Commitments and Contingencies

Loan Portfolio: Schwab Bank provides a co-branded loan origination program for Schwab Bank clients (the Program) with Quicken Loans, Inc. (Quicken Loans^®). Pursuant to the Program, Quicken Loans originates and services First Mortgages and HELOCs for Schwab Bank clients. Under the Program, Schwab Bank purchases certain First Mortgages and HELOCs that are originated by Quicken Loans. Schwab Bank purchased First Mortgages of $2.8 billion and $3.3 billion during 2017 and 2016, respectively. Schwab purchased HELOCs with commitments of $461 million and $440 million during 2017 and 2016, respectively.

The Company’s commitments to extend credit on bank lines of credit and to purchase First Mortgages are as follows:



December 31,	2017		2016
Commitments to extend credit related to unused HELOCs, PALs, and other lines of credit	$	10,060	$	8,445
Commitments to purchase First Mortgage loans	308		466
Total	$	10,368	$	8,911

Operating leases: Schwab has non-cancelable operating leases for office space and equipment. Future annual minimum rental commitments under these leases, net of contractual subleases are as follows:



December 31, 2017	Operating Leases		Subleases		Net
2018	$	137	$	6	$	131
2019	119		4		115
2020	109		4		105
2021	86		4		82
2022	68		2		66
Thereafter	310		1		309
Total	$	829	$	21	$	808

Certain leases contain provisions for renewal options, purchase options, and rent escalations based on increases in certain costs incurred by the lessor. Rent expense relating to operating leases was $136 million, $123 million, and $116 million in 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively.

Purchase obligations: Schwab has purchase obligations for services such as advertising and marketing, telecommunications, professional services, and hardware- and software-related agreements. The Company has purchase obligations as follows:



December 31, 2017
2018	$	305
2019	148
2020	71
2021	26
2022	22
Thereafter	181
Total	$	753

Guarantees and indemnifications: Schwab has clients that sell (i.e., write) listed option contracts that are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation – a clearing house that establishes margin requirements on these transactions. We partially satisfy the margin requirements by arranging unsecured standby LOCs, in favor of the Options Clearing Corporation, which are issued by several banks. At December 31, 2017, the aggregate face amount of these LOCs totaled $225 million. There were no funds drawn under any of these LOCs at December 31, 2017. In connection with its securities lending activities, Schwab is required to provide collateral to certain brokerage clients. The Company satisfies the collateral requirements by providing cash as collateral.

Schwab also provides guarantees to securities clearing houses and exchanges under standard membership agreements, which require members to guarantee the performance of other members. Under the agreements, if another member becomes unable to satisfy its obligations to the clearing houses and exchanges, other members would be required to meet shortfalls. The Company’s liability under these arrangements is not quantifiable and may exceed the cash and securities it has posted as collateral. The potential requirement for the Company to make payments under these arrangements is remote. Accordingly, no liability has been recognized for these guarantees.

Legal contingencies: Schwab is subject to claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, some of which include claims for substantial or unspecified damages. The Company is also the subject of inquiries, investigations, and proceedings by regulatory and other governmental agencies.

Predicting the outcome of a litigation or regulatory matter is inherently difficult, requiring significant judgment and evaluation of various factors, including the procedural status of the matter and any recent developments; prior experience and the experience of others in similar cases; available defenses, including potential opportunities to dispose of a case on the merits or procedural grounds before trial (e.g., motions to dismiss or for summary judgment); the progress of fact discovery; the opinions of counsel and experts regarding potential damages; potential opportunities for settlement and the status of any settlement discussions; and potential insurance coverage and indemnification. It may not be reasonably possible to estimate a range of potential liability until the matter is closer to resolution – pending, for example, further proceedings, the outcome of key motions or appeals, or discussions among the parties. Numerous issues may have to be developed, such as discovery of important factual matters and determination of threshold legal issues, which may include novel or unsettled questions of law. Reserves are established or adjusted or further disclosure and estimates of potential loss are provided as the matter progresses and more information becomes available.

Schwab believes it has strong defenses in all significant matters currently pending and is contesting liability and any damages claimed. Nevertheless, some of these matters may result in adverse judgments or awards, including penalties, injunctions or other relief, and the Company may also determine to settle a matter because of the uncertainty and risks of litigation. Described below are certain matters in which there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss could be incurred or where the matter may otherwise be of significant interest to stockholders. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable estimate of any potential liability given the stage of proceedings in the matter. With respect to all other pending matters, based on current information and consultation with counsel, it does not appear reasonably possible that the outcome of any such matter would be material to the financial condition, operating results, or cash flows of the Company.

Total Bond Market Fund Litigation: On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund™. The lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal securities law in connection with the fund’s investment policy, named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund’s shares), and certain current and former fund trustees as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a fundholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of a putative class of investors who held shares as of August 31, 2007, and a putative class of investors who purchased the shares between September 1, 2017 and February 27, 2009. Plaintiff’s federal securities law claim and certain of plaintiff’s state law claims were dismissed. On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district court’s dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further proceedings. Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on June 25, 2015, and in decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is again pending.

Crago Order Routing Litigation: On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co’s duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit.