1
Summary of Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results
Under Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario
Summary of Results Submitted to the Federal Reserve as of July 28, 2017
I. Introduction
A. Background
SVB Financial Group, a U.S. bank holding company (“SVBFG” or the “Company”), is
disclosing the results of its 2017 company-run stress test as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) and the regulations (“DFAST
rules”) implemented by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal
Reserve”) thereunder. The DFAST rules require bank holding companies (“BHCs”) with more
than $10 billion but less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets, such as SVBFG, to perform
annual company-run stress tests to assess the potential impact of at least three macroeconomic
scenarios prescribed by the DFAST rules – “baseline”, “adverse” and “severely adverse” – on
their consolidated balance sheets (including on risk-weighted assets), net revenues, losses, and
capital. The stress tests are intended to assess the potential impact of hypothetical economic
scenarios on the Company’s operations and capital adequacy over a defined nine quarter
planning horizon.
Under the DFAST rules, SVBFG is required to publicly disclose the results of its company-
run stress tests under a hypothetical severely adverse economic scenario (“Supervisory
Severely Adverse Scenario”). This scenario was released by the Federal Reserve under the
“2017 Supervisory Scenarios for Annual Stress Tests Required under the Dodd-Frank Act Stress
Testing Rules and the Capital Plan Rule,” dated as of February 10, 2017. The Supervisory
Severely Adverse Scenario is characterized by a hypothetical severe global recession that is
accompanied by a period of heightened stress impacting corporate loans and commercial real
estate markets. The scenario assumes that: (i) the level of U.S. real gross domestic product
begins to decline in the first quarter of 2017 and reaches a trough in the second quarter of 2018
at levels well below growth rates prior to the 2008-2009 recession; (ii) the U.S. unemployment
rate increases to 10% by the third quarter of 2018, and consumer price inflation falls to about
1.25% at an annual rate by the second quarter of 2017 and then rises to about 1.75% at an
annual rate by the middle of 2018; (iii) equity prices fall sharply, declining 50% by the end of
2017 and market volatility increases similar to levels attained in 2008; (iv) yields on short-term
U.S. Treasury securities fall and remain near zero throughout the nine quarter scenario and
rates on the 10-year U.S. Treasury decline to 0.75% in the first quarter of 2017, increasing
gradually to 1.50% by the first quarter of 2019; (v) housing prices and commercial real estate
values also suffer, falling 25% and 35%, respectively, through the first quarter of 2019.
2
This summary of SVBFG’s company-run stress test results contains: (i) a description of
the types of risks included in the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario stress test; (ii) a
summary description of the methodologies used in such stress test; (iii) estimates of certain
financial results and pro forma capital ratios after applying such stress test; and (iv)
explanations of the most significant causes for the changes in regulatory capital ratios.
This summary also contains the company-run stress test results under the Supervisory
Severely Adverse Scenario for the Company’s principal banking subsidiary, Silicon Valley Bank
(the “Bank”), as required by the DFAST rules. The Bank is a California state-chartered Federal
Reserve member bank that is also subject to annual stress test requirements under the DFAST
rules.
B. Considerations Regarding the Results Disclosed
In reviewing the results disclosed in this summary, the following should be considered:
• The planning cycle of the stress test results set forth in this summary spans a nine
quarter planning horizon, from the beginning of the first quarter of 2017 through
the first quarter of 2019 (“9Q Planning Horizon”).
• The Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario describes a set of hypothetical conditions
designed to assess the strength of banking organizations and their resilience to
severely adverse economic environments. The scenario is not a forecast of
economic conditions and investors should not view or rely on the results disclosed
herein as forecasts of actual financial results for SVBFG or the Bank. The Company’s
future financial results and conditions may be influenced by actual economic and
financial conditions, risks described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
or its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q (as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission), as well as unforeseen factors.
