit card business to HBEU. As discussed more fully below, the gain reported by the International segment excludes the write-off of goodwill and intangible assets associated with these transactions. Excluding the gain on sale from 2005, the International segment reported lower net income driven by a significant decline in earnings at our U.K. subsidiary. Overall, the decrease reflects higher loan impairment charges and higher operating expenses, partially offset by higher 62 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- net interest income. Applying constant currency rates, which uses the average rate of exchange for the 2004 period to translate current period net income, net income would have been higher by $18 million in 2005. Loan impairment charges increased in 2005 primarily due to higher delinquency and charge-off levels in the U.K. due to a general increase in consumer bad debts in the U.K. market, including increased bankruptcies. We increased reserves in 2005 by recording loss provision greater than net charge-offs of $120 million. Operating expenses increased due to higher expenses to support receivable growth and collection activities and increased costs associated with branch expansions in Canada. Net interest income increased in 2005 primarily due to higher average interest earning assets. Net interest margin decreased in 2005 due to increased cost of funds as well as overall lower yields on our customer loans. The lower overall yields were due to run-off of higher yielding customer loans and competitive pricing pressures holding down yields on our personal loans in the U.K., partially offset by repricing initiatives and interest-free balances not being promoted as strongly in 2005 as in the past. Other operating income decreased slightly as lower credit card fee income was offset by higher insurance revenues. In December 2005, we sold our U.K. credit card business, including $2.5 billion of customer loans, and the associated cardholder relationships to HBEU for an aggregate purchase price of $3.0 billion. The purchase price, which was determined based on a comparative analysis of sales of other credit card portfolios, was paid in a combination of cash and $261 million of preferred stock issued by a subsidiary of HBEU with a rate of one-year Sterling LIBOR, plus 1.30 percent. In addition to the assets referred to above, the sale also included the account origination platform, including the marketing and credit employees associated with this function, as well as the lease associated with the credit card call center and the related leaseholds and call center employees to provide customer continuity after the transfer as well as to allow HBEU direct ownership and control of origination and customer service. We have retained the collection operations related to the credit card operations and have entered into a service level agreement for a period of not less than two years to provide collection services and other support services, including components of the compliance, financial reporting and human resource functions, for the sold credit card operations to HBEU for a fee. Additionally, the management teams of HBEU and our remaining U.K. operations will be jointly involved in decision making involving card marketing to ensure that growth objectives are met for both businesses. The International segment has recorded a gain on sale of $464 million as a result of this transaction. As the fair value adjustments related to purchase accounting resulting from our acquisition by HSBC and the related amortization are allocated to Corporate, which is included in the "All Other" caption within our segment disclosures, the gain recorded in the International segment does not include the goodwill and intangible write- off resulting from this transaction of $288 million. Additionally, in a separate transaction in December 2005, we transferred our information technology services employees in the U.K. to a subsidiary of HBEU. As a result, subsequent to the transfer operating expenses relating to information technology, which have previously been reported as salaries and fringe benefits or other servicing and administrative expenses, are now billed to us by HBEU and reported as support services from HSBC affiliates. Customer loans of $9.3 billion at December 31, 2005 decreased 29 percent compared to $13.1 billion at December 31, 2004. The decrease was primarily due to the sale of the U.K. credit card business to HBEU in December 2005, which included customer loans of $2.5 billion. In addition to the sale of our credit card operations in the U.K., our U.K. based unsecured receivable products decreased in 2005 due to lower retail sales volume following a slow down in retail consumer spending in the U.K. These decreases were partially offset by growth in the receivable portfolio in our Canadian operations. Branch expansions in Canada in 2005 resulted in strong secured and unsecured receivable growth. Additionally, the Canadian auto finance program, which was introduced in the second quarter of 2004, grew to a network of over 1,000 active dealer relationships at December 31, 2005. Also contributing to the receivable growth in Canada was the successful launch of a MasterCard credit card program. Applying constant currency rates, which uses the December 31, 2004 rate of 63 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- exchange to translate current customer loan balances, customer loans would have been higher by $648 million at December 31, 2005. ROA was 3.52 percent in 2005 and .98 percent in 2004. Excluding gain on sale of the U.K. credit card business in 2005, ROA was .12 percent in 2005 and .98 percent in 2004. This decrease in 2005 reflects the lower net income as discussed above as well as higher average assets primarily due to receivable growth. RECONCILIATION OF SEGMENT RESULTS As previously discussed, segment results are reported on an IFRS Management Basis. See Note 21, "Business Segments," to the accompanying financial statements for a discussion of the differences between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP. For segment reporting purposes, intersegment transactions have not been eliminated. We generally account for transactions between segments as if they were with third parties. Also see Note 21, "Business Segments," in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for a reconciliation of our IFRS Management Basis segment results to U.S. GAAP consolidated totals. CREDIT QUALITY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DELINQUENCY AND CHARGE-OFF POLICIES AND PRACTICES Our delinquency and net charge-off ratios reflect, among other factors, changes in the mix of loans in our portfolio, the quality of our receivables, the average age of our loans, the success of our collection and customer account management efforts, bankruptcy trends, general economic conditions such as national and local trends in housing markets and interest rates and significant catastrophic events such as natural disasters and global pandemics. The levels of personal bankruptcies also have a direct effect on the asset quality of our overall portfolio and others in our industry. Our credit and portfolio management procedures focus on risk-based pricing and effective collection and customer account management efforts for each loan. We believe our credit and portfolio management process gives us a reasonable basis for predicting the credit quality of new accounts. This process is based on our experience with numerous marketing, credit and risk management tests. We also believe that our frequent and early contact with delinquent customers, as well as restructuring and other customer account management techniques which are designed to optimize account relationships, are helpful in maximizing customer collections. See Note 2, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for a description of our charge-off and nonaccrual policies by product. Our charge-off policies focus on maximizing the amount of cash collected from a customer while not incurring excessive collection expenses on a customer who will likely be ultimately uncollectible. We believe our policies are responsive to the specific needs of the customer segment we serve. Our real estate and auto finance charge-off policies consider customer behavior in that initiation of foreclosure or