Back to GetFilings.com

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File No. 1-13300

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (703) 720-1000

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the act:

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this

Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  x    No  ¨

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of the close of business on February 27, 2004.

Common Stock, $.01 Par Value: $16,806,230,685*

Common Stock, $.01 Par Value: 238,913,074 shares

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

2003 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

PART I

Overview

Capital One Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) is a holding company, incorporated in Delaware on July 21, 1994, whose subsidiaries market a variety of consumer financial products and services. The Corporation’s principal subsidiary, Capital One Bank (the “Bank”), a limited-purpose Virginia state chartered credit card bank, offers credit card products. Capital One, F.S.B. (the “Savings Bank”), a federally chartered savings bank, offers consumer lending and deposit products, and Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. (“COAF”) offers automobile and other motor vehicle financing products. Capital One Services, Inc., another subsidiary of the Corporation, provides various operating, administrative and other services to the Corporation and its subsidiaries. Unless indicated otherwise, the terms “Company”, “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to the Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.

As of December 31, 2003, we had 47.0 million accounts and $71.2 billion in managed consumer loans outstanding. We are among the six largest issuers of Visa^® and MasterCard^® credit cards in the United States based on managed credit card loans outstanding as of December 31, 2003. Important factors underlying the growth of our managed credit card loans and accounts include credit card industry dynamics and our business strategies around building, analyzing and applying results derived from large quantities of data to reduce credit risk, mass customize products for consumers and improve operational efficiency. We generally have labeled these strategies our “Information Based Strategy” or “IBS.”

In June 1996, we established the Savings Bank to expand our product offerings and our relationship with our cardholders. The Savings Bank currently, among other things, takes deposits and offers a variety of credit card and installment loan products.

We offer credit cards throughout the United States. We also offer credit card products outside of the United States principally through Capital One Bank (Europe) plc, an indirect subsidiary of the Bank organized and located in the United Kingdom (the “U.K. Bank”), and a branch of the Bank in Canada.

We offer automobile and other motor vehicle financing products through COAF and its subsidiaries. These financing products are offered for the purchase of either new or used vehicles or the refinancing of existing motor vehicle loans. We also offer other secured and unsecured consumer lending products through our subsidiaries both in the United States and elsewhere.

We use IBS to differentiate among customers based on credit risk, usage and other characteristics and to match customer characteristics with appropriate product offerings. IBS involves building sophisticated models and information systems, while employing a well-trained staff and a flexible culture to identify, develop and market credit card or other products and services to satisfy the demands of a competitive and ever changing marketplace. By actively testing a wide variety of product and service features, marketing channels and other aspects of offerings, we design customized solicitations, products and services that are targeted at specific credit customer segments, thereby enhancing response levels and maximizing returns on investment within given underwriting parameters.

We build on information derived from our initial sources with continued integrated testing and model development to improve the quality, performance and profitability of our solicitation and account management initiatives. We apply IBS to all areas of our business, including solicitations, account management, credit line management, pricing strategies, usage stimulation, collections, recoveries, and account and balance retention as well as internal matters such as recruiting and associate performance management.

3

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol COF and our Upper DECs^® securities are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol COFPRC. Our principal executive office is located at 1680 Capital One Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102 (telephone number (703) 720-1000). The Corporation maintains a website at www.capitalone.com. Documents available on our website include the Corporation’s (i) Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, (ii) Corporate Governance Principles; (iii) and charters for the Audit and Risk, Compensation, Finance, and Governance and Nominating Committees. These documents are also available in print to any shareholder who requests a copy. In addition, we make available free of charge through our website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after electronic filing or furnishing of such material with the SEC.

Business Description

With more than 47.0 million accounts, Capital One is one of the world’s largest financial services franchises. We are a diversified financial services corporation focused primarily on consumer lending. Our principal business segments are domestic credit card lending, automobile and other motor vehicle financing and global financial services. For further discussion of our segments, see pages 47-48 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Reportable Segments” and pages 71-73 in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note B”.

U.S. Card Segment. We offer a wide variety of credit card products throughout the United States. We customize our products to appeal to different consumer preferences and needs by combining different product features, including annual percentage rates, fees and credit limits, rewards programs and other special features. We routinely test new products to develop ones that appeal to different and changing consumer preferences. Our customized products include both products offered to a wide range of consumer credit risk profiles, as well as products aimed at special consumer interests. Our pricing strategies are risk-based; lower risk customers may likely be offered products with more favorable pricing and we expect these products to yield lower delinquencies and credit losses. On products offered to many higher risk customers, however, we may experience higher delinquencies and losses, and we price these products accordingly.

Auto Finance Segment. We also apply IBS to our auto finance business. Through COAF, we purchase retail installment contracts, secured by automobiles or other motor vehicles, through dealer networks throughout the United States. Additionally, we utilize direct marketing to offer automobile financing directly to consumers. Our direct marketed products include financing for the purchase of new and used vehicles, as well as refinancing of existing motor vehicle loans. In October 2001, we acquired the nation’s largest online provider of direct motor vehicle loans. Similar to our credit card strategy, we customize product features, such as interest rate, loan amount, and loan terms, enabling us to lend to customers with a wide range of credit profiles.

Global Financial Services Segment. Our Global Financial Services (“GFS”) segment includes a variety of diverse products for consumers in the United States and internationally. Domestically, GFS manages installment lending, patient financing (through Amerifee Corporation, which we acquired in May 2001), and small business lending activities, as well as other consumer financial businesses. We grew in both our installment lending business as well as our deposit-taking business in 2003. In addition, we have, and may in the future achieve further diversification through acquisition, organic growth or both. GFS also includes our international businesses, where we are using the IBS methodologies and approaches we have learned in our U.S. credit card and motor vehicle financing businesses in new geographies. Internationally, we are currently operating primarily in the United Kingdom and Canada. In 2003, we continued to grow in the number of accounts and loan balances in our international lending business, with most of our growth coming from the United Kingdom. Our U.K. Bank has authority to accept deposits and provide credit card and installment loans.