• The results of SVBFG’s stress test, including the impact on regulatory capital ratios,
are driven by SVBFG’s capital composition and the overall mix of assets and off-
balance sheet exposures. The majority of SVBFG’s risk assets are comprised of high-
quality fixed-income investment securities that contribute a relatively small amount
to total regulatory risk-weighted assets.1 As a result, changes in SVBFG’s regulatory
capital caused by conditions under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario come
primarily from changes in loan volume, off-balance sheet exposures (such as
unfunded commitments to lend), adverse credit quality, and to a lesser extent, the
1 As of December 31, 2016, SVBFG’s fixed-income investment portfolio totaled $21.1 billion (the sum of the
Company’s total held-to-maturity securities and total available-for-sale securities, as reported in the Company’s
FR Y-9C Schedule HC-B as of the same date), which represented 47% of SVBFG’s total consolidated assets. For
purposes of calculating regulatory capital ratios, SVBFG’s fixed-income investment portfolio had a weighted
average regulatory risk-weight of approximately 5%.
3
impact on noninterest income from changes in non-marketable investments and
warrant assets.
• Noninterest expense is comprised primarily of salary (fixed) and performance-based
compensation (variable) and “in-process” infrastructure projects. Noninterest
expense projected in the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario is lower than would
otherwise be projected under normal conditions due primarily to reductions in
performance-based compensation and infrastructure spending. This assumption is
consistent with the Company’s historical behavior under economic stress.
II. Risks Included in SVBFG’s Company-Run Stress Test
SVBFG’s stress test results specifically include the following four risk categories, which
are incorporated primarily through quantitative models:
• Credit Risk. Credit risk is the risk of loss resulting from the failure of a borrower or
counterparty to meet its financial or contractual obligations to the Company and its
subsidiaries. Under stressed economic conditions, the likelihood of credit losses
may increase due to the failure of SVBFG’s borrowers and counterparties to meet
their obligations.
• Market/Liquidity Risk. Market risk is the risk of adverse fluctuations in the market
value of financial instruments due to changes in market interest rates. Market risks
include foreign currency exchange risk and equity price risk. Liquidity risk is the risk
to current or anticipated earnings or capital arising from an inability to meet
obligations when they come due or to fund unexpected changes in business volume.
Increases in loan utilizations and/or deposit attrition, as well as decreases in the
market value of investment securities, will likely coincide with severe economic
stress. In such a case, SVBFG may experience reduced cash flows and credit
availability and/or limited access to capital markets, which may increase its reliance
on higher cost funding sources.
• Interest Rate Risk. Interest rate risk is the risk of loss arising from potential adverse
changes in the value of SVBFG’s assets and liabilities resulting from changes in
interest rates. Interest rate exposure may affect the carrying value of assets that are
subject to changes in fair market valuation. SVBFG’s net interest income may also
be negatively affected by interest rate repricing differences between assets and
liabilities.
• Operational Risk. Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or
failed internal processes or systems; human errors or misconduct; or external
events. Operational losses may result from, among other things, internal/external
fraud; information security breaches or cybersecurity-related incidents; failure to
meet professional obligations involving clients, products or business practices; and
business disruptions or systems failures.
4
In addition, as part of the overall process for stress testing and setting internal capital
limits, SVBFG considers other risks, which are generally assessed on both a quantitative and
qualitative basis:
• Model Risk. SVBFG utilizes models to quantify risks that are inherently difficult to
estimate, such as credit, market, liquidity, interest rate and operational risks. Model
risk is the risk of adverse consequences arising from decisions based on incorrect or
misused model outputs and reports. Model risk may result from flaws in model
design, use of inadequate or incomplete data within models, or incorrect or
inappropriate utilization of models.
• Legal/Compliance Risk. Legal/compliance risk is the risk of loss or increased costs
resulting from regulatory restrictions or requirements on SVBFG’s activities or the
conduct of its business. Legal/compliance risk also is the risk of loss arising from
violations of laws, rules, regulations or ethical standards, and includes exposure to
orders, fines, penalties, and punitive damages resulting from litigation or regulatory
actions.
• Strategic/Reputation/Country Risk. Strategic risk is the risk of loss that may arise
from adverse business decisions, poor implementation of business strategy or lack of
responsiveness to changes in the banking industry and operating environment.
Reputation risk is the risk to current or anticipated earnings, capital or enterprise
value arising from negative public opinion. Country risk is the risk that a sovereign
event or action alters the value or terms of contractual obligations of obligors,
counterparties and issuers or adversely affects markets related to a particular
country.
III. Stress Test Methodology
The Finance Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (“Finance Committee”)
oversees the overall stress testing process at the Board level. The Company’s Capital and Risk
Committee (“C&R Committee”) oversees the stress testing process at the management level.