repossession activities often prompts repayment of delinquent balances. Our collection procedures and charge-off periods, however, are designed to avoid ultimate foreclosure or repossession whenever it is reasonably economically possible. Our credit card charge-off policy is consistent with industry practice. Charge-off periods for our personal non-credit card product and, prior to December 2004, our domestic private label credit card product were designed to be responsive to our customer needs and may therefore be longer than bank competitors who serve a different market. Our policies have generally been consistently applied in all material respects. Our loss reserve estimates consider our charge-off policies to ensure appropriate reserves exist for products with longer charge-off lives. We believe our current charge-off policies are appropriate and result in proper loss recognition. DELINQUENCY Our policies and practices for the collection of consumer receivables, including our customer account management policies and practices, permit us to reset the contractual delinquency status of an account to current, based on indicia or criteria which, in our judgment, evidence continued payment probability. When we use a customer account management technique, we may treat the account as being contractually current 64 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and will not reflect it as a delinquent account in our delinquency statistics. However, if the account subsequently experiences payment defaults and becomes at least two months contractually delinquent, it will be reported in our delinquency ratios. At December 31, 2006 and 2005 our two-months-and-over contractual delinquency included $2.5 billion and $2.3 billion respectively of restructured accounts that subsequently experienced payment defaults. See "Customer Account Management Policies and Practices" for further detail of our practices. The following table summarizes two-months-and-over contractual delinquency (as a percent of consumer receivables): 2006 2005 --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- DEC. 31 SEPT. 30 JUNE 30 MARCH 31 DEC. 31 SEPT. 30 JUNE 30 MARCH 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Real estate secured(1)........... 3.54% 2.98% 2.52% 2.46% 2.72% 2.51% 2.56% 2.62% Auto finance(2)........ 3.18 3.16 2.73 2.17 3.04 2.78 2.74 2.32 Credit card(3)......... 4.57 4.53 4.16 4.35 3.66 4.46 4.14 4.60 Private label.......... 5.31 5.61 5.42 5.50 5.43 5.22 4.91 4.71 Personal non-credit card................. 10.17 9.69 8.93 8.86 9.40 9.18 8.84 8.63 ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total consumer(2),(3)...... 4.59% 4.19% 3.71% 3.66% 3.89% 3.84% 3.78% 3.83% ===== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== --------------- (1) Real estate secured two-months-and-over contractual delinquency (as a percent of consumer receivables) are comprised of the following: 2006 2005 --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- DEC. 31 SEPT. 30 JUNE 30 MARCH 31 DEC. 31 SEPT. 30 JUNE 30 MARCH 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mortgage Services: First lien................... 4.50% 3.81% 3.10% 2.94% 3.21% 2.87% 2.84% 2.86% Second lien.................. 5.74 3.70 2.35 1.83 1.94 1.48 1.69 2.07 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total Mortgage Services........ 4.75 3.78 2.93 2.70 2.98 2.65 2.69 2.76 Consumer Lending: First lien................... 2.07 1.84 1.77 1.87 2.14 2.27 2.25 2.34 Second lien.................. 3.06 2.44 2.37 2.68 3.03 1.93 2.72 2.63 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total Consumer Lending......... 2.21 1.92 1.85 1.99 2.26 2.23 2.31 2.38 Foreign and all other: First lien................... 1.58 1.52 1.53 1.77 2.11 1.80 2.38 2.81 Second lien.................. 5.38 5.52 5.54 5.57 5.71 4.71 4.51 4.26 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total Foreign and all other.... 4.59 4.69 4.76 4.88 5.09 4.25 4.20 4.06 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total real estate secured...... 3.54% 2.98% 2.52% 2.46% 2.72% 2.51% 2.56% 2.62% ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== (2) In December 2006, our Auto Finance business changed its charge-off policy to provide that the principal balance of auto loans in excess of the estimated net realizable value will be charged-off 30 days (previously 90 days) after the financed vehicle has been repossessed if it remains unsold, unless it becomes 150 days contractually delinquent, at which time such excess will be charged off. This resulted in a one-time acceleration of charge-off which totaled $24 million in December 2006. In connection with this policy change our Auto Finance business also changed its methodology for reporting two-months-and-over contractual delinquency to include loan balances associated with repossessed vehicles which have not yet been written down to net realizable value, consistent with policy. These changes resulted in an increase of 44 basis points to the auto finance delinquency ratio and an increase of 3 basis points to the total consumer delinquency ratio at December 31, 2006. Prior period amounts have been restated to conform to the current year presentation. (3) In December 2005, we completed the acquisition of Metris which included receivables of $5.3 billion. This event had a significant impact on this ratio. Excluding the receivables from the Metris acquisition from the December 2005 calculation, our consumer delinquency ratio for our credit card portfolio was 4.01% and total consumer delinquency was 3.95%. Compared to September 30, 2006, our total consumer delinquency increased 40 basis points at December 31, 2006 to 4.59 percent. A significant factor in the increase in the delinquency ratio was higher real estate secured delinquency levels primarily at our Mortgage Services business as previously discussed, as well as higher 65 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- personal non-credit card delinquency, partially offset by recent growth. The increase in the Consumer Lending real estate delinquency ratio was primarily due to the addition of the Champion portfolio. While the Champion portfolio carries higher delinquency, its low loan-to-value ratios are expected to result in lower charge-offs compared to the existing portfolio. Our auto finance delinquency ratio was broadly flat with September as decreases due to the change in charge-off policy were offset by seasonal increases in delinquency during the fourth quarter. The increase in the credit card delinquency ratio primarily reflects seasoning, partially offset by the benefit of seasonal receivable growth. The decrease in private label delinquency (which primarily consists of our foreign private label portfolio and domestic retail sales contracts that were not sold to HSBC Bank USA in December 2004) reflects recent receivable growth in our foreign portfolios. The increase in the personal non-credit card delinquency ratio reflects maturation of a growing domestic portfolio as well as slight deterioration of certain customer groups in our domestic portfolio, partially offset by decreased delinquencies in our U.K. portfolio following the acceleration of charge-offs related to the cancellation of a forbearance program which provided that customers would not charge-off if certain minimum payment conditions were met. We have implemented risk mitigation strategies in our domestic non-credit card portfolio, including tightening credit criteria and increased collection capacity. Compared to December 31, 2005, our total consumer delinquency ratio increased 70 basis points. This increase was driven by higher real estate secured delinquency levels at our Mortgage Services business, higher credit card delinquency largely due to the Metris portfolio acquired in December 2005, higher personal non- credit card delinquency driven by seasoning of a growing portfolio and higher delinquency due to lower bankruptcy filings. These increases were partially offset by receivable growth and the benefit of stable unemployment in the United States. See "Customer Account Management Policies and Practices" regarding the treatment of restructured accounts and accounts subject to forbearance and other customer account management tools. See Note 2, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," for a detail of our charge-off policy by product. 66 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NET CHARGE-OFFS OF CONSUMER RECEIVABLES The following table summarizes net charge-off of consumer receivables as a percent of average consumer receivables: 2006 2005 --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- - QUARTER ENDED (ANNUALIZED) QUARTER ENDED (ANNUALIZED) 2004 FULL -------------------------------------- FULL ------------------------------------- - FULL YEAR DEC. 31 SEPT. 30 JUNE 30 MAR. 31 YEAR DEC. 31 SEPT. 30 JUNE 30 MAR. 31 YEAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- Real estate secured(1).... 1.00% 1.28% .98% .97% .75% .76% .66% .75% .78% .87% 1.10% Auto finance(2)........... 3.67 4.97 3.69 2.43 3.50 3.27 3.42 3.25 2.61 3.80 3.43 Credit card(3)............ 5.56 6.79 5.52 5.80 4.00 7.12 7.99 6.24 6.93 7.17 8.85 Private label(3).......... 5.80 6.68 5.65 5.29 5.62 4.83 5.60 5.35 4.36 4.18 6.17 Personal non-credit card(2)................. 7.89 7.92 7.77 7.92 7.94 7.88 7.59 8.01 7.77 8.18 9.75 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- Total consumer(2),(3)..... 2.97% 3.46% 2.92% 2.88% 2.58% 3.03% 3.10% 2.93% 2.93% 3.15% 4.00% ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ===== ===== ==== Real estate charge-offs and REO expense as a percent of average real estate secured receivables............. 1.19% 1.68% 1.11% 1.04% .89% .87% .78% .88% .84% 1.01% 1.38% ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ===== ===== ==== --------------- (1) Real estate secured net charge-off of consumer receivables as a percent of average consumer receivables are comprised of the following: 2006 2005 --------------------------------------------- ---- QUARTER ENDED (ANNUALIZED) FULL -------------------------------------- FULL YEAR DEC. 31 SEPT. 30 JUNE 30 MAR. 31 YEAR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mortgage Services: First lien............................. .77% .91% .75% .73% .67% .68% Second lien............................ 2.38 4.40 2.11 1.72 1.15 1.11 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total Mortgage Services................. 1.12 1.66 1.06 .94 .77 .75 Consumer Lending: First lien............................. .85 .85 .84 .98 .71 .74 Second lien............................ 1.12 1.02 1.22 1.25 1.01 1.21 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total Consumer Lending.................. .89 .88 .90 1.02 .75 .80 Foreign and all other: First lien............................. .54 .89 .38 .99 .24 1.04 Second lien............................ .94 1.15 .91 .81 .63 .37 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total Foreign and all other............. .86 1.10 .81 .85 .56 .47 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Total real estate secured............... 1.00% 1.28% .98% .97% .75% .76% ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== 2005 -------------------------------------- QUARTER ENDED (ANNUALIZED) 2004 -------------------------------------- FULL DEC. 31 SEPT. 30 JUNE 30 MAR. 31 YEAR ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Mortgage Services: First lien............................. .59% .71% .74% .72% .81% Second lien............................ .79 .93 1.31 1.79 2.64 ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- Total Mortgage Services................. .63 .74 .81 .85 1.05 Consumer Lending: First lien............................. .68 .74 .71 .82 1.03 Second lien............................ .84 1.06 1.22 1.76 2.77 ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- Total Consumer Lending.................. .70 .79 .78 .93 1.21 Foreign and all other: First lien............................. 1.10 .96 1.06 1.14 .89 Second lien............................ .49 .36 .41 .29 .24 ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- Total Foreign and all other............. .59 .45 .50 .41 .33 ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- Total real estate secured............... .66% .75% .78% .87% 1.10% ==== ==== ===== ===== ==== (2) In December 2006, our Auto Finance business changed its charge-off policy to provide that the principal balance of auto loans in excess of the estimated net realizable value will be charged-off 30 days (previously 90 days) after the financed vehicle has been repossessed if it remains unsold, unless it becomes 150 days contractually delinquent, at which time such excess will be charged off. This resulted in a one-time acceleration of charge-offs in December 2006, which totaled $24 million. Excluding the impact of this change the auto finance net charge-off ratio would have been 4.19 percent in the quarter ended December 31, 2006 and 3.46 percent for the full year 2006. Also in the fourth quarter of 2006, our U.K. business discontinued a forbearance program related to unsecured loans. Under the forbearance program, eligible delinquent accounts would not be subject to charge-off if certain minimum payment conditions were met. The cancellation of this program resulted in a one-time acceleration of charge-off which totaled $89 million. Excluding the impact of the change in the U.K. forbearance program, the personal non-credit card net charge-off ratio would have been 6.23 percent in the quarter ended December 31, 2006 and 7.45 percent for the full year 2006. Excluding the impact of both changes, the total consumer charge-off ratio would have been 3.17 percent for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 and 2.89 percent for the full year 2006. (3) The adoption of FFIEC charge-off policies for our domestic private label (excluding retail sales contracts at our Consumer Lending business) and credit card portfolios in December 2004 increased private label net charge-offs by 119 basis points, credit card net charge-offs by 2 basis points and total consumer net charge-offs by 16 basis points. Net charge-offs as a percentage of average consumer receivables decreased 6 basis points for the full year of 2006 as compared to the full year of 2005. Decreases in personal bankruptcy net charge-offs in our credit card portfolio following the October 2005 bankruptcy law changes in the United States was substantially offset by higher charge-offs in our real estate secured portfolio and in particular at our Mortgage Services business due to the deteriorating performance of certain loans acquired in 2005 and 2006. We anticipate the increase in net charge-off ratio for our real estate secured portfolio will continue in 2007 as a result of the higher delinquency 67 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- levels we are experiencing in loans purchased by Mortgage Services in 2005 and 2006. The increase in the auto finance ratio for the full year 2006 reflects seasoning of the portfolio and the one-time acceleration of charge-off totaling $24 million. The decrease in the credit card net charge-off ratio reflects the decrease in personal bankruptcy filings discussed above, as well as the positive impact of receivable growth and higher recoveries in our credit card portfolio as a result of increased sales volumes of recent and older charged-off accounts. The net charge-off ratio for our private label receivables for the full year 2006 and 2005 reflects decreased average receivables and the deterioration of the financial circumstances of some of our customers in the U.K. The personal non-credit card charge-off ratio was broadly flat with the prior year as increased charge-offs in both our domestic and U.K. businesses were offset by recent growth in our domestic business. Charge-offs increased in our domestic business due to seasoning of a growing portfolio. Charge-offs in our U.K. business increased due to declining receivables and the deterioration of the financial circumstances of some of our customers across the U.K. as well as the one-time acceleration of charge-offs totaling $89 million from the cancellation of a forbearance program in the U.K. as discussed above. We experienced an increase in overall net charge-off dollars across all products in 2006. Higher losses at our Mortgage Services business as discussed above, as well as portfolio growth and seasoning in our credit card and auto finance portfolios were major contributing factors to this increase. The increase in real estate charge-offs and REO expense as a percent of average real estate secured receivables in 2006 was primarily due to higher charge-offs in our real