We also engage in limited non-lending activities. We take deposits from customers in the U.S., which are originated through direct and indirect channels. We also offer other products to our customers, including credit insurance, through third-party providers.

4

Geographic Diversity

Loan portfolio concentration within a specific geographic region may be regarded differently based upon the current and expected credit characteristics and performance of the portfolio. Our consumer loan portfolio is geographically diverse. See page 96 in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note T” of this form.

Enterprise Risk Management

Risk is an inherent part of the Company’s business and activities. The Company has an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program designed to ensure appropriate and comprehensive oversight and management of risk. The ERM program exists in three components: first, at the most senior levels with the Board of Directors and senior management committees that oversee risk and risk management practices; second, in the centralized departments headed by the Chief Enterprise Risk Officer and the Chief Credit Officer that establish risk management methodologies, processes and standards; and third, in the individual business areas throughout the Company which own risk and perform ongoing identification, assessment and response to risks. The Company’s ERM framework includes eight categories of risk: credit, liquidity, market, operational, legal, strategic, reputation, and compliance.

Board and Senior Management Oversight

The Company utilizes a series of Board and senior management committees to oversee the management of risk. The Audit and Risk Committee of the Board of Directors oversees the Company’s accounting, financial reporting, internal controls and risk assessment and management processes. The Audit and Risk Committee also reviews periodic reporting on significant Company risks and mitigation activities and the compliance with corporate risk policies, while the Finance Committee oversees liquidity and market risk. The Executive Committee, a committee of senior management chaired by the Chief Executive Officer, provides guidance to senior executives regarding strategic risk and provides an integrated view of risk through reports by the Company’s other primary senior management committees:

5

Integrity, Ethical Values and Risk Management Culture

The Company maintains its risk management culture through various mechanisms designed to bring the consideration of risk into daily decision making. The Company has a corporate Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, available on the Corporate Governance page of its website at www.capitalone.com/about, under which each associate is obligated to behave with integrity in dealing with customers and business partners and to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The Company also has a corporate values training program and an associate performance management process that emphasize achieving business results while maintaining integrity and sound business management. The Company’s risk management culture is also encouraged through frequent direction and communications from the Board of Directors, senior leadership, internal change management consulting, corporate and departmental risk management policies, risk management and compliance training programs and on-going risk assessment activities in the business.

Organizational Structure

The Company’s organizational structure supports consideration of risk in decision making. The corporate ERM department designs and facilitates the implementation in the business of methodologies to identify and assess risk, analyze and aggregate risk and mitigation reporting and to evaluate and enhance the risk management culture. For significant risks reported to the senior management committees, the Audit and Risk Committee, the Finance Committee and the Board, specific executives are designated as accountable for the management and monitoring of each such risk. Across the Company, individual business areas utilize business risk offices staffed by associates from the business who oversee implementation of methodologies and tools for risk identification, assessment and reporting. The Company’s Corporate Audit Services department also assesses risk and the related quality of internal controls and quality of risk management through its audit activities.

Risk Identification, Assessment and Response

The Company utilizes a corporate methodology for the management of risk across the individual business areas. Key risk exposures are identified by each business area and assessed according to potential likelihood and impact, as well as, the quality of the related controls. If appropriate, mitigation plans are developed for risks and the business tracks progress against the plans. Individual business units are required to conduct self assessments at least annually.

Monitoring and Reporting

The Company monitors its key risks, mitigation plans and its growing risk management capability through a system of on-going measurement and reporting to business area management, the Chief Enterprise Risk Officer, senior management committees and the Board and its committees. Additionally, Corporate Audit Services performs separate evaluations of the system of internal control and risk management capability. Corporate Audit Services reports on the scope and results of its work to the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board of Directors.

Credit Risk Management

Successful management of credit risk, the risk that borrowers may default on their financial obligations to the Company, is important to the Company’s success. There are four primary sources of credit risk: (1) changing economic conditions, which affect consumers’ ability to pay; (2) changing competitive environment, which affects consumer debt loads and borrowing patterns; (3) the Company’s underwriting strategies and standards, which drive the selection of customers and the terms offered; and (4) the quality of the Company’s internal controls, which establish a process to test that underwriting conforms to Company standards and identify credit quality issues so the Company can act upon them a timely manner. The Company is focused on managing each of these sources of credit risk.

In 2003, the Company continued to build its central credit risk management organization. The Company’s goal was to continue its strong central oversight of credit policy and programs while maintaining the ability of its operating units to respond flexibly to changing market and competitive conditions. The Company’s Chief Credit

6

Officer manages a corporate Credit Risk Management staff and chairs the Credit Policy Committee, a committee of senior management. The Credit Policy Committee oversees and approves corporate credit policy and credit performance. Its members include the Chief Credit Officer, the Chief Enterprise Risk Officer and the Presidents of the Company’s three operating divisions. The Chief Credit Officer and his staff review and approve all large scale new credit programs. Smaller credit programs are approved by Senior Credit Officers appointed by the Credit Policy Committee and supervised by the Chief Credit Officer and his staff. All credit programs must also be approved by the appropriate operating executives. These organizational structures are designed so that each of the Company’s business units applies standardized practices in measuring and managing credit risk, and that all relevant factors, such as credit outlook, profitability, and the competitive, economic, and regulatory environment, are considered in making credit decisions.

The Company maintains tolerances for credit risk through policies adopted by the Board of Directors. These policies establish constraints for the level and composition of risk in the total lending portfolio as well as constraints on incremental lending decisions.

The Company’s credit risk profile is managed to maintain resilience to factors outside of the Company’s control, strong risk-adjusted returns, and increased diversification. In 2003, the Company accomplished these goals by increasing growth in its higher credit quality businesses relative to slower growth in its lower credit quality businesses, by further growth in its diversified consumer lending products, such as automobile financing and unsecured installment lending, and by international expansion. In addition, the Company continued its strategy of customizing credit lines and product terms to each customer segment to attempt to achieve appropriate, risk-adjusted returns. The centralized Credit Risk Management group monitors overall composition and quality of the credit portfolio.

The Company’s guiding principles, strengthened central governance, and Board-directed credit risk tolerances are designed to keep senior executives well-informed of credit trends so they can make appropriate credit and business decisions for the Company. The Company enhances/preserves day-to-day market responsiveness and flexibility by empowering its business line managers to develop credit strategies and programs aligned with the Company’s credit risk policies and objective of long-term business profitability. The credit program development process considers the evolving needs of the target market, the competitive environment, and the economic outlook. Senior Credit Officers, who are appointed by the Credit Policy Committee, oversee all credit program development.

Most of the Company’s credit strategies rely heavily on the use of sophisticated proprietary scoring models. These models consider many variables, including credit scores developed by nationally recognized scoring firms. The models are validated, monitored and maintained in accordance with detailed policies and procedures to help maintain their continued validity.

Liquidity Risk Management

Liquidity risk refers to exposures generated from the use and availability of various funding sources to meet its current and future operating needs. The management of liquidity risk is overseen by the Chief Financial Officer with the advice and guidance from the Asset and Liability Management Committee and its sub-committee on funding chaired by the Treasurer. The Company currently manages and mitigates its liquidity risk through the use of a variety of funding sources to establish a maturity pattern that provides a prudent mixture of short-term and long-term funds. See page 52 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity Risk Management” for additional information.

Market Risk Management

Market risk refers to exposures generated from changes in interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. The management of market risk is overseen by the Chief Financial Officer with the advice and guidance from the

7

Asset and Liability Management Committee and its sub-committee on risk management chaired by the Vice President of Global Planning. The Company currently manages and mitigates its interest rate sensitivity through several techniques, which include, but are not limited to, changing the maturity and repricing characteristics of various balance sheet categories and by entering into interest rate swaps. The Company currently manages and mitigates its exposure to foreign currency exchange risk by entering into hedges for all material foreign currency denominated transactions. See page 54 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Market Risk Management” for additional information.

Operational Risk Management

Operational risk is the risk of direct or indirect loss resulting from inadequate or failed processes, systems, people, or exposure to external events. The Company employs several principles in the management of operational risk:

Operational risk is a normal part of business for any financial services firm. It may manifest itself in many ways, such as fraud by employees or persons outside the Company, business interruptions, errors related to processing and systems, and model errors. The risk of loss includes the potential for legal actions arising as a result of an operational deficiency or as a result of noncompliance with applicable laws or regulatory standards. The Company could also suffer financial loss, face regulatory action, not be able to service customers and suffer damages to its reputation.

The operational risk management group of the ERM department is responsible for building and implementing methodologies and supporting technology to assist business areas in the management of operational risk, as well as aggregating, analyzing and reporting the results. The individual business areas utilize Business Risk Offices staffed by associates who are trained in operational loss event collection, operational risk assessment and mitigation planning and reporting.

The key tools used in operational risk management are a risk self assessment process and an operational loss event database. The goal is to create an explicit process for risk identification and assessment to increase awareness of exposures and focus appropriate attention on important risks. Key risk exposures are identified by each business area and evaluated according to potential impact and likelihood, as well as the quality of the related controls. If appropriate, mitigation plans are developed for certain identified risks and progress is tracked against the plans. Business units are required to conduct self assessments at least annually.

There are many specialized activities designed to mitigate key operational risks facing the Company. These include a dedicated fraud management department, programs for third party supplier risk management, information security and business continuity planning, development and maintenance of required policies and procedures, and decision model analysis.

The Company also uses a comprehensive methodology to capture operational loss events. The goal is to create awareness of the Company’s risks and learn from past experience. Loss events are captured from each business area and central collection points where available. Each is valued according to a consistent methodology, and categorized according to the standard Basel subcategories for operational risk. Reporting is provided for trends of number and dollars of losses, analyses by event categories and business lines and assessments of common causes.

8

The Company maintains a system of internal control with the objective of providing proper transaction authorization and execution, safeguarding of assets from misuse or theft and ensuring the reliability of financial and other data. The internal control system is intended to provide management with timely and accurate information about the operations of the Company and has been designed to manage operational risk at appropriate levels given the Company’s financial strength, the environment in which it operates and considering factors such as competition and regulation. The Company has established procedures that are designed to ensure that policies are followed on a uniform basis. Management continually monitors and improves its internal control systems, processes and procedures to reduce the potential likelihood and impact of events related to operational risk.

The key governance forum for operational risk is the ERM Committee, described above. The committee reviews significant operational risks from self assessments, progress against mitigation plans and analyses of the Company’s operational loss event experience. In addition, key risk management initiatives and programs are reviewed by the Committee. Operational risk information is also shared with the Executive Committee, described above, and the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board of Directors. Corporate Audit Services also assesses operational risk and the related quality of internal controls and quality of risk management through its audit activities.

Legal Risk Management

Legal risk represents the risk of loss related to (i) contracts that are not properly drafted so as to strike the appropriate balance between the Company’s business interests and its legal exposure, (ii) the Company’s legal entity structure and (iii) changes in laws and regulations, whether domestic or from international jurisdictions in which the Company conducts business. The management of legal risk is overseen by the Company’s General Counsel. Due to the Company’s significant reliance on certain contractual relationships, including with its funding providers, as well as its unique corporate structure and heavily regulated industry, the Company faces significant levels of legal risk. The Company also faces risk of loss from litigation, which is primarily managed by the Company’s legal department.

Strategic Risk Management

Strategic risk is the risk to earnings or capital from operating the Company in a competitive environment. The Executive Committee, described above, is the principal management forum for discussion of strategic risk. The Company assesses strategic risk in its annual planning process, which includes both a top-down process set by the Board of Directors and a bottom-up process led by business lines. The Company also performs quarterly business reviews at the Executive Committee to compare business performance and risk assessments to plan. Consideration of strategic risk is also a vital component of due diligence when evaluating new products, ventures or markets.

Reputation Risk Management

Reputation risk represents the risk to earnings or capital arising from negative public or associate opinion. The management of reputation risk is overseen by the Executive Vice President, responsible for the Company’s corporate reputation and governance programs, with the advice and guidance of the Corporate Reputation Committee, a committee of senior management. The Company currently utilizes qualitative criteria to measure reputation risk. Several measures, both internal and external, are considered to gauge changes to the Company’s reputation and overall reputation risk and include brand market research, customer studies, internal operational loss event data and external measures.

Compliance Risk Management

Compliance risk is the risk of non-conformance to laws, rules and regulations. The management of compliance risk is overseen by the Chief Enterprise Risk Officer with the advice and guidance of the ERM Committee and its

9

sub-committee on compliance risk, chaired by the Chief Compliance Officer. The corporate compliance organization, a part of the ERM department, provides the business areas with consulting, training and assistance in the implementation of business processes to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The business areas assess compliance risk through the Company’s enterprise risk self assessment process, and conduct monitoring and remediation activities for which the compliance organization establishes standards.

Technology / Systems

Technology has been a cornerstone of IBS. We leverage information technology to develop and deliver innovative products and services to satisfy our customers’ needs.

A key part of our strategic focus is the development of efficient, flexible computer and operational systems to support complex marketing and account management strategies. We believe that the continued development and integration of these systems is an important part of our efforts to reduce costs, improve quality and provide faster, more flexible technology services. Consequently, we continuously review capabilities and develop or obtain systems, processes and competencies to meet our unique business requirements.

Funding and Liquidity

A discussion of our funding programs and liquidity has been included in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Funding” on pages 49-53.

Competition

Each of our card products is marketed to specific consumer populations across the credit spectrum. The terms of each card product are actively managed to achieve a balance between risk and expected performance. For example, card product terms typically include the ability to reprice individual accounts upwards or downwards based on the customer’s payment and other performance. In addition, since 1998, we have aggressively marketed low non-introductory rate cards to consumers with low-risk and established credit profiles to take advantage of the favorable risk return characteristics of this consumer type. Industry competitors have continuously solicited our customers with these and other similar interest rate strategies. Management believes the competition has put, and will continue to put, additional pressure on our pricing strategies.

As a marketer of credit card and other financial products, we face intense competition in all aspects of our business from numerous bank and non-bank providers of financial services. Many of these companies are substantially larger and have more resources than we do. We compete with international, national, regional and local issuers of Visa^® and MasterCard^® credit cards. In addition, American Express^®, Discover Card^®, Diner’s Club^® and, to a certain extent, smart cards and debit cards, represent additional competition to the general purpose credit card. In general, customers are attracted to credit card issuers largely on the basis of price, credit limit and other product features, and customer loyalty is often limited. In motor vehicle finance, we face competition from banks and non-bank lenders who provide financing for dealer-originated loans. Additionally, we face competition from a small, but growing number of online automobile finance providers. We also face competition from lenders in our installment loan and other lending activities. We believe that IBS allows us to compete effectively in both our current and new markets. There can be no assurance, however, that our ability to market products and services successfully or to obtain adequate yield on our loans will not be impacted by the nature of the competition that now exists or may later develop.

In addition, some of our competitors may be substantially larger than we are, which may give those competitors advantages, including a more diversified product and customer base, operational efficiencies and more versatile technology platforms. These competitors may also consolidate with other financial institutions in ways that enhance these advantages.

10

Intellectual Property

As part of our overall and ongoing strategy to protect and enhance our intellectual property, we rely on a variety of protections, including copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents and certain restrictions on disclosure. We also undertake other measures to control access to and distribution of our other proprietary information. Despite these precautions, it may be possible for a third party to copy or otherwise obtain and use certain intellectual property or proprietary information without authorization. Our precautions may not prevent misappropriation or infringement of our intellectual property or proprietary information. In addition, our competitors also file patent applications for innovations that are used in our industry. The ability of our competitors to obtain such patents may adversely affect our ability to compete. Conversely, our ability to obtain such patents may increase our competitive advantage. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in such efforts, or that the ability of our competitors to obtain such patents may not adversely impact our financial results.

Employees

As of December 31, 2003, we employed 17,760 employees whom we refer to as “associates.” A central part of our philosophy is to attract and maintain a highly capable staff. We view current associate relations to be satisfactory. None of our associates is covered under a collective bargaining agreement.

Supervision and Regulation

General

The Bank is a banking corporation chartered under Virginia law and a member of the Federal Reserve System, the deposits of which are insured by the Bank Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). In addition to regulatory requirements imposed as a result of the Bank’s international operations (discussed below), the Bank is subject to comprehensive regulation and periodic examination by the Bureau of Financial Institutions of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (the “Bureau of Financial Institutions”), the Federal Reserve Board (the “Federal Reserve”), the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and the FDIC. The Bank is not currently a “bank” under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”), because it (i) engages only in credit card operations, (ii) does not accept demand deposits or deposits that the depositor may withdraw by check or similar means for payment to third parties or others, (iii) does not accept any savings or time deposits of less than $100,000, other than as permitted as collateral for extensions of credit, (iv) maintains only one office that accepts deposits and (v) does not engage in the business of making commercial loans. Due to the Bank’s status as a limited purpose credit card bank, our non-credit card operations must be conducted in our other operating subsidiaries, except as relates to our U.K. operations.

The Savings Bank is a federal savings bank chartered by the Office of Thrift Supervision (the “OTS”) and is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. Its deposits are insured by the Savings Association Insurance Fund of the FDIC. The Savings Bank is subject to comprehensive regulation and periodic examination by the OTS and the FDIC.

The Corporation is not currently a bank holding company under the BHCA as a result of its ownership of the Bank because the Bank is not a “bank” as defined under the BHCA. If the Bank failed to meet the credit card bank exemption criteria described above, its status as an insured depository institution would make the Corporation subject to the provisions of the BHCA, including certain restrictions as to the types of business activities in which a bank holding company and its affiliates may engage. Becoming a bank holding company under the BHCA would affect the Corporation’s ability to engage in certain non-banking businesses. In addition, for purposes of the BHCA, if the Bank failed to qualify for the credit card bank exemption, any entity that acquired direct or indirect control of the Bank and also engaged in activities not permitted for bank holding companies could be required either to discontinue the impermissible activities or to divest itself of control of the Bank.

11

As a result of the Corporation’s ownership of the Savings Bank, the Corporation is a unitary savings and loan holding company subject to regulation by the OTS and the provisions of the Savings and Loan Holding Company Act. As a unitary savings and loan holding company, the Corporation generally is not restricted under existing laws as to the types of business activities in which it may engage so long as the Savings Bank continues to meet the qualified thrift lender test (the “QTL Test”). If the Corporation ceased to be a unitary savings and loan holding company as a result of its acquisition of an additional savings institution, as a result of the failure of the Savings Bank to meet the QTL Test, or as a result of a change in control of the Savings Bank, the types of activities that the Corporation and its non-savings association subsidiaries would be able to engage in would generally be limited to those eligible for bank holding companies.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”) does not impact the permissible range of our activities; it does, however, impose some limitations on the future activities of unitary thrift holding companies. Existing unitary thrift holding companies such as the Corporation are “grandfathered” with full powers to continue and expand their current activities.

Grandfathered unitary thrift holding companies, however, may not be acquired by nonfinancial companies and maintain their grandfathered powers. In addition, if a grandfathered unitary thrift holding company is acquired by a financial company without such grandfathered rights, it may lose its ability to engage in certain non-banking activities otherwise ineligible for bank holding companies or financial holding companies.

The Corporation is also registered as a financial institution holding company under Virginia law and as such is subject to periodic examination by Virginia’s Bureau of Financial Institutions. Our automobile financing activities conducted by COAF and its subsidiaries fall under the scrutiny of the state agencies having supervisory authority under applicable sales finance laws or consumer finance laws in most states. We also face regulation in the international jurisdictions in which we conduct our business.

The Corporation has filed an application with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”) (12 U.S.C. § 1842(a)(1)) to become a bank holding company (“BHC”) as a result of the Bank’s proposal to amend its Virginia charter to remove existing restrictions on its activities and thereby permit the Bank to engage in the full range of lending, deposit-taking and other activities permissible under Virginia and federal banking laws and regulations. The Corporation also filed a notice with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1843(c)(8) to retain its nonbanking subsidiaries, including the Savings Bank and COAF, upon its conversion to a BHC. The Corporation seeks to effect this change to further diversify its financial service activities and funding base. If approved, the Corporation will register as a BHC with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and become subject to the requirements of the BHC Act, including limiting its nonbanking activities to those that are permissible for a BHC. Such activities include those that are so closely related to banking as to be incident thereto such as consumer lending and other activities that have been approved by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by regulation or order. Certain servicing activities are also permissible for a BHC if conducted for or on behalf of the BHC or any of its affiliates. Impermissible activities for BHCs include activities that are related to commerce such as retail sales of nonfinancial products. The Corporation does not engage in any significant activities impermissible for a BHC and therefore, does not anticipate an immediate change in its activities as a result of this proposal.

Informal Memorandum of Understanding

As described in the Company’s report on Form 10-Q, dated August 13, 2002, the Company entered into an informal memorandum of understanding with the bank regulatory authorities with respect to certain issues, including capital, allowance for loan losses, finance charge and fee reserve policies, procedures, systems and controls. A memorandum of understanding is characterized by regulatory authorities as an informal action that is not published or publicly available.

Effective January 29, 2004, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, the OTS, and the Bureau of Financial Institutions of the Commonwealth of Virginia terminated the informal memorandum of understanding. Like other

12

regulated financial institutions, the Company continues to be subject to regular and ongoing general and targeted regulatory exams.