Senior management is directly responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring the
actual stress testing process. The stress testing process is formally managed by a working
group consisting of representatives from the Company’s Credit, Risk Management, Finance, and
Compliance functions. Internal Audit also participates in the process, providing reviewing and
evaluating the effectiveness of established internal controls. The working group meets
regularly throughout the process to ensure that assumptions, loss estimates, and controls are
appropriately reviewed, and assessed before being elevated to the Company’s C&R Committee.
In turn, the C&R Committee reviews and challenges the preliminary stress test results before
the results are reviewed by the Finance Committee.
The Company’s stress testing framework utilizes both quantitative and qualitative
estimation methodologies, as appropriate, to project capital levels through the 9Q Planning
Horizon. Quantitative methodologies are based on statistical models (mainly regression-based
5
analyses of time series data) developed by management, while qualitative methodologies are
largely based on management’s subjective business judgment. In addition, macroeconomic
variables associated with applied scenarios are incorporated into models where applicable.
In particular, SVBFG applies specific methodologies for estimating and modeling the key
projections under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario are discussed below:
• Pre-Provision Net Revenue (“PPNR”). PPNR consists of: (i) net interest income and
noninterest income; less (ii) noninterest expense. PPNR projections are based on
projections of loan and deposit volumes, noninterest income and noninterest
expense, as follows:
o Loans and Deposits. Projection of loan and deposit volumes using regression-
based analyses of time series data related to the macroeconomic variables
provided under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario.
o Net Interest Income. Utilization of an asset-liability management model to
project periodic changes in the balance sheet, interest income and interest
expenses related to the changes in volumes and interest rates contemplated by
the macroeconomic variables provided under the Supervisory Severely Adverse
Scenario.
o Noninterest Income and Noninterest Expense. Projections of noninterest
income and noninterest expense using econometric models.
• Operational Risk Losses. Operational risk quantification models are used to
establish appropriate risk profiles for purposes of estimating operational losses in a
stressed economic environment. Operational risks are characterized by high
frequency, low severity losses, as well as the potential for extreme, yet lower
probability, losses. For purposes of modeling an appropriate severity for operational
losses, SVBFG applies commonly used statistical distributions to assess an
appropriate number of operational failures consistent with the Supervisory Severely
Adverse Scenario.
• Loan Losses. Historical loan portfolio data, which includes two significant economic
downturns, is used to estimate changes in key credit model inputs based on
macroeconomic variables provided under the Supervisory Severely Adverse
Scenario. A bottoms-up loss estimation approach is applied to generate projections
of changes in the probability of default, loss given default rates, and credit quality
migration of borrowers in the loan portfolio. Key variables related to credit quality
behavior are employed to estimate changes in loan losses.
6
IV. SVBFG Cumulative Stress Test Results under the Supervisory Severely Adverse
Scenario
SVBFG’s cumulative stress test results under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario
for the 9Q Planning Horizon are presented below.
A. Estimates of Aggregate Losses, Pre-Provision Net Revenues, Loan Loss Provisions
and Net Income
Table 1 below shows the cumulative estimates of SVBFG’s projected aggregate gains or
losses, PPNR and loan loss provisions resulting in changes in net income before taxes through
the 9Q Planning Horizon. Aggregate losses consist primarily of provisions for loan losses, and to
a much lesser extent, operational risk losses.
Table 1. Projected Losses, Revenue and Net Income Before Taxes (1Q2017 through 1Q2019)
Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario
9-Qtr Total
($ in Millions)
Net Interest Income $ 2,337.2
plus Noninterest Income 903.7
less Noninterest Expense * 1,430.2
Pre-Provision Net Revenue 1,810.7
plus Other Revenues 0
less Provision for Loan Losses 743.6
+/- Realized gains/(losses) on Held-to Maturity (HTM)/Available-
for-Sale (AFS) securities
0
Net Income (Loss) Before Taxes $ 1,067.1
__________________________
* Noninterest expense includes losses related to operational risks and expenses related to staffing, legal, compliance,
occupancy and professional services.