estate secured portfolio as discussed above, as well as higher REO expense due to higher levels of owned properties and higher losses on sales due to the slowing housing market, including an actual decline in some markets, in property values. Net charge-offs as a percentage of average consumer receivables decreased 97 basis points for the full year of 2005 as compared to the full year of 2004. The net charge-off ratio for full year 2004 was impacted by the adoption of FFIEC charge-off policies for our domestic private label (excluding retail sales contracts at our Consumer Lending business) and credit card portfolios. Excluding the additional charge-offs in 2004 resulting from the adoption of these FFIEC policies, net charge-offs for the full year 2005 decreased 81 basis points compared to 2004 as a result of receivable growth and the positive impact from the lower delinquency levels we have experienced as a result of a strong economy. This was partially offset by the increased charge-offs in the fourth quarter of 2005 for our credit card receivable portfolio resulting from the spike in bankruptcy filings prior to the effective date of new bankruptcy legislation in the United States. Our real estate secured portfolio experienced a decrease in net charge-offs for full year 2005 reflecting receivables growth and continuing strong economic conditions. The decrease in the auto finance ratio for the full year 2005 reflects receivable growth with improved credit quality of originations, improved collections and better underwriting standards. The decrease in the credit card and personal non-credit card receivable net charge-off ratios reflects the positive impact of changes in receivable mix resulting from lower securitization levels and continued improved credit quality. As discussed above, the decrease in the credit card ratio was partially offset by increased net charge-offs resulting from higher bankruptcies. The net charge-off ratio for the private label portfolio for the full year 2004 includes the domestic private label portfolio sold to HSBC Bank USA which contributed 242 basis points to the ratio. The net charge-off ratio for our private label receivables for the full year 2005 consists primarily of our foreign private label portfolio which deteriorated in 2005 as a result of a general increase in consumer bad debts in the U.K. markets, including increased bankruptcies. We experienced a decrease in overall net charge-off dollars in 2005. This was primarily due to lower delinquency levels we experienced as a result of the strong economy, partially offset by higher receivable levels in 2005 as well as higher net charge-offs in the fourth quarter of 2005 of an estimated $125 million for our credit card receivable portfolio resulting from the increased bankruptcy filings as discussed above. The decrease in real estate charge-offs and REO expense as a percent of average real estate secured receivables in 2005 from the 2004 ratio was primarily due to strong receivable growth and the continuing strong economy. The 2005 ratio was not negatively impacted by the increased filings associated with the new bankruptcy legislation in the United States due to the timing of the bankruptcy filings and our charge-off policy for real estate secured receivables. 68 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NONPERFORMING ASSETS AT DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (IN MILLIONS) Nonaccrual receivables(1),(2)............................... $4,807 $3,608 $3,084 Accruing consumer receivables 90 or more days delinquent.... 929 623 507 Renegotiated commercial loans............................... 1 - 2 ------ ------ ------ Total nonperforming receivables............................. 5,737 4,231 3,593 Real estate owned........................................... 794 510 587 ------ ------ ------ Total nonperforming assets.................................. $6,531 $4,741 $4,180 ====== ====== ====== --------------- (1) Nonaccrual receivables are comprised of the following: AT DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (IN MILLIONS) Real estate secured: Closed-end: First lien................................................ $1,893 $1,366 $1,295 Second lien............................................... 482 247 171 Revolving: First lien................................................ 22 31 40 Second lien............................................... 187 63 58 ------ ------ ------ Total real estate secured................................... 2,584 1,707 1,564 Auto finance................................................ 394 323 228 Credit card................................................. - - 51 Private label............................................... 76 75 78 Personal non-credit card.................................... 1,753 1,498 1,159 Commercial and other........................................ - 5 4 ------ ------ ------ Total nonaccrual receivables................................ $4,807 $3,608 $3,084 ====== ====== ====== (2) As previously discussed, in December 2006, our Auto Finance business changed its charge-off policy and in connection with this policy change also changed the methodology for reporting two-months-and-over contractual delinquency. These changes resulted in an increase in nonaccrual receivables at December 31, 2006. Prior period amounts have been restated to conform to the current year presentation. The increase in total nonperforming assets in 2006 is primarily due to higher levels of real estate secured nonaccrual receivables at our Mortgage Services business due to the deteriorating performance of certain loans acquired in 2005 and 2006 as previously discussed. Real estate secured nonaccrual loans included stated income loans at our Mortgage Services business of $571 million at December 31, 2006, $125 million at December 31, 2005 and $79 million at December 31, 2004. The increase in total nonperforming assets in 2005 was primarily due to the receivable growth we experienced in 2005 as well as the impact of the increased bankruptcy filings on our secured and personal non-credit card receivable portfolios. Consistent with industry practice, accruing consumer receivables 90 or more days delinquent includes domestic credit card receivables. CREDIT LOSS RESERVES We maintain credit loss reserves to cover probable losses of principal, interest and fees, including late, overlimit and annual fees. Credit loss reserves are based on a range of estimates and are intended to be adequate but not excessive. We estimate probable losses for owned consumer receivables using a roll rate migration analysis that estimates the likelihood that a loan will progress through the various stages of delinquency, or buckets, and ultimately charge-off. This analysis considers delinquency status, loss experience and severity and takes into account whether loans are in bankruptcy, have been restructured or rewritten, or are subject to forbearance, an external debt management plan, hardship, modification, extension or deferment. Our credit loss reserves also take into consideration the loss severity expected based on the underlying collateral, if any, for the loan in the event of default. Delinquency status may be affected by customer account management policies and practices, such as the restructure of accounts, forbearance agreements, extended payment plans, modification arrangements, external debt management programs, loan 69 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rewrites and deferments. If customer account management policies, or changes thereto, shift loans from a "higher" delinquency bucket to a "lower" delinquency bucket, this will be reflected in our roll rate statistics. To the extent that restructured accounts have a greater propensity to roll to higher delinquency buckets, this will be captured in the roll rates. Since the loss reserve is computed based on the composite of all of these calculations, this increase in roll rate will be applied to receivables in all respective delinquency buckets, which will increase the overall reserve level. In addition, loss reserves on consumer receivables are maintained to reflect our judgment of portfolio risk factors that may not be fully reflected in the statistical roll rate calculation. Risk factors considered in establishing loss reserves on consumer receivables include recent growth, product