Derivatives and Hedging Activities

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2015

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities Disclosure [Abstract]

Derivatives and Hedging Activities

7. Derivatives and Hedging Activities

We are a party to various derivative instruments, mainly through our subsidiary, KeyBank. Derivative instruments are contracts between two or more parties that have a notional amount and an underlying variable, require a small or no net investment, and allow for the net settlement of positions. A derivative’s notional amount serves as the basis for the payment provision of the contract, and takes the form of units, such as shares or dollars. A derivative’s underlying variable is a specified interest rate, security price, commodity price, foreign exchange rate, index, or other variable. The interaction between the notional amount and the underlying variable determines the number of units to be exchanged between the parties and influences the fair value of the derivative contract.

The primary derivatives that we use are interest rate swaps, caps, floors, and futures; foreign exchange contracts; commodity derivatives; and credit derivatives. Generally, these instruments help us manage exposure to interest rate risk, mitigate the credit risk inherent in the loan portfolio, hedge against changes in foreign currency exchange rates, and meet client financing and hedging needs. As further discussed in this note:

• interest rate risk represents the possibility that the EVE or net interest income will be adversely affected by fluctuations in interest rates;

• credit risk is the risk of loss arising from an obligor’s inability or failure to meet contractual payment or performance terms; and

• foreign exchange risk is the risk that an exchange rate will adversely affect the fair value of a financial instrument.

Derivative assets and liabilities are recorded at fair value on the balance sheet, after taking into account the effects of bilateral collateral and master netting agreements. These agreements allow us to settle all derivative contracts held with a single counterparty on a net basis, and to offset net derivative positions with related cash collateral, where applicable. As a result, we could have derivative contracts with negative fair values included in derivative assets on the balance sheet and contracts with positive fair values included in derivative liabilities.

At September 30, 2015, after taking into account the effects of bilateral collateral and master netting agreements, we had $157 million of derivative assets and a positive $34 million of derivative liabilities that relate to contracts entered into for hedging purposes. Our hedging derivative liabilities are in an asset position largely because we have contracts with positive fair values as a result of master netting agreements. As of the same date, after taking into account the effects of bilateral collateral and master netting agreements and a reserve for potential future losses, we had derivative assets of $636 million and derivative liabilities of $710 million that were not designated as hedging instruments.

Additional information regarding our accounting policies for derivatives is provided in Note 1 (“Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”) under the heading “Derivatives” beginning on page 121 of our 2014 Form 10-K.

Derivatives Designated in Hedge Relationships

Net interest income and the EVE change in response to changes in the mix of assets, liabilities, and off-balance sheet instruments; associated interest rates tied to each instrument; differences in the repricing and maturity characteristics of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities; and changes in interest rates. We utilize derivatives that have been designated as part of a hedge relationship in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance to minimize the exposure and volatility of net interest income and EVE to interest rate fluctuations. The primary derivative instruments used to manage interest rate risk are interest rate swaps, which convert the contractual interest rate index of agreed-upon amounts of assets and liabilities (i.e., notional amounts) to another interest rate index.

We designate certain “receive fixed/pay variable” interest rate swaps as fair value hedges. These contracts convert certain fixed-rate long-term debt into variable-rate obligations, thereby modifying our exposure to changes in interest rates. As a result, we receive fixed-rate interest payments in exchange for making variable-rate payments over the lives of the contracts without exchanging the notional amounts.

Similarly, we designate certain “receive fixed/pay variable” interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges. These contracts effectively convert certain floating-rate loans into fixed-rate loans to reduce the potential adverse effect of interest rate decreases on future interest income. Again, we receive fixed-rate interest payments in exchange for making variable-rate payments over the lives of the contracts without exchanging the notional amounts.

We also designate certain “pay fixed/receive variable” interest rate swaps as cash flow hedges. These swaps convert certain floating-rate debt into fixed-rate debt. We also use these swaps to manage the interest rate risk associated with anticipated sales of certain commercial real estate loans. The swaps protect against the possible short-term decline in the value of the loans that could result from changes in interest rates between the time they are originated and the time they are sold.