Table 2 provides details on cumulative estimates of loan losses based on the Federal
Reserve’s reporting templates:
Table 2. Projected Loan Losses by Type of Loans (1Q2017 through 1Q2019)
Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario
9-Qtr Losses
($ in Millions)
Cumulative Loss
Rate (in %) **
First Lien Mortgages, Domestic 14.1 1.0%
Commercial and Industrial 456.4 4.1%
Other Construction loans 1.0 1.0%
Multi-Family Loans 0.1 1.4%
Non-farm, Non-residential Other Loans 0.3 0.8%
Other Consumer Loans 1.5 3.5%
Other Loans 99.1 1.5%
Total Loan Losses $ 572.5 2.9%
__________________________
** Cumulative loss rates (by loan type) are calculated based on the credit quality migration and default rate projections in each
category relative to average quarterly loan volume throughout the planning horizon.
7
B. Estimates of Pro Forma Capital Ratios
Capital Action Assumptions for SVBFG and the Bank
The DFAST rules require SVBFG to take into account its actual capital actions as of the
end of the first quarter of the 9Q Planning Horizon (the end of the first quarter of 2017). For
the second through ninth quarters of the 9Q Planning Horizon (second quarter of 2017 through
first quarter of 2019), the DFAST rules require SVBFG to make certain capital action
assumptions relating to common stock dividends, payments on certain eligible instruments,
redemptions or repurchases of certain eligible capital instruments and issuances of common
stock or preferred stock (excluding issuances related to expensed employee compensation).
Specifically, based on such requirements, for the second through ninth quarters of the
9Q Planning Horizon, SVBFG and the Bank assumed the following:
• No dividends paid on SVBFG’s common stock;
• No authorized share repurchases;
• No issuances of common stock or preferred stock, except for those related to
employee compensation plans; and
• $7.88 million in cumulative distribution payments relating to outstanding trust
preferred securities.2
Under the DFAST rules, these capital action assumptions are applicable only to SVBFG,
but are not applicable to the Bank.
Projected Capital Ratios
Table 3 below sets forth SVBFG’s actual regulatory capital ratios and projected
regulatory capital ratios under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario:
2 Amounts assumed to be declared and payable quarterly on $50 million of 7% Junior Subordinated Debentures,
issued in connection with the issuance of certain 7% Cumulative Trust Preferred Securities due October 2033.
These notes qualify as Tier 1 Capital, but not Common Equity Tier 1 Capital; therefore, the impact is only
applicable to the Tier 1 and Total Risk-Based Capital Ratios and the Tier 1 Leverage Ratio.
8
Table 3. SVBFG Actual 4Q2016 and Stressed Capital Ratios through 1Q2019^
Regulatory Capital Ratio Actual 4Q2016 Ending 1Q2019 Minimum^^
Common Equity Tier 1 12.80% 18.53% 15.00%
Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital
Ratio
13.26% 18.92% 15.46%
Total Risk-Based Capital 14.21% 20.17% 16.71%
Tier 1 Leverage 8.34% 12.46% 9.51%
__________________________
^ All projected capital ratios are calculated based on capital action assumptions provided under the DFAST rules. These
projections represent hypothetical estimates that involve an economic outcome that is more adverse than management
expectations. These estimates are not management’s forecasts of expected losses, revenues, net income before taxes, or
capital ratios.
^^ The minimum capital ratios presented are the lowest results for any quarter over the 9Q Planning Horizon.
Table 4 below sets forth the Bank’s actual regulatory capital ratios and projected
regulatory capital ratios under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario:
Table 4. Bank Actual 4Q2016^ and Stressed Capital Ratios through 1Q2019^^
Regulatory Capital Ratio Actual 4Q2016 Ending 1Q2019 Minimum
Common Equity Tier 1 12.65% 17.85% 14.97%
Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital
Ratio
12.65% 17.85% 14.97%
Total Risk-Based Capital 13.66% 19.18% 16.30%
Tier 1 Leverage 7.67% 11.21% 8.80%
__________________________
^ All projected capital ratios are calculated based on capital action assumptions provided under the DFAST rules. These
projections represent hypothetical estimates that involve an economic outcome that is more adverse than management
expectations. These estimates are not management’s forecasts of expected losses, revenues, net income before taxes, or
capital ratios.
^^ The minimum capital ratios presented are the lowest results for any quarter over the 9Q Planning Horizon.
For both SVBFG and the Bank, the stressed minimum and ending capital ratios remained
above “well-capitalized” regulatory minimum levels and above the Company’s internally
established capital management policy minimums.