mix, bankruptcy trends, geographic concentrations, loan product features such as adjustable rate loans, economic conditions, such as national and local trends in housing markets and interest rates, portfolio seasoning, account management policies and practices, current levels of charge-offs and delinquencies, changes in laws and regulations and other items which can affect consumer payment patterns on outstanding receivables, such as natural disasters and global pandemics. While our credit loss reserves are available to absorb losses in the entire portfolio, we specifically consider the credit quality and other risk factors for each of our products. We recognize the different inherent loss characteristics in each of our products as well as customer account management policies and practices and risk management/collection practices. Charge-off policies are also considered when establishing loss reserve requirements to ensure the appropriate reserves exist for products with longer charge-off periods. We also consider key ratios such as reserves to nonperforming loans and reserves as a percentage of net charge-offs in developing our loss reserve estimate. Loss reserve estimates are reviewed periodically and adjustments are reported in earnings when they become known. As these estimates are influenced by factors outside of our control, such as consumer payment patterns and economic conditions, there is uncertainty inherent in these estimates, making it reasonably possible that they could change. The following table sets forth credit loss reserves for the periods indicated: AT DECEMBER 31, ------------------------------------------ 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS) Credit loss reserves.............................. $6,587 $4,521 $3,625 $3,793 $3,333 Reserves as a percent of receivables.............. 4.07% 3.23% 3.39% 4.11% 4.04% Reserves as a percent of net charge-offs.......... 145.8 123.8(2) 89.9(1) 105.7 106.5 Reserves as a percent of nonperforming loans...... 114.8 106.9 100.9 92.8 93.7 --------------- (1) In December 2004, we adopted FFIEC charge-off policies for our domestic private label (excluding retail sales contracts at our Consumer Lending business) and credit card portfolios and subsequently sold this domestic private label receivable portfolio. These events had a significant impact on this ratio. Reserves as a percentage of net charge-offs excluding net charge-offs associated with the sold domestic private label portfolio and charge-off relating to the adoption of FFIEC was 109.2% at December 31, 2004. (2) The acquisition of Metris in December 2005 positively impacted this ratio. Reserves as a percentage of net charge-offs at December 31, 2005, excluding Metris was 118.2 percent. Credit loss reserve levels at December 31, 2006 increased as compared to December 31, 2005 as we recorded loss provision in excess of net charge-offs of $2,045 million. A significant portion of the increase in credit loss reserves resulted from higher delinquency and loss estimates at our Mortgage Services business as previously discussed where we recorded provision in excess of net charge-offs of $1,668 million. In addition, the higher credit loss reserve levels were a result of higher levels of receivables due in part to lower securitization levels and higher dollars of delinquency in our other businesses driven by growth and portfolio seasoning including the Metris portfolio acquired in December 2005. Reserve levels also increased due to weakening early stage performance consistent with the industry trend in certain Consumer Lending real estate secured loans originated since late 2005. These increases were partially offset by significantly lower personal bankruptcy levels in the United States, a reduction in the estimated loss exposure relating to Katrina and the benefit of stable unemployment in the United States. 70 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Credit loss reserve levels of $2.1 billion at our Mortgage Services business reflect our best estimate of losses in the portfolio at December 31, 2006. In establishing these reserve levels we considered the severity of losses expected to be incurred, particularly in our second lien portfolio, above our historical experience given the current housing market trends in the United States. We also considered the ability of borrowers to repay their first lien adjustable rate mortgage loans at higher contractual reset rates given increases in interest rates by the Federal Reserve Bank from June 2004 through June 2006, as well as their ability to repay any underlying second lien mortgage outstanding. Because first lien adjustable rate mortgage loans are generally well secured, ultimate losses associated with such loans are dependent to a large extent on the status of the housing market and interest rate environment. Therefore, although it is probable that incremental losses will occur as a result of rate resets on first lien adjustable rate mortgage loans, such losses are estimable and, therefore, included in our credit loss reserves only in situations where the payment has either already reset or will reset in the near term. A significant portion of the Mortgage Services second lien mortgages are subordinate to a first lien adjustable rate loan. For customers with second lien mortgage loans that are subordinate to a first lien adjustable rate mortgage loan, the probability of repayment of the second lien mortgage loan is significantly reduced. The impact of future changes, if any, in the housing market will not have a significant impact on the ultimate loss expected to be incurred since these loans, based on history and other factors, are expected to behave like unsecured loans. As a result, expected losses for these loans are included in our credit loss reserve levels at December 31, 2006. Credit loss reserve levels at December 31, 2005 reflect the additional reserve requirements resulting from higher levels of owned receivables including lower securitization levels, higher delinquency levels in our portfolios driven by growth and portfolio seasoning, the impact of Katrina and minimum monthly payment changes, additional reserves resulting from the Metris acquisition and the higher levels of personal bankruptcy filings in both the United States and the U.K. Credit loss reserves at December 31, 2005 also reflect the sale of our U.K. credit card business in December 2005 which decreased credit loss reserves by $104 million. In 2005, we recorded loss provision greater than net charge-offs of $890 million. In 2004, we recorded loss provision greater than net charge-offs of $301 million. Excluding the impact of adopting FFIEC charge-off policies for domestic private label (excluding retail sales contracts at our Consumer Lending business) and credit card portfolios, we recorded loss provision $421 million greater than net charge-offs in 2004. Beginning in 2004 and continuing into 2005, we experienced a shift in our loan portfolio to lower yielding receivables, particularly real estate secured and auto finance receivables. Reserves as a percentage of receivables at December 31, 2006 were higher than at December 31, 2005 due to the impact of additional reserve requirements in our Mortgage Services business, partially offset by lower levels of personal bankruptcy filing in the United States and a reduction in the estimated loss exposure estimates relating to Katrina. Reserves as a percentage of receivables at December 31, 2005 and 2004 were lower than at December 31, 2003 as a result of portfolio growth, partially offset in 2005 by the impact of additional credit loss reserves relating to the impact of Katrina, minimum monthly payment changes and increased bankruptcy filings. Reserves as a percentage of receivables at December 31, 2003 were higher than at December 31, 2002 as a result of the sale of $2.8 billion of higher quality real estate secured loans to HSBC Bank USA in December 2003. Had this sale not occurred, reserves as a percentage of receivables at December 2003 would have been lower than 2002 as a result of improving credit quality in the latter half of 2003 as delinquency rates stabilized and charge-off levels began to improve. The trends in the reserve ratios for 2003 and 2002 reflect the impact of the weak economy, higher delinquency levels, and uncertainty as to the ultimate impact the