Dividends and Transfers of Funds

Dividends to the Corporation from its direct and indirect subsidiaries represent a major source of funds for the Corporation to pay dividends on its stock, make payments on its debt securities and meet its other obligations. There are various federal and Virginia law limitations on the extent to which the Bank and the Savings Bank can finance or otherwise supply funds to the Corporation through dividends, loans or otherwise. These limitations include minimum regulatory capital requirements, Federal Reserve, OTS and Virginia law requirements concerning the payment of dividends out of net profits or surplus, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, Regulation W under governing transactions between an insured depository institution and its affiliates and general federal and Virginia regulatory oversight to prevent unsafe or unsound practices. In general, federal banking laws prohibit an insured depository institution, such as the Bank and the Savings Bank, from making dividend distributions if such distributions are not paid out of available earnings or would cause the institution to fail to meet applicable capital adequacy standards. In addition, the Savings Bank is required to give the OTS at least 30 days’ advance notice of any proposed dividend. Under OTS regulations, other limitations apply to the Savings Bank’s ability to pay dividends, the magnitude of which depends upon the extent to which the Savings Bank meets its regulatory capital requirements. In addition, under Virginia law, the Bureau of Financial Institutions may limit the payment of dividends by the Bank if the Bureau of Financial Institutions determines that such a limitation would be in the public interest and necessary for the Bank’s safety and soundness.

Capital Adequacy

The Bank and the Savings Bank are currently subject to capital adequacy guidelines adopted by the Federal Reserve and the OTS, respectively. For a further discussion of the capital adequacy guidelines, see page 55 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Capital Adequacy” and page 86 in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note O—Regulatory Matters”. The Bank and the Savings Bank were well capitalized under these guidelines as of December 31, 2003.

Basel Committee

In April 2003, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Committee”) issued a consultative document for public comment, “The New Basel Capital Accord,” (the “New Accord”) which proposes significant revisions to the current Basel Capital Accord. The proposed new accord would establish a three-part framework for capital adequacy that would include: (1) minimum capital requirements; (2) supervisory review of an institution’s capital adequacy and internal assessment process; and (3) market discipline through effective disclosures regarding capital adequacy.

The first part of the proposal would create options for a bank to use when determining its capital charge. The option selected by each bank would depend on the complexity of the bank’s business and the quality of its risk management. The proposed standardized approach would refine the current measurement framework and introduce the use of external credit assessments to determine a bank’s capital charge. Banks with more advanced risk management capabilities could make use of an internal risk-rating based approach (the “IRB Approach”). Under the IRB Approach, a bank could use its internal estimates to determine certain elements of credit risk, such as the loss that a borrower’s default would cause and the probability of a borrower’s default. The Committee is also proposing an explicit capital charge for operational risk to provide for risks created by processes, systems, or people, such as internal systems failure or fraud.

The second part of the proposal would establish new supervisory review requirements for capital adequacy and would seek to ensure that a bank’s capital position is consistent with its overall risk profile and strategy. The proposed supervisory review process would also encourage early supervisory intervention when a bank’s capital position deteriorates.

13

The third aspect of the proposal, market discipline, would require detailed disclosure of a bank’s capital adequacy to enhance the role of market participants in encouraging banks to hold adequate capital. Each bank would also be required to disclose how it evaluates its own capital adequacy.

It is not clear as of this date whether and in what manner the proposed new accord will be adopted by U.S. bank regulators with respect to banking organizations that they supervise and regulate. Adoption of the proposed new accord could require U.S. banking organizations, including the Company, to increase their regulatory capital.

FDICIA

Among other things, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) requires federal bank regulatory authorities to take “prompt corrective action” (“PCA”) in respect of insured depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. FDICIA establishes five capital ratio levels: well-capitalized, adequately-capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. As of December 31, 2003, each of the Bank and the Savings Bank met the requirements for a “well-capitalized” institution. The “well-capitalized” classification is determined solely for the purposes of applying FDICIA’s PCA provisions, as discussed below, and should not be viewed as describing the condition or future prospects of a depository institution, including the Bank and the Savings Bank. Were the Bank and Savings Bank to lose their status as “well-capitalized” they could be required to increase capital or lose access to deposits.

The Bank and the Savings Bank may accept brokered deposits as part of their funding. Under FDICIA, only “well-capitalized” and “adequately-capitalized” institutions may accept brokered deposits. Adequately-capitalized institutions, however, must first obtain a waiver from the FDIC before accepting brokered deposits, and such deposits may not pay rates that significantly exceed the rates paid on deposits of similar maturity from the institution’s normal market area or the national rate on deposits of comparable maturity, as determined by the FDIC, for deposits from outside the institution’s normal market area.

Liability for Commonly-Controlled Institutions

Under the “cross-guarantee” provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), insured depository institutions such as the Bank and the Savings Bank may be liable to the FDIC in respect of any loss or reasonably anticipated loss incurred by the FDIC resulting from the default of, or FDIC assistance to, any commonly controlled insured depository institution. The Bank and the Savings Bank are commonly controlled within the meaning of the FIRREA cross-guarantee provision.

Investment Limitation and Qualified Thrift Lender Test

Federally-chartered savings banks such as the Savings Bank are subject to certain investment limitations. For example, federal savings banks are not permitted to make consumer loans (i.e., certain open-end or closed-end loans for personal, family or household purposes, excluding credit card loans) in excess of 35% of the savings bank’s assets. Federal savings banks are also required to meet the QTL Test, which generally requires a savings bank to maintain at least 65% “portfolio assets” (total assets less (i) specified liquid assets up to 20% of total assets, (ii) intangibles, including goodwill and (iii) property used to conduct business) in certain “qualified thrift investments” (residential mortgages and related investments, including certain mortgage backed and mortgage related investments, small business related securities, certain state and federal housing investments, education loans and credit card loans) on a monthly basis in nine out of every twelve months. Failure to qualify under the QTL Test could subject the Savings Bank to substantial restrictions on its activities, including the activity restrictions that apply generally to bank holding companies and their affiliates and potential loss of grandfathered rights under the GLB Act. As of December 31, 2003, 83.24% of the Savings Bank’s portfolio assets were held in qualified thrift investments, and the Savings Bank was in compliance with the QTL Test.