Interest rate swaps are also used to hedge the floating-rate debt that funds fixed-rate leases entered into by our equipment finance line of business. These swaps are designated as cash flow hedges to mitigate the interest rate mismatch between the fixed-rate lease cash flows and the floating-rate payments on the debt. These hedge relationships were terminated during the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

We use foreign currency forward transactions to hedge the foreign currency exposure of our net investment in various foreign equipment finance entities. These entities are denominated in a non-U.S. currency. These swaps are designated as net investment hedges to mitigate the exposure of measuring the net investment at the spot foreign exchange rate.

Derivatives Not Designated in Hedge Relationships

On occasion, we enter into interest rate swap contracts to manage economic risks but do not designate the instruments in hedge relationships. Excluding contracts addressing customer exposures, the amount of derivatives hedging risks on an economic basis at September 30, 2015, was not significant.

Like other financial services institutions, we originate loans and extend credit, both of which expose us to credit risk. We actively manage our overall loan portfolio and the associated credit risk in a manner consistent with asset quality objectives and concentration risk tolerances to mitigate portfolio credit risk. Purchasing credit default swaps enables us to transfer to a third party a portion of the credit risk associated with a particular extension of credit, including situations where there is a forecasted sale of loans. Beginning in the first quarter of 2014, we began purchasing credit default swaps to reduce the credit risk associated with the debt securities held in our trading portfolio. We may also sell credit derivatives to offset our purchased credit default swap position prior to maturity. Although we use credit default swaps for risk management purposes, they are not treated as hedging instruments.

We also enter into derivative contracts for other purposes, including:

• interest rate swap, cap, and floor contracts entered into generally to accommodate the needs of commercial loan clients;

• energy and base metal swap and options contracts entered into to accommodate the needs of clients;

• futures contracts and positions with third parties that are intended to offset or mitigate the interest rate or market risk related to client positions discussed above; and

• foreign exchange forward contracts and options entered into primarily to accommodate the needs of clients.

These contracts are not designated as part of hedge relationships.

Fair Values, Volume of Activity, and Gain/Loss Information Related to Derivative Instruments

The following table summarizes the fair values of our derivative instruments on a gross and net basis as of September 30, 2015, December 31, 2014, and September 30, 2014. The change in the notional amounts of these derivatives by type from December 31, 2014, to September 30, 2015, indicates the volume of our derivative transaction activity during the first nine months of 2015. The notional amounts are not affected by bilateral collateral and master netting agreements. The derivative asset and liability balances are presented on a gross basis, prior to the application of bilateral collateral and master netting agreements. Total derivative assets and liabilities are adjusted to take into account the impact of legally enforceable master netting agreements that allow us to settle all derivative contracts with a single counterparty on a net basis and to offset the net derivative position with the related cash collateral. Where master netting agreements are not in effect or are not enforceable under bankruptcy laws, we do not adjust those derivative assets and liabilities with counterparties. Securities collateral related to legally enforceable master netting agreements is not offset on the balance sheet. Our derivative instruments are included in “derivative assets” or “derivative liabilities” on the balance sheet, as indicated in the following table:

	September 30, 2015								December 31, 2014								September 30, 2014
			Fair Value								Fair Value								Fair Value
	Notional		Derivative			Derivative			Notional		Derivative			Derivative			Notional		Derivative			Derivative
in millions	Amount		Assets			Liabilities			Amount		Assets			Liabilities			Amount		Assets			Liabilities
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
Interest rate	$	17,910	$	394		$	12		$	15,095	$	272		$	26		$	13,946	$	237		$	44
Foreign exchange		319		11			—			371		8			—			413		13			—
Total		18,229		405			12			15,466		280			26			14,359		250			44
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
Interest rate		57,006		725			644			43,771		665			618			42,088		608			572
Foreign exchange		6,161		119			112			4,024		85			81			4,433		69			64
Commodity		1,394		482			469			1,544		608			594			1,780		95			90
Credit		580		7			5			512		5			7			618		4			7
Total		65,141		1,333			1,230			49,851		1,363			1,300			48,919		776			733
Netting adjustments (a)		—		(945	)		(566	)		—		(1,034	)		(542	)		—		(613	)		(393	)
Net derivatives in the balance sheet		83,370		793			676			65,317		609			784			63,278		413			384
Other collateral (b)		—		(113	)		(232	)		—		(155	)		(241	)		—		(71	)		(268	)
Net derivative amounts	$	83,370	$	680		$	444		$	65,317	$	454		$	543		$	63,278	$	342		$	116

(a) Netting adjustments represent the amounts recorded to convert our derivative assets and liabilities from a gross basis to a net basis in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance.