weakened economy would have on delinquency and charge-off levels. Reserves as a percentage of nonperforming loans increased in 2006. This increase was primarily attributable to higher reserve levels primarily as a result of higher loss estimates in our Mortgage Services business as previously discussed. Reserves as a percentage of nonperforming loans increased in 2005. While nonperforming loans increased in 2005, reserve levels in 2005 increased at a more rapid pace due to receivable growth, the 71 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- additional reserve requirements related to Katrina and impact of increased bankruptcy filings on our secured receivable and personal non-credit card receivable portfolios which did not migrate to charge-off until 2006. Reserves as a percentage of net charge-offs increased compared to 2005 as reserve levels grew more rapidly than charge-offs primarily due to the higher charge-offs expected in 2007 related to the deterioration in certain mortgage loans acquired in 2005 and 2006. Reserves as a percentage of net charge-offs increased in 2005. The 2005 ratio was significantly impacted by the acquisition of Metris and the 2004 ratio was significantly impacted by both the sale of our domestic private label receivable portfolio (excluding retail sales contracts) in December 2004 as well as the adoption of FFEIC charge-off policies for our domestic private label (excluding retail sales contracts) and credit card portfolios. Excluding these items, reserves as a percentage of net charge-offs increased 900 basis points. While both our reserve levels at December 31, 2005 and net charge-offs in 2005 were higher than 2004, our reserve levels grew for the reasons discussed above more rapidly than our net charge-offs. See the "Analysis of Credit Loss Reserves Activity," "Reconciliations to U.S. GAAP Financial Measures" and Note 7, "Credit Loss Reserves," to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding our loss reserves. CUSTOMER ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES Our policies and practices for the collection of consumer receivables, including our customer account management policies and practices, permit us to reset the contractual delinquency status of an account to current, based on indicia or criteria which, in our judgment, evidence continued payment probability. Such policies and practices vary by product and are designed to manage customer relationships, maximize collection opportunities and avoid foreclosure or repossession if reasonably possible. If the account subsequently experiences payment defaults, it will again become contractually delinquent. In the third quarter of 2003, we implemented certain changes to our restructuring policies. These changes were intended to eliminate and/or streamline exception provisions to our existing policies and were generally effective for receivables originated or acquired after January 1, 2003. Receivables originated or acquired prior to January 1, 2003 generally are not subject to the revised restructure and customer account management policies. However, for ease of administration, in the third quarter of 2003, our Mortgage Services business elected to adopt uniform policies for all products regardless of the date an account was originated or acquired. Implementation of the uniform policy by Mortgage Services had the effect of only counting restructures occurring on or after January 1, 2003 in assessing restructure eligibility for purposes of the limitation that no account may be restructured more than four times in a rolling sixty-month period. Other business units may also elect to adopt uniform policies. The changes adopted in the third quarter of 2003 have not had a significant impact on our business model or on our results of operations as these changes have generally been phased in as new receivables were originated or acquired. As discussed in more detail below, we also revised certain policies for our domestic private label credit card and credit card portfolios in December 2004. As discussed previously and described more fully in the table below, we adopted FFIEC account management policies regarding restructuring of past due accounts for our domestic private label credit card and credit card portfolios in December 2004. These changes have not had a significant impact on our business model or on our results of operations. Approximately three-fourths of all restructured receivables are secured products, which in general have less loss severity exposure because of the underlying collateral. Credit loss reserves take into account whether loans have been restructured, rewritten or are subject to forbearance, an external debt management plan, modification, extension or deferment. Our credit loss reserves also take into consideration the loss severity expected based on the underlying collateral, if any, for the loan. Our restructuring policies and practices vary by product and are described in the table that follows and reflect the revisions from the adoption of FFIEC charge-off and account management policies for our domestic private label (excluding retail sales contracts at our Consumer Lending business) and credit card receivables in December 2004. The fact that the restructuring criteria may be met for a particular account does not 72 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- require us to restructure that account, and the extent to which we restructure accounts that are eligible under the criteria will vary depending upon our view of prevailing economic conditions and other factors which may change from period to period. In addition, for some products, accounts may be restructured without receipt of a payment in certain special circumstances (e.g. upon reaffirmation of a debt owed to us in connection with a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding). We use account restructuring as an account and customer management tool in an effort to increase the value of our account relationships, and accordingly, the application of this tool is subject to complexities, variations and changes from time to time. These policies and practices are continually under review and assessment to assure that they meet the goals outlined above, and accordingly, we modify or permit exceptions to these general policies and practices from time to time. In addition, exceptions to these policies and practices may be made in specific situations in response to legal or regulatory agreements or orders. In the policies summarized below, "hardship restructures" and "workout restructures" refer to situations in which the payment and/or interest rate may be modified on a temporary or permanent basis. In each case, the contractual delinquency status is reset to current. "External debt management plans" refers to situations in which consumers receive assistance in negotiating or scheduling debt repayment through public or private agencies. RESTRUCTURING POLICIES AND PRACTICES HISTORICAL RESTRUCTURING POLICIES FOLLOWING CHANGES IMPLEMENTED AND PRACTICES(1),(2),(3) IN THE THIRD QUARTER 2003 AND IN DECEMBER 2004(1),(2),(3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REAL ESTATE SECURED REAL ESTATE SECURED Real Estate - Overall Real Estate - Overall(4) - An account may be restructured if we - Accounts may be restructured prior to the end of the receive two qualifying payments within the monthly cycle following the receipt of two qualifying 60 days preceding the restructure; we may payments within 60 days restructure accounts in hardship, disaster - Accounts generally are not eligible for restructure or strike situations with one qualifying until nine months after origination payment or no payments - Accounts will be limited to four collection - Accounts that have filed for Chapter 7 restructures in a rolling sixty-month period bankruptcy protection may be restructured - Accounts whose borrowers have filed for Chapter 7 upon receipt of a signed reaffirmation bankruptcy protection may be restructured upon agreement receipt of a signed reaffirmation agreement - Accounts subject to a Chapter 13 plan - Accounts whose borrowers are subject to a Chapter 13 filed with a bankruptcy court generally plan filed with a bankruptcy court generally may be require one qualifying payment to be restructured upon receipt of one qualifying payment restructured - Except for bankruptcy reaffirmation and filed Chapter 13 plans, agreed automatic payment withdrawal or hardship/disaster/strike, accounts are generally limited to one restructure every twelve-months - Accounts generally are not eligible for - Except for bankruptcy reaffirmation and filed Chapter restructure until they are on the books 13 plans, accounts will generally not be restructured for at least six months more than once in a twelve-month period - Accounts whose borrowers agree to pay by automatic withdrawal are generally restructured upon receipt of one qualifying payment after initial authorization for automatic withdrawal(5) 73 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESTRUCTURING POLICIES AND PRACTICES HISTORICAL RESTRUCTURING POLICIES FOLLOWING CHANGES IMPLEMENTED AND PRACTICES(1),(2),(3) IN THE THIRD QUARTER 2003 AND IN DECEMBER 2004(1),(2),(3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Real Estate - Consumer Lending Real Estate - Mortgage Services(6),(7) - Accounts whose borrowers agree to pay by - Accounts will generally not be eligible for automatic withdrawal are generally restructure until nine months after origination restructured upon receipt of one qualifying payment after initial authorization for automatic withdrawal AUTO FINANCE AUTO FINANCE - Accounts may be extended if we receive one - Accounts may generally be extended upon receipt of qualifying payment within the 60 days two qualifying payments within the 60 days preceding preceding the extension the extension - Accounts may be extended no more than - Accounts may be extended by no more than three months three months at a time and by no more than at a time three months in any twelve-month period - Accounts will be limited to four extensions in a - Extensions are limited to six months over rolling sixty-month period, but in no case will an the contractual life account be extended more than a total of six months - Accounts that have filed for Chapter 7 over the life of the account bankruptcy protection may be restructured - Accounts will be limited to one extension every six upon receipt of a signed reaffirmation months agreement - Accounts will not be eligible for extension until - Accounts whose borrowers are subject to a they are on the books for at least six months Chapter 13 plan may be restructured upon - Accounts whose borrowers have filed for Chapter 7 filing of the plan with a bankruptcy court bankruptcy protection may be restructured upon receipt of a signed reaffirmation agreement - Accounts whose borrowers are subject to a Chapter 13 plan may be restructured upon filing of the plan with the bankruptcy court CREDIT CARD CREDIT CARD - Typically, accounts qualify for Accounts originated between January 2003 - December restructuring if we receive two or three 2004 qualifying payments prior to the - Accounts typically qualified for restructuring if we restructure, but accounts in approved received two or three qualifying payments prior to external debt management programs may the restructure, but accounts in approved external generally be restructured upon receipt of debt management programs could generally be one qualifying payment restructured upon receipt of one qualifying payment - Generally, accounts may be restructured - Generally, accounts could have been restructured once once every six months every six months Beginning in December 2004, all accounts regardless of origination date - Domestic accounts qualify for restructuring if we receive three consecutive minimum monthly payments or a lump sum equivalent - Domestic accounts qualify for restructuring if the account has been in existence for a minimum of nine months and the account has not been 74 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESTRUCTURING POLICIES AND PRACTICES HISTORICAL RESTRUCTURING POLICIES FOLLOWING CHANGES IMPLEMENTED AND PRACTICES(1),(2),(3) IN THE THIRD QUARTER 2003 AND IN DECEMBER 2004(1),(2),(3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- restructured in the prior twelve months and not more than once in the prior five years - Domestic accounts entering third party debt counseling programs are limited to one restructure in a five-year period in addition to the general limits of one restructure in a twelve-month period and two restructures in a five-year period PRIVATE LABEL(8) PRIVATE LABEL(8) Private Label - Overall Private Label - Overall - An account may generally be restructured Prior to December 2004 for accounts originated after if we receive one or more qualifying October 2002 payments, depending upon the merchant - For certain merchants, receipt of two or three - Restructuring is limited to once every six qualifying payments was required, except accounts in months (or longer, depending upon the an approved external debt management program could be merchant) for revolving accounts and once restructured upon receipt of one qualifying payment every twelve-months for closed-end accounts Private Label - Consumer Lending Retail Private Label - Consumer Lending Retail Sales Contracts Sales Contracts - Accounts may be restructured if we/receive - Accounts may be restructured upon receipt of two one qualifying payment within the 60 days qualifying payments within the 60 days preceding the preceding the restructure; may restructure restructure accounts in a hardship/disaster/strike - Accounts will be limited to one restructure every six situation with one qualifying payment or months no payments - Accounts will be limited to four collection - If an account is never more than 90 days restructures in a rolling sixty-month period delinquent, it may generally be - Accounts will not be eligible for restructure until restructured up to three times per year six months after origination - If an account is ever more than 90 days delinquent, generally it may be restructured with one qualifying payment no more than four times over its life; however, generally the account may thereafter be restructured if two qualifying payments are received - Accounts subject to programs for hardship or strike may require only the receipt of reduced payments in order to be restructured; disaster may be restructured with no payments 75 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESTRUCTURING POLICIES AND PRACTICES HISTORICAL RESTRUCTURING POLICIES FOLLOWING CHANGES IMPLEMENTED AND PRACTICES(1),(2),(3) IN THE THIRD QUARTER 2003 AND IN DECEMBER 2004(1),(2),(3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERSONAL NON-CREDIT CARD PERSONAL NON-CREDIT CARD - Accounts may be restructured if we receive - Accounts may be restructured upon receipt of two one qualifying payment within the 60 days qualifying payments within the 60 days preceding the preceding the restructure; may restructure restructure accounts in a hardship/disaster/strike - Accounts will be limited to one restructure every six situation with one qualifying payment or months no payments - Accounts will be limited to four collection - If an account is never more than 90 days restructures in a rolling sixty-month period delinquent, it may generally be - Accounts will not be eligible for restructure until restructured up to three times per year six months after origination - If an account is ever more than 90 days delinquent, generally it may be restructured with one qualifying payment no more than four times over its life; however, generally the account may thereafter be restructured if two qualifying payments are received - Accounts subject to programs for hardship or strike may require only the receipt of reduced payments in order to be restructured; disaster may be restructured with no payments --------------- (1) We employ account restructuring and other customer account management policies and practices as flexible customer account management tools as criteria may vary by product line. In addition to variances in criteria by product, criteria may also vary within a product line. Also, we continually review our product lines and assess restructuring criteria and they are subject to modification or exceptions from time to time. Accordingly, the description of our account restructuring policies or practices provided in this table should be taken only as general guidance to the restructuring approach taken within each product line, and not as assurance that accounts not meeting these criteria will never be restructured, that every