14

Subprime Lending Guidelines

On January 31, 2001, the federal banking agencies, including the Federal Reserve and the OTS, issued “Expanded Guidance for Subprime Lending Programs” (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines, while not constituting a formal regulation, provide guidance to the federal bank examiners regarding the adequacy of capital and loan loss reserves held by insured depository institutions engaged in “subprime” lending. The Guidelines adopt a broad definition of “subprime” loans which likely covers more than one-third of all consumers in the United States. Because our business strategy is to provide credit card products and other consumer loans to a wide range of consumers, a portion of our loan assets would likely be viewed by the examiners as “subprime.” Thus, under the Guidelines, bank examiners could require the Bank or the Savings Bank to hold additional capital (up to one and one-half to three times the minimally required level of capital, as set forth in the Guidelines), or additional loan loss reserves, against such assets. As described above, as of December 31, 2003 the Bank and the Savings Bank each met the requirements for a “well-capitalized” institution. Federal examiners, however, have wide discretion as to how to apply the Guidelines and there can be no assurances that the Bank or the Savings Bank may not be required to hold additional regulatory capital against such assets.

For purposes of the Subprime Guidelines, we treat as “subprime” all loans in the Bank’s and the Savings Bank’s programs that are targeted at customers either with a Fair, Isaac and Company (“FICO”) score of 660 or below or with no FICO score. The Bank and the Savings Bank hold on average 200% of the total risk-based capital charge that would otherwise apply to such assets.

FFIEC Account Management Guidance

On January 8, 2003, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (“FFIEC”) released Account Management and Loss Allowance Guidance (the “Guidance”). The Guidance applies to all credit lending of regulated financial institutions and generally requires that banks properly manage several elements of their credit card lending programs, including line assignments, over-limit practices, minimum payment and negative amortization, workout and settlement programs, and the accounting methodology used for various assets and income items related to credit card loans.

We believe that our credit card account management and loss allowance practices are prudent and appropriate and, therefore, consistent with the Guidance. We also believe the Guidance will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. We caution, however, that similar to the Guidelines, the Guidance provides wide discretion to bank regulatory agencies in the application of the Guidance to any particular institution and its account management and loss allowance practices. Accordingly, under the Guidance, bank examiners could require changes in our account management or loss allowance practices in the future.

Regulation of Lending Activities

The activities of the Bank and the Savings Bank as consumer lenders also are subject to regulation under various federal laws, including the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”), the Community Reinvestment Act and the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, as well as under various state laws. Depending on the underlying issue and applicable law, regulators are often authorized to impose penalties for violations of these statutes and, in certain cases, to order the Bank and the Savings Bank to compensate injured borrowers. Borrowers may also have a private right of action to bring actions for certain violations. Federal bankruptcy and state debtor relief and collection laws also affect the ability of the Bank and the Savings Bank to collect outstanding balances owed by borrowers. These laws plus state sales finance laws also affect the ability of our automobile financing business to collect outstanding balances.

Privacy and Fair Credit Reporting

The GLB Act requires a financial institution to disclose its privacy policy to customers and consumers, and requires that such customers or consumers be given a choice (through an opt-out notice) to forbid the sharing of

15

nonpublic personal information about them with nonaffiliated third persons. The Corporation and the Bank each have a written privacy notice posted on the Corporation’s web site which is delivered to each of its customers when customer relationships begin, and annually thereafter, in compliance with the GLB Act. In accordance with that privacy notice, the Corporation and the Bank protect the security of information about their customers, educate their employees about the importance of protecting customer privacy, and allow their customers to remove their names from the solicitation lists they use and share with others. The Corporation and the Bank require business partners with whom they share such information to have adequate security safeguards and to abide by the redisclosure and reuse provisions of the GLB Act. The Corporation and the Bank have developed and implemented programs to fulfill the expressed requests of customers and consumers to opt out of information sharing subject to the GLB Act.

If the federal or state regulators of the financial subsidiaries establish further guidelines for addressing customer privacy issues, the Corporation and/or the Bank may need to amend their privacy policies and adapt their internal procedures. During the fourth quarter, the federal banking regulators indicated they will adopt the “Interagency Guidance on Response Programs for Unauthorized Access to Customer Information and Customer Notice”, which will instruct financial institutions on how to notify their customers who are affected by a security breach at the financial institution that damages the integrity of customer information held by the financial institutions. This Guidance may encourage litigation when a security breach occurs, even if the financial institution is in compliance with security standards and follows the Guidance strictly. In addition to adopting federal requirements regarding privacy, the GLB Act also permits individual states to enact stricter laws relating to the use of customer information. California, Vermont and North Dakota have done so by statute, regulation or referendum, and other states may consider proposals which impose additional requirements or restrictions on the Corporation and/or the Bank. Like other lending institutions, the Bank utilizes credit bureau data in its underwriting activities. Use of such data is regulated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) on a uniform, nationwide basis, including credit reporting, prescreening, sharing of information between affiliates, and the use of credit data. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the “FACT Act”), which was enacted by Congress and signed into law this quarter, extends the federal preemption of the FCRA permanently, although the law authorizes states to enact identity theft laws that are not inconsistent with the conduct required by the provisions of the FACT Act. If financial institutions and credit bureaus fail to alleviate the costs and consumer frustration associated with the growing crime of identity theft, financial institutions could face increased legislative/regulatory and litigation risks.