(b) Other collateral represents the amount that cannot be used to offset our derivative assets and liabilities from a gross basis to a net basis in accordance with the applicable accounting guidance. The other collateral consists of securities and is exchanged under bilateral collateral and master netting agreements that allow us to offset the net derivative position with the related collateral. The application of the other collateral cannot reduce the net derivative position below zero. Therefore, excess other collateral, if any, is not reflected above.

Fair value hedges. Instruments designated as fair value hedges are recorded at fair value and included in “derivative assets” or “derivative liabilities” on the balance sheet. The effective portion of a change in the fair value of an instrument designated as a fair value hedge is recorded in earnings at the same time as a change in fair value of the hedged item, resulting in no effect on net income. The ineffective portion of a change in the fair value of such a hedging instrument is recorded in “other income” on the income statement with no corresponding offset. During the nine-month period ended September 30, 2015, we did not exclude any portion of these hedging instruments from the assessment of hedge effectiveness. While there is some immaterial ineffectiveness in our hedging relationships, all of our fair value hedges remained “highly effective” as of September 30, 2015.

The following table summarizes the pre-tax net gains (losses) on our fair value hedges for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2014, and where they are recorded on the income statement.

	Nine months ended September 30, 2015
		Net Gains						Net Gains
	Income Statement Location of	(Losses) on					Income Statement Location of	(Losses) on
in millions	Net Gains (Losses) on Derivative	Derivative			Hedged Item		Net Gains (Losses) on Hedged Item	Hedged Item
Interest rate	Other income	$	66			Long-term debt	Other income	$	(66	) (a)
Interest rate	Interest expense – Long-term debt		91
Total		$	157					$	(66	)
	Nine months ended September 30, 2014
		Net Gains						Net Gains
	Income Statement Location of	(Losses) on					Income Statement Location of	(Losses) on
in millions	Net Gains (Losses) on Derivative	Derivative			Hedged Item		Net Gains (Losses) on Hedged Item	Hedged Item
Interest rate	Other income	$	(21	)		Long-term debt	Other income	$	21	(a)
Interest rate	Interest expense – Long-term debt		91
Total		$	70					$	21

(a) Net gains (losses) on hedged items represent the change in fair value caused by fluctuations in interest rates.

Cash flow hedges. Instruments designated as cash flow hedges are recorded at fair value and included in “derivative assets” or “derivative liabilities” on the balance sheet. Initially, the effective portion of a gain or loss on a cash flow hedge is recorded as a component of AOCI on the balance sheet. This amount is subsequently reclassified into income when the hedged transaction affects earnings (e.g., when we pay variable-rate interest on debt, receive variable-rate interest on commercial loans, or sell commercial real estate loans). The ineffective portion of cash flow hedging transactions is included in “other income” on the income statement. During the nine-month period ended September 30, 2015, we did not exclude any portion of these hedging instruments from the assessment of hedge effectiveness. While there is some immaterial ineffectiveness in our hedging relationships, all of our cash flow hedges remained “highly effective” as of September 30, 2015.

Considering the interest rates, yield curves, and notional amounts as of September 30, 2015, we would expect to reclassify an estimated $37 million of after-tax net losses on derivative instruments from AOCI to income during the next 12 months for our cash flow hedges. In addition, we expect to reclassify approximately $1 million of net losses related to terminated cash flow hedges from AOCI to income during the next 12 months. As of September 30, 2015, the maximum length of time over which we hedge forecasted transactions is 13 years.

