Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Loan Portfolio: CSB provides a co-branded loan origination program for CSB clients (the Program) with Rocket Mortgage, LLC (Rocket Mortgage®), formerly known as Quicken Loans, LLC. Pursuant to the Program, Rocket Mortgage originates and services First Mortgages and HELOCs for CSB clients. Under the Program, CSB purchases certain First Mortgages and HELOCs that are originated by Rocket Mortgage. CSB purchased First Mortgages of $4.0 billion and $2.7 billion during the second quarters of 2021 and 2020, respectively, and $6.8 billion and $4.9 billion during the first six months of 2021 and 2020, respectively. CSB purchased HELOCs with commitments of $114 million and $133 million during the second quarters of 2021 and 2020, respectively, and $213 million and $240 million during the first six months of 2021 and 2020, respectively.

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


	June 30, 2021		December 31, 2020
Commitments to extend credit related to unused HELOCs, PALs, and other lines of credit	$	7,127	$	8,141
Commitments to purchase First Mortgage loans	2,575		1,917
Total	$	9,702	$	10,058

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 letter of credit agreements (LOCs), in favor of the Options Clearing Corporation, which are issued by several banks. At June 30, 2021, the aggregate face amount of these LOCs totaled $15 million. There were no funds drawn under any of these LOCs at June 30, 2021. 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.

The Company 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 amounts 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.

The TD Ameritrade broker-dealer and FCM/FDM subsidiaries’ operations include the execution, settlement, and financing of various client securities, options, futures and foreign exchange transactions. These activities may expose the Company to credit risk and losses in the event the clients are unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. TD Ameritrade is a member of and provides guarantees to securities clearing houses and exchanges under standard membership agreements. TD Ameritrade also engages third-party firms to clear clients’ futures and options on futures transactions and to facilitate clients’ foreign exchange trading, and has agreed to indemnify these firms for any loss that they may incur from the client transactions introduced to them by TD Ameritrade. The potential requirement for the Company to make payments under these arrangements is remote. Accordingly, no liability has been recognized for these guarantees.

IDA agreement: The Company’s IDA agreement with the TD Depository Institutions became effective on October 6, 2020. The IDA agreement creates responsibilities of the Company and certain contingent obligations. Pursuant to the IDA agreement, cash held in eligible brokerage client accounts must be swept off-balance sheet to money market deposit accounts at the TD Depository Institutions. Schwab provides marketing, recordkeeping and support services to the TD Depository Institutions with respect to the money market deposit accounts for which Schwab receives an aggregate monthly fee, determined by reference to certain yields, less a service fee on client cash deposits held at the TD Depository Institutions, FDIC insurance assessments, and interest on deposits paid to clients. Though unlikely, in the event the sweep arrangement fee computation were to result in a negative amount in any given month, Schwab would be required to pay the TD Depository Institutions.

Pursuant to the IDA agreement, Schwab moved $8.7 billion of uninsured IDA balances out of the IDA sweep program in July 2021. The IDA agreement also provides that, starting July 1, 2021, Schwab has the option to migrate up to $10 billion of IDA balances every 12 months to Schwab’s balance sheet, subject to certain limitations and adjustments. Inclusive of the uninsured balances and transfers relating to certain international accounts, IDA balances moved to Schwab’s balance sheet totaled $9.9 billion through July 31, 2021. The Company’s ability to migrate IDA balances to its balance sheet is dependent upon

multiple factors including having sufficient capital levels to sustain these incremental deposits and certain binding limitations specified in the IDA agreement, including the requirement that Schwab can only move IDA balances designated as floating-rate obligations. In addition, Schwab also must maintain a minimum $50 billion IDA balance through June 2031, and at least 80% of the IDA balances must be designated as fixed-rate obligations through June 2026.

The total ending IDA balance was $150.0 billion as of June 30, 2021, $154.1 billion as of December 31, 2020, and $144.6 billion as of October 5, 2020. If IDA balances were to decline below the required IDA balance minimum, Schwab could be required to direct additional sweep cash from its balance sheet to the IDA program.

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; and potential opportunities for settlement and the status of any settlement discussions. 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 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.

Schwab Intelligent Portfolios® SEC Investigation: As disclosed on July 1, 2021, the Company has been responding to an enforcement investigation by the SEC arising from a compliance examination and concerning historic disclosures related to the Schwab Intelligent Portfolios digital advisory solution. In connection with a tentative agreement reached with SEC staff to resolve the matter, second quarter 2021 financial results included a liability and related non-deductible charge of $200 million. Completion of any settlement is always contingent on a vote of the Commission. The Company continues to cooperate with SEC staff with the goal of fully resolving the matter.

TD Ameritrade Acquisition Litigation: As disclosed previously, Schwab and TD Ameritrade have been responding to a lawsuit challenging the acquisition which was filed on May 12, 2020 in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hawkes v. Bettino et al.) on behalf of a proposed class of TD Ameritrade’s stockholders, excluding, among others, TD Bank. The initial complaint named as defendants each member of the TD Ameritrade board of directors at the time the acquisition was approved, as well as TD Bank and Schwab. On June 11, 2020, plaintiff dismissed a claim that had sought to enjoin voting on or consummation of the acquisition. On February 5, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming an officer and certain directors of TD Ameritrade at the time the acquisition was approved, as well as TD Bank, certain TD Bank related entities, and Schwab. The amended complaint asserts separate claims for breach of fiduciary duty by the TD Ameritrade officer, certain members of the TD Ameritrade board and TD Bank, and against Schwab for aiding and abetting such breaches, the allegation being that the amendment of the Insured Deposit Account Agreement TD Bank negotiated directly with Schwab allowed TD Bank to divert merger consideration from TD Ameritrade’s minority public stockholders. Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Schwab and the other defendants consider the allegations to be entirely without merit and on April 29, 2021, filed motions to dismiss the remaining claims in the lawsuit.

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 are vigorously contesting the lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 30, 2021, which defendants are opposing.

Ford Order Routing Litigation: On September 15, 2014, TDA Holding, TD Ameritrade, Inc. and its former CEO, Frederick J. Tomczyk, were sued on behalf of a putative class of TD Ameritrade, Inc. clients alleging that defendants failed to seek best execution and made misrepresentations and omissions regarding its order routing practices. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive and other relief. On September 14, 2018, the District Court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and defendants petitioned for an immediate appeal of the District Court’s class certification decision. On April 23, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, issued a decision reversing the District Court’s certification on a class and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. Defendants are vigorously contesting the lawsuit, and the Company is unable to predict the outcome or any potential loss that could result.