V. Key Drivers of Changes to Capital Ratios
Adverse changes to SVBFG’s capital ratios under the Supervisory Severely Adverse
Scenario are driven primarily by credit losses and decreases in PPNR (lower net interest income,
nonmarketable securities losses, warrant losses and operational risk losses). Offsetting the
adverse changes noted above are a decline in regulatory risk-weighted assets, driven primarily
by lower loan volume.
Substantially all of SVBFG’s total consolidated risk-weighted assets are held at the Bank,
SVBFG’s primary operating subsidiary.3 Increases in capital ratios, despite the adverse impact
from higher credit and operational losses, are due primarily to a decrease in risk-weighted
3 As of December 31, 2016, 95% of SVBFG’s total consolidated risk-weighted assets were held at the Bank level.
9
assets resulting from lower loan volume. Additionally, most of SVBFG’s total consolidated
equity capital is attributable to the Bank.4 With the exception of losses on non-marketable
securities and warrants, which are held at the parent company level and thus only impact
SVBFG, the key drivers of changes to the Bank’s capital ratios are generally the same as those at
the consolidated SVBFG parent company level, because the Bank is consolidated into SVBFG for
regulatory capital purposes.
Credit Losses. Under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario, declining economic
conditions result in an increase in nonperforming loans, which drives up credit loss rates.
SVBFG’s Commercial and Industrial (“C&I”) loans contribute the largest nominal impact on
capital with $456.4 million in cumulative losses over the 9Q Planning Horizon. Similarly, losses
from C&I loans also produce among the highest default rates (4.1% based on average quarterly
balances) across SVBFG’s loan categories under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario. In
aggregate, credit losses flow directly through retained earnings (a component of equity) and
create the largest negative impact on SVBFG’s capital ratios.
Pre-Provision Net Revenues. Under the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario, changes
in PPNR are significantly impacted by a decline in cumulative net interest income and non-
interest income but are offset by a reduction in non-interest expense. Net interest income and
noninterest income totaling $3,240.9 million is partially offset by $1,430.2 million in noninterest
expenses5 resulting in PPNR of $1,810.7 million. Additionally, $743.6 million in cumulative
expenses tied to provisions for loan losses result in a net impact on capital of $1,067.1 million
coming from PPNR and provision expenses during the 9Q Planning Horizon. Specifically,
negative impacts on PPNR and provision in the stress scenario include lower net interest
income driven primarily from decreasing interest rates under the Supervisory Severely Adverse
Scenario. Interest rates decline very dramatically in the first quarter of the 9Q Planning Horizon
and then recover slowly over the nine-quarter period resulting in further margin compression
on earning assets and, ultimately, lower net interest income.
Risk-Weighted Assets. A significant portion of SVBFG’s balance sheet consists of a fixed-
income investment portfolio of high-quality U.S. Treasury notes and securities issued and
backed by government sponsored enterprises (e.g., the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Federal
National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation). Due to its
high-quality nature, SVBFG’s fixed-income investment portfolio contributes only a small amount
to total regulatory risk-weighted assets.6 Therefore, although the vast majority of the
Company’s balance sheet is considered low-risk under the capital rules, the Company’s capital
ratios are particularly sensitive to changes in the volume of its loan portfolio, which includes
both loans and unfunded lending commitments. Under the Supervisory Severely Adverse
4 As of December 31, 2016, 94% of SVBFG’s total consolidated equity capital was held at the Bank level.
5 Noninterest expenses include losses related to operational risks and expenses related to staffing, legal,
compliance, occupancy and professional services.
6 Additionally, because the high-quality fixed-income investment portfolio consists primarily of U.S. Treasury notes
and securities issued and backed by Government Sponsored Enterprises, the Company does not believe
modeling credit losses or other negative impacts from Other-than-Temporary Impairment is appropriate.
10
Scenario, loan volumes are projected either to decline or only increase by an insignificant
amount as compared to other scenarios during the 9Q Planning Horizon, given the severe
impact on the economy and increase in credit losses. Lower loan volume reduces regulatory
risk-weighted assets, which has a net positive impact on the Company’s risk-based capital
ratios. A reduction in total risk-weighted assets offsets, to a limited extent, the negative impact
on regulatory capital from credit losses and decreases in PPNR.
The following charts represent the impact of each of the material drivers of changes in
Common Equity Tier 1 and Tier 1 Leverage ratios7 for SVBFG under the Supervisory Severely
Adverse Scenario. Ratio changes at the Bank level were similarly impacted from credit losses,
operational risk and changes in risk-weighted assets (“RWA”). The Bank ‘s results are not
impacted by gains or losses from nonmarketable securities or warrants:
7 No charts for Total Capital or Tier 1 Capital are included, because both categories are primarily comprised of
Common Equity Tier 1 Capital; hence, the impact of changes to Common Equity Tier 1 Capital is largely
consistent with Total Capital and Tier 1 Capital.
11
VI. Conclusion
The results of SVBFG’s stress test over the 9Q Planning Horizon under the Supervisory
Severely Adverse Scenario show significant impacts on capital that are attributable to credit
risk, market/liquidity risk and interest rate risk. Risk-based capital ratios and the Leverage Ratio
increase over the forecast horizon primarily because of declines in loan volume (resulting in
lower risk-weighted assets) despite experiencing the negative impacts of increasing credit and
operational losses. Throughout the 9Q Planning Horizon under such scenario, regulatory capital
ratios for both SVBFG and the Bank remain above the “well-capitalized” regulatory minimums
as well as above the internally established capital management policy minimums.
VII. Forward-Looking Statements Disclaimer
This disclosure contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are subject to known and
unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which may be beyond SVBFG’s control. Forward-
looking statements are statements that are not historical facts, such as forecasts of SVBFG’s
future financial results and condition, expectations for SVBFG’s operations and business, and
SVBFG’s underlying assumptions of such forecasts and expectations. In addition, forward-
looking statements generally can be identified by the use of such words as “becoming,” “may,”
“will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “believe,”
“estimate,” “seek,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” the negative of such words or comparable
terminology. In this disclosure, SVBFG makes forward-looking statements discussing
management’s expectations under hypothetical scenarios about, among other things, economic
conditions; opportunities in the market; the outlook on SVBFG’s clients' performance; SVBFG’s
financial, credit, and business performance, including potential investment gains/losses; loan
growth, loan mix and loan yields; expense levels; and financial results (and the components of
such results) for certain quarters in, and for, the 9Q Planning Horizon, which spans the period
between the first quarter of 2017 through the first quarter of 2019.
Although SVBFG believes that the expectations reflected in SVBFG’s forward-looking
statements are reasonable, SVBFG has based these expectations on its current beliefs as well as
its assumptions, and such expectations may not prove to be correct. Because forward-looking
statements relate to the future, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in
circumstances that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside SVBFG’s control.
SVBFG’s actual results of operations and financial performance could differ significantly from
those expressed in or implied by SVBFG’s management’s forward-looking statements.
Important factors that could cause SVBFG’s actual results and financial condition to differ from
the expectations stated in the forward-looking statements include, among others: (i) market
and economic conditions, including the interest rate environment, and the associated impact
on SVBFG; (ii) changes in the volume and credit quality of the Bank’s loans as well as volatility of
its levels of nonperforming assets and charge-offs; (iii) the impact of changes in interest rates or
market levels or factors affecting or affected by them, especially on SVBFG’s loan and
investment portfolios; (iv) changes in the levels of SVBFG’s loans, deposits and client
12
investment fund balances; (v) changes in the performance or equity valuations of funds or
companies in which SVBFG has invested or hold derivative instruments or equity warrant
assets; (vi) variations from SVBFG’s expectations as to factors impacting its cost structure; (vii)
changes in SVBFG’s assessment of the creditworthiness or liquidity of its clients or
unanticipated effects of credit concentration risks which create or exacerbate deterioration of
such creditworthiness or liquidity; (viii) variations from SVBFG’s expectations as to factors
impacting the timing and level of employee share-based transactions; (ix) variations from
SVBFG’s expectations as to factors impacting its estimate of its full-year effective tax rate; (x)
changes in applicable accounting standards and tax laws; and (xi) regulatory or legal changes or
their impact on SVBFG. For additional information about these and other factors, please refer
to SVBFG’s public reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including
under the caption “Risk Factors” in SVBFG’s most recent Annual Report filed on Form 10-K. The
forward-looking statements included in this disclosure are made only as of the date of this
disclosure. SVBFG does not intend, and undertakes no obligation, to update these forward-
looking statements.
* * * * *