Net investment hedges. We enter into foreign currency forward contracts to hedge our exposure to changes in the carrying value of our investments as a result of changes in the related foreign exchange rates. Instruments designated as net investment hedges are recorded at fair value and included in “derivative assets” or “derivative liabilities” on the balance sheet. Initially, the effective portion of a gain or loss on a net investment hedge is recorded as a component of AOCI on the balance sheet when the terms of the derivative match the notional and currency risk being hedged. The effective portion is subsequently reclassified into income when the hedged transaction affects earnings (e.g., when we dispose of or liquidate a foreign subsidiary). At September 30, 2015, AOCI reflected unrecognized after-tax gains totaling $35 million related to cumulative changes in the fair value of our net investment hedges, which offset the unrecognized after-tax foreign currency losses on net investment balances. The ineffective portion of net investment hedging transactions is included in “other income” on the income statement, but there was no net investment hedge ineffectiveness as of September 30, 2015. We did not exclude any portion of our hedging instruments from the assessment of hedge effectiveness during the nine-month period ended September 30, 2015.

The following table summarizes the pre-tax net gains (losses) on our cash flow and net investment hedges for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2014, and where they are recorded on the income statement. The table includes the effective portion of net gains (losses) recognized in OCI during the period, the effective portion of net gains (losses) reclassified from OCI into income during the current period, and the portion of net gains (losses) recognized directly in income, representing the amount of hedge ineffectiveness.

	Nine months ended September 30, 2015
in millions	Net Gains (Losses) Recognized in OCI (Effective Portion)			Income Statement Location of Net Gains (Losses) Reclassified From OCI Into Income (Effective Portion)	Net Gains (Losses) Reclassified From OCI Into Income (Effective Portion)			Income Statement Location of Net Gains (Losses) Recognized in Income (Ineffective Portion)	Net Gains (Losses) Recognized in Income (Ineffective Portion)
Cash Flow Hedges
Interest rate	$	147		Interest income – Loans	$	73		Other income		—
Interest rate		(3	)	Interest expense – Long-term debt		(3	)	Other income		—
Interest rate		(3	)	Investment banking and debt placement fees		—		Other income		—
Net Investment Hedges
Foreign exchange contracts		29		Other Income		—		Other income		—
Total	$	170			$	70				—

	Nine months ended September 30, 2014
in millions	Net Gains (Losses) Recognized in OCI (Effective Portion)			Income Statement Location of Net Gains (Losses) Reclassified From OCI Into Income (Effective Portion)	Net Gains (Losses) Reclassified From OCI Into Income (Effective Portion)			Income Statement Location of Net Gains (Losses) Recognized in Income (Ineffective Portion)	Net Gains (Losses) Recognized in Income (Ineffective Portion)
Cash Flow Hedges
Interest rate	$	27		Interest income – Loans	$	49		Other income		—
Interest rate		(5	)	Interest expense – Long-term debt		(3	)	Other income		—
Interest rate		(1	)	Investment banking and debt placement fees		—		Other income		—
Net Investment Hedges
Foreign exchange contracts		17		Other Income		—		Other income		—
Total	$	38			$	46				—

The after-tax change in AOCI resulting from cash flow and net investment hedges is as follows:

in millions	December 31, 2014			2015 Hedging Activity		Reclassification of Gains to Net Income			September 30, 2015
AOCI resulting from cash flow and net investment hedges	$	(8	)	$	107	$	(44	)	$	55

Nonhedging instruments. Our derivatives that are not designated as hedging instruments are recorded at fair value in “derivative assets” and “derivative liabilities” on the balance sheet. Adjustments to the fair values of these instruments, as well as any premium paid or received, are included in “corporate services income” and “other income” on the income statement.

The following table summarizes the pre-tax net gains (losses) on our derivatives that are not designated as hedging instruments for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2014, and where they are recorded on the income statement.