account meeting these criteria will in fact be restructured or that these criteria will not change or that exceptions will not be made in individual cases. In addition, in an effort to determine optimal customer account management strategies, management may run more conservative tests on some or all accounts in a product line for fixed periods of time in order to evaluate the impact of alternative policies and practices. (2) For our United Kingdom business, all portfolios have a consistent account restructure policy. An account may be restructured if we receive two or more qualifying payments within two calendar months, limited to one restructure every 12 months, with a lifetime limit of three times. In hardship situations an account may be restructured if a customer makes three consecutive qualifying monthly payments within the last three calendar months. Only one hardship restructure is permitted in the life of a loan. There were no changes to the restructure policies of our United Kingdom business in 2006, 2005 or 2004. (3) Historically, policy changes are not applied to the entire portfolio on the date of implementation but are applied to new, or recently originated or acquired accounts. However, the policies adopted in the third quarter of 2003 for the Mortgage Services business and the fourth quarter of 2004 for the domestic private label (excluding retail sales contracts) and credit card portfolios were applied more broadly. The policy changes for the Mortgage Services business which occurred in the third quarter of 2003, unless otherwise noted, were generally applied to accounts originated or acquired after January 1, 2003 and the historical restructuring policies and practices are effective for all accounts originated or acquired prior to January 1, 2003. Implementation of this uniform policy had the effect of only counting restructures occurring on or after January 1, 2003 in assessing restructure eligibility for the purpose of the limitation that no account may be restructured more than four times in a rolling 60 month period. These policy changes adopted in the third quarter of 2003 did not have a significant impact on our business model or results of operations as the changes are, in effect, phased in as receivables were originated or acquired. For the adoption of FFIEC policies which occurred in the fourth quarter of 2004, the policies were effective immediately for all receivables in the domestic private label credit card and the credit card portfolios. Other business units may also elect to adopt uniform policies in future periods. (4) In some cases, as part of the Consumer Lending Foreclosure Avoidance Program, accounts may be restructured on receipt of one qualifying payment. In the fourth quarter of 2006, this treatment was extended to accounts that qualified for the Mortgage Services account modification plan, as long as it has been at least six months since such account was originated, even if the account had been restructured in the last twelve months. Such restructures may be in addition to the four collection restructures in a rolling sixty-month period. Accounts receive these restructures after proper verification of the customer's ability to make continued payments. This generally includes the determination and verification of the customer's financial situation. At December 31, 2006 and 2005 Consumer Lending had $674 million and $497 million, respectively, of accounts restructured on receipt of one qualifying payment under the Foreclosure Avoidance Program. At December 31, 2006 Mortgage Services had $134 million of accounts restructured on receipt of one qualifying payment under the account modification plan. 76 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) Our Mortgage Services business implemented this policy for all accounts effective March 1, 2004. (6) Prior to January 1, 2003, accounts that had made at least six qualifying payments during the life of the loan and that agreed to pay by automatic withdrawal were generally restructured with one qualifying payment. (7) Prior to August 2006, Mortgage Services accounts could not be restructured until nine months after origination and six months after the loan was acquired. (8) For our Canadian business, private label accounts are limited to one restructure every four months and if originated or acquired after January 1, 2003, two qualifying payments must be received, the account must be on the books for at least six months, at least six months must have elapsed since the last restructure, and there may be no more than four restructures in a rolling 60 month period. The tables below summarize approximate restructuring statistics in our managed basis domestic portfolio. Managed basis assumes that securitized receivables have not been sold and remain on our balance sheet. We report our restructuring statistics on a managed basis only because the receivables that we securitize are subject to underwriting standards comparable to our owned portfolio, are generally serviced and collected without regard to ownership and result in a similar credit loss exposure for us. As the level of our securitized receivables have fallen over time, managed basis and owned basis results have now largely converged. As previously reported, in prior periods we used certain assumptions and estimates to compile our restructure statistics. The systemic counters used to compile the information presented below exclude from the reported statistics loans that have been reported as contractually delinquent but have been reset to a current status because we have determined that the loans should not have been considered delinquent (e.g., payment application processing errors). When comparing restructuring statistics from different periods, the fact that our restructure policies and practices will change over time, that exceptions are made to those policies and practices, and that our data capture methodologies have been enhanced, should be taken into account. TOTAL RESTRUCTURED BY RESTRUCTURE PERIOD - DOMESTIC PORTFOLIO(1) (MANAGED BASIS) AT DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Never restructured.......................................... 89.1% 89.5% Restructured: Restructured in the last 6 months......................... 4.8 4.0 Restructured in the last 7-12 months...................... 2.4 2.4 Previously restructured beyond 12 months.................. 3.7 4.1 ----- ----- Total ever restructured(2)................................ 10.9 10.5 ----- ----- Total....................................................... 100.0% 100.0% ===== ===== RESTRUCTURED BY PRODUCT - DOMESTIC PORTFOLIO(1) (MANAGED BASIS) AT DECEMBER 31, 2006 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (DOLLARS ARE IN MILLIONS Real estate secured......................................... $10,344 11.0% $ 8,334 10.4% Auto finance................................................ 1,881 15.1 1,688 14.5 Credit card................................................. 816 2.9 774 3.0 Private label(2)............................................ 31 10.9 26 7.3 Personal non-credit card.................................... 3,600 19.5 3,369 19.9 ------- ---- ------- ---- Total(3).................................................... $16,672 10.9% $14,191 10.5% ======= ==== ======= ==== --------------- (1) Excludes foreign businesses, commercial and other. (2) Only reflects Consumer Lending retail sales contracts which have historically been classified as private label. All other domestic private label receivables were sold to HSBC Bank USA in December 2004. (3) Total including foreign businesses was 10.6 percent at December 31, 2006 and 10.3 percent at December 31, 2005. 77 HSBC Finance Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MORE TO FOLLOW This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

Companies

HSBC Holdings (HSBA)

Thursday, 23rd May 2024

COMPANIES COVERED:

HL. QQ. AJB

Another day and another round of takeover talk with Hargreaves Lansdown being eyed by private equity suitors. AJ Bell also advances on upbeat earnings news whilst QinetiQ upgrades its profit guidance, too.

Full Archive

UK 100

Latest directors dealings

13 minutes ago Howden Joinery Group
16 minutes ago Mears Group
2 hours ago Touchstone Exploration Inc NPV (DI)
2 hours ago Diaceutics
2 hours ago Taseko Mines Limited NPV (DI)

All directors dealings today