	Nine months ended September 30, 2015								Nine months ended September 30, 2014
	Corporate								Corporate
	Services		Other						Services		Other
in millions	Income		Income			Total			Income		Income			Total
NET GAINS (LOSSES)
Interest rate	$	18		—		$	18		$	11		—		$	11
Foreign exchange		27		—			27			25		—			25
Commodity		5		—			5			3		—			3
Credit		—	$	(10	)		(10	)		—	$	(16	)		(16	)
Total net gains (losses)	$	50	$	(10	)	$	40		$	39	$	(16	)	$	23

Counterparty Credit Risk

Like other financial instruments, derivatives contain an element of credit risk. This risk is measured as the expected positive replacement value of the contracts. We use several means to mitigate and manage exposure to credit risk on derivative contracts. We generally enter into bilateral collateral and master netting agreements that provide for the net settlement of all contracts with a single counterparty in the event of default. Additionally, we monitor counterparty credit risk exposure on each contract to determine appropriate limits on our total credit exposure across all product types. We review our collateral positions on a daily basis and exchange collateral with our counterparties in accordance with standard ISDA documentation, central clearing rules, and other related agreements. We generally hold collateral in the form of cash and highly rated securities issued by the U.S. Treasury, government-sponsored enterprises, or GNMA. The cash collateral netted against derivative assets on the balance sheet totaled $394 million at September 30, 2015, $518 million at December 31, 2014, and $230 million at September 30, 2014. The cash collateral netted against derivative liabilities totaled $14 million at September 30, 2015, $26 million at December 31, 2014, and $10 million at September 30, 2014. The relevant agreements that allow us to access the central clearing organizations to clear derivative transactions are not considered to be qualified master netting agreements. Therefore, we cannot net derivative contracts or offset those contracts with related cash collateral with these counterparties. At September 30, 2015, we posted $112 million of cash collateral with clearing organizations and held $105 million of cash collateral from clearing organizations. At December 31, 2014, we posted $56 million of cash collateral with clearing organizations and did not hold any cash collateral from clearing organizations. At September 30, 2014, we posted $51 million of cash collateral with clearing organizations and did not hold any cash collateral from clearing organizations. This additional cash collateral is included in “accrued income and other assets” and “accrued expense and other liabilities” on the balance sheet.

The following table summarizes our largest exposure to an individual counterparty at the dates indicated.

in millions	September 30, 2015		December 31, 2014		September 30, 2014
Largest gross exposure (derivative asset) to an individual counterparty	$	137	$	133	$	106
Collateral posted by this counterparty		55		100		44
Derivative liability with this counterparty		78		31		103
Collateral pledged to this counterparty		—		—		47
Net exposure after netting adjustments and collateral		4		2		6

The following table summarizes the fair value of our derivative assets by type at the dates indicated. These assets represent our gross exposure to potential loss after taking into account the effects of bilateral collateral and master netting agreements and other means used to mitigate risk.

in millions	September 30, 2015		December 31, 2014		September 30, 2014
Interest rate	$	807	$	607	$	556
Foreign exchange		48		41		39
Commodity		328		478		47
Credit		4		1		1
Derivative assets before collateral		1,187		1,127		643
Less: Related collateral		394		518		230
Total derivative assets	$	793	$	609	$	413

We enter into derivative transactions with two primary groups: broker-dealers and banks, and clients. Since these groups have different economic characteristics, we have different methods for managing counterparty credit exposure and credit risk.

We enter into transactions with broker-dealers and banks for various risk management purposes. These types of transactions generally are high dollar volume. We generally enter into bilateral collateral and master netting agreements with these counterparties. We began clearing certain types of derivative transactions with these counterparties in June 2013, whereby the central clearing organizations become our counterparties subsequent to novation of the original derivative contracts. In addition, we began entering into derivative contracts through swap execution facilities during the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The swap clearing and swap trade execution requirements were mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act for the purpose of reducing counterparty credit risk and increasing transparency in the derivative market. At September 30, 2015, we had gross exposure of $952 million to broker-dealers and banks. We had net exposure of $303 million after the application of master netting agreements and cash collateral, where such qualifying agreements exist. We had net exposure of $172 million after considering $131 million of additional collateral held in the form of securities.

We enter into transactions with clients to accommodate their business needs. These types of transactions generally are low dollar volume. We generally enter into master netting agreements with these counterparties. In addition, we mitigate our overall portfolio exposure and market risk by buying and selling U.S. Treasuries and Eurodollar futures, and entering into offsetting positions and other derivative contracts, sometimes with entities other than broker-dealers and banks. Due to the smaller size and magnitude of the individual contracts with clients, we generally do not exchange collateral in connection with these derivative transactions. To address the risk of default associated with the uncollateralized contracts, we have established a credit valuation adjustment (included in “derivative assets”) in the amount of $8 million at September 30, 2015, which we estimate to be the potential future losses on amounts due from client counterparties in the event of default. At September 30, 2015, we had gross exposure of $525 million to client counterparties and other entities that are not broker-dealers or banks for derivatives that have associated master netting agreements. We had net exposure of $490 million on our derivatives with these counterparties after the application of master netting agreements, collateral, and the related reserve. In addition, the derivatives for one counterparty were guaranteed by a third party with a letter of credit totaling $30 million.

Credit Derivatives

We are both a buyer and seller of credit protection through the credit derivative market. We purchase credit derivatives to manage the credit risk associated with specific commercial lending and swap obligations as well as exposures to debt securities. We may also sell credit derivatives, mainly single-name credit default swaps, to offset our purchased credit default swap position prior to maturity.

The following table summarizes the fair value of our credit derivatives purchased and sold by type as of September 30, 2015, December 31, 2014, and September 30, 2014. The fair value of credit derivatives presented below does not take into account the effects of bilateral collateral or master netting agreements.

	September 30, 2015								December 31, 2014								September 30, 2014
in millions	Purchased			Sold		Net			Purchased			Sold		Net			Purchased			Sold		Net
Single-name credit default swaps	$	(2	)		—	$	(2	)	$	(3	)		—	$	(3	)	$	(1	)		—	$	(1	)
Traded credit default swap indices		4			—		4			1			—		1			(2	)		—		(2	)
Other (a)		—			—		—			—			—		—			—			—		—
Total credit derivatives	$	2			—	$	2		$	(2	)		—	$	(2	)	$	(3	)		—	$	(3	)

(a) As of September 30, 2015, December 31, 2014, and September 30, 2014, the fair value of other credit derivatives sold totaled less than $1 million.

Single-name credit default swaps are bilateral contracts whereby the seller agrees, for a premium, to provide protection against the credit risk of a specific entity (the “reference entity”) in connection with a specific debt obligation. The protected credit risk is related to adverse credit events, such as bankruptcy, failure to make payments, and acceleration or restructuring of obligations, identified in the credit derivative contract. As the seller of a single-name credit derivative, we may settle in one of two ways if the underlying reference entity experiences a predefined credit event. We may be required to pay the purchaser the difference between the par value and the market price of the debt obligation (cash settlement) or receive the specified referenced asset in exchange for payment of the par value (physical settlement). If we effect a physical settlement and receive our portion of the related debt obligation, we will join other creditors in the liquidation process, which may enable us to recover a portion of the amount paid under the credit default swap contract. We also may purchase offsetting credit derivatives for the same reference entity from third parties that will permit us to recover the amount we pay should a credit event occur.

A traded credit default swap index represents a position on a basket or portfolio of reference entities. As a seller of protection on a credit default swap index, we would be required to pay the purchaser if one or more of the entities in the index had a credit event. Upon a credit event, the amount payable is based on the percentage of the notional amount allocated to the specific defaulting entity.

The majority of transactions represented by the “other” category shown in the above table are risk participation agreements. In these transactions, the lead participant has a swap agreement with a customer. The lead participant (purchaser of protection) then enters into a risk participation agreement with a counterparty (seller of protection), under which the counterparty receives a fee to accept a portion of the lead participant’s credit risk. If the customer defaults on the swap contract, the counterparty to the risk participation agreement must reimburse the lead participant for the counterparty’s percentage of the positive fair value of the customer swap as of the default date. If the customer swap has a negative fair value, the counterparty has no reimbursement requirements. If the customer defaults on the swap contract and the seller fulfills its payment obligations under the risk participation agreement, the seller is entitled to a pro rata share of the lead participant’s claims against the customer under the terms of the swap agreement.

The following table provides information on the types of credit derivatives sold by us and held on the balance sheet at September 30, 2015, December 31, 2014, and September 30, 2014. The notional amount represents the maximum amount that the seller could be required to pay. The payment/performance risk assessment is based on the default probabilities for the underlying reference entities’ debt obligations using a Moody’s credit ratings matrix known as Moody’s “Idealized” Cumulative Default Rates. The payment/performance risk shown in the table represents a weighted-average of the default probabilities for all reference entities in the respective portfolios. These default probabilities are directly correlated to the probability that we will have to make a payment under the credit derivative contracts.

	September 30, 2015							December 31, 2014							September 30, 2014
			Average		Payment /					Average		Payment /					Average		Payment /
	Notional		Term		Performance			Notional		Term		Performance			Notional		Term		Performance
dollars in millions	Amount		(Years)		Risk			Amount		(Years)		Risk			Amount		(Years)		Risk
Single-name credit default swaps		—		—		—		$	5		.72		.87	%	$	5		.97		.87	%
Other	$	9		2.95		7.45	%		6		2.89		9.58			6		2.92		5.59
Total credit derivatives sold	$	9		—		—		$	11		—		—		$	11		—		—

Credit Risk Contingent Features

We have entered into certain derivative contracts that require us to post collateral to the counterparties when these contracts are in a net liability position. The amount of collateral to be posted is based on the amount of the net liability and thresholds generally related to our long-term senior unsecured credit ratings with Moody’s and S&P. Collateral requirements also are based on minimum transfer amounts, which are specific to each Credit Support Annex (a component of the ISDA Master Agreement) that we have signed with the counterparties. In a limited number of instances, counterparties have the right to terminate their ISDA Master Agreements with us if our ratings fall below a certain level, usually investment-grade level (i.e., “Baa3” for Moody’s and “BBB-” for S&P). At September 30, 2015, KeyBank’s rating was “A3” with Moody’s and “A-” with S&P, and KeyCorp’s rating was “Baa1” with Moody’s and “BBB+” with S&P. As of September 30, 2015, the aggregate fair value of all derivative contracts with credit risk contingent features (i.e., those containing collateral posting or termination provisions based on our ratings) held by KeyBank that were in a net liability position totaled $249 million, which includes $216 million in derivative assets and $465 million in derivative liabilities. We had $232 million in cash and securities collateral posted to cover those positions as of September 30, 2015. The aggregate fair value of all derivative contracts with credit risk contingent features held by KeyCorp as of September 30, 2015, that were in a net liability position totaled $8 million, which consists solely of derivative liabilities. We had $8 million in collateral posted to cover those positions as of September 30, 2015.

The following table summarizes the additional cash and securities collateral that KeyBank would have been required to deliver under the ISDA Master Agreements had the credit risk contingent features been triggered for the derivative contracts in a net liability position as of September 30, 2015, December 31, 2014, and September 30, 2014. The additional collateral amounts were calculated based on scenarios under which KeyBank’s ratings are downgraded one, two, or three ratings as of September 30, 2015, December 31, 2014, and September 30, 2014, and take into account all collateral already posted. A similar calculation was performed for KeyCorp, and no additional collateral would have been required as of September 30, 2015, while additional collateral of less than $1 million as of December 31, 2014, and $3 million as of September 30, 2014, would have been required. For more information about the credit ratings for KeyBank and KeyCorp, see the discussion under the heading “Factors affecting liquidity” in the section entitled “Liquidity risk management” in Item 2 of this report.

	September 30, 2015				December 31, 2014				September 30, 2014
in millions	Moody’s		S&P		Moody’s		S&P		Moody’s		S&P
KeyBank’s long-term senior unsecured credit ratings		A3		A-		A3		A-		A3		A-
One rating downgrade	$	4	$	4	$	1	$	1	$	1	$	1
Two rating downgrades		5		5		1		1		4		4
Three rating downgrades		6		6		3		3		6		6

KeyBank’s long-term senior unsecured credit rating is currently four ratings above noninvestment grade at Moody’s and S&P. If KeyBank’s ratings had been downgraded below investment grade as of September 30, 2015, payments of up to $7 million would have been required to either terminate the contracts or post additional collateral for those contracts in a net liability position, taking into account all collateral already posted. If KeyCorp’s ratings had been downgraded below investment grade as of September 30, 2015, payments of less than $1 million would have been required to either terminate the contracts or post additional collateral for those contracts in a net liability position, taking into account all collateral already posted.