Investment in the Corporation, the Bank and the Savings Bank

Certain acquisitions of capital stock may be subject to regulatory approval or notice under federal or Virginia law. Investors are responsible for ensuring that they do not, directly or indirectly, acquire shares of capital stock of the Corporation in excess of the amount which can be acquired without regulatory approval. The Bank and the Savings Bank are each “insured depository institutions” within the meaning of the Change in Bank Control Act. Consequently, federal law and regulations prohibit any person or company from acquiring control of the Corporation without, in most cases, prior written approval of the Federal Reserve or the OTS, as applicable. Control is conclusively presumed if, among other things, a person or company acquires more than 25% of any class of voting stock of the Corporation. A rebuttable presumption of control arises if a person or company acquires more than 10% of any class of voting stock and is subject to any of a number of specified “control factors” as set forth in the applicable regulations. Although the Bank is not a “bank” within the meaning of Virginia’s reciprocal interstate banking legislation (Chapter 15 of Title 6.1 of the Code of Virginia), it is a “bank” within the meaning of Chapter 13 of Title 6.1 of the Code of Virginia governing the acquisition of interests in Virginia financial institutions (the “Financial Institution Holding Company Act”). The Financial Institution Holding Company Act prohibits any person or entity from acquiring, or making any public offer to acquire, control of a Virginia financial institution or its holding company without making application to, and receiving prior approval from, the Bureau of Financial Institutions.

16

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”). The Patriot Act contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws as well as enhanced information collection tools and enforcement mechanics for the U.S. government, including: due diligence requirements for financial institutions that administer, maintain, or manage private bank accounts or correspondence accounts for non-U.S. persons; standards for verifying customer identification at account opening; rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering; reports by nonfinancial trades and businesses filed with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for transactions exceeding $10,000; and filing suspicious activities reports by brokers and dealers if they believe a customer may be violating U.S. laws and regulations.

The Department of Treasury in consultation with the Federal Reserve and other federal financial institution regulators has promulgated rules and regulations implementing the Patriot Act which: prohibit U.S. correspondent accounts with foreign banks that have no physical presence in any jurisdiction; require financial institutions to maintain certain records for correspondent accounts of foreign banks; require financial institutions to produce certain records relating to anti-money laundering compliance upon request of the appropriate federal banking agency; require due diligence with respect to private banking and correspondent banking accounts; facilitate information sharing between government and financial institutions, and require financial institutions to have in place an anti-money laundering program.

In addition, an implementing regulation under the Patriot Act regarding verification of customer identification by financial institutions became effective on May 30, 2003. The Corporation has implemented and will continue to implement the provisions of the Patriot Act as such provisions become effective. The Corporation currently maintains and will continue to maintain policies and procedures to comply with the Patriot Act requirements.

Interstate Taxation

Several states have passed legislation which attempts to tax the income from interstate financial activities, including credit cards, derived from accounts held by local state residents. Based on the volume of our business in these states and the nature of the legislation passed to date, we currently believe that this development will not materially affect our financial condition. The states may also consider legislation to tax income derived from transactions conducted through the Internet. We currently solicit accounts and take account information via the Internet. It is unclear at this time, however, whether and in what form any such legislation will be adopted, or if adopted, what its impact on us would be.

Legislation

Legislation has now been enacted requiring additional disclosures for credit cards and other types of consumer lending. Such legislation places additional restrictions on the practices of credit card issuers and consumer lenders generally. In addition to the FCRA and FACT Act provisions discussed above, proposals have been made to change existing federal bankruptcy laws, to expand the privacy protections afforded to customers of financial institutions, and to reform the federal deposit insurance system. It is unclear at this time whether and in what form any legislation will be adopted or, if adopted, what its impact on the Bank, the Savings Bank, COAF or the Corporation would be. Congress or individual states may in the future consider other legislation that would materially and/or adversely affect the banking or consumer lending industries.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Compliance

On July 30, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) was passed into law. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act applies to all companies that are required to file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and contains a number of significant changes relating to the responsibilities of

17

directors and officers and reporting and governance obligations of SEC reporting companies. Certain provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act were effective immediately without action by the SEC; however many provisions required the SEC to issue implementing rules and became, or will become, effective after their adoption. Following the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Company has taken steps which it believes place it in substantial compliance with the effective provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Company continues to monitor SEC rulemaking to determine if additional changes are needed to comply with provisions that will become effective in the future. Furthermore, the Company’s management has supervised the design of, or has designed, disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information regarding the Company is made known to them, particularly during the period in which this Annual Report on Form 10-K is being prepared and has evaluated the effectiveness of those controls as more fully set forth in “Controls and Procedures” below. During the course of its compliance efforts, the Company has identified changes to date, which have been made during the fourth quarter 2003 to its internal control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, as a result of this legislation and the currently effective rules issued by the SEC thereunder. The Company’s management also has disclosed to the Company’s auditors and the Audit and Risk Committee of the Board of Directors any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of its internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information, as well as any fraud, whether or not material, by those that have a significant role in these processes.

International Regulation

The Bank also faces regulation in foreign jurisdictions where it currently, and may in the future, operate. Those regulations may be similar to or substantially different from the regulatory requirements the Bank faces in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the Bank operates through the U.K. Bank, which was established in 2000. The U.K. Bank is regulated by the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) and licensed by the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”). The U.K. Bank is an “authorized deposit taker” and thus is able to take consumer deposits in the U.K. The U.K. Bank has also been granted a full license by the OFT to issue consumer credit under the U.K.’s Consumer Credit Act—1974. The FSA requires the U.K. Bank to maintain certain regulatory capital ratios at all times. The U.K. Bank obtains capital through earnings or through additional capital infusion from the Bank, subject to approval under Regulation K of the rules administered by the Federal Reserve. If the U.K. Bank is unable to generate sufficient capital in favorable terms, it may choose to restrict its growth to maintain its required capital levels. In addition, the U.K. Bank is limited by the U.K. Companies Act—1985 in its distribution of dividends to the Bank in that such dividends may only be paid out of the U.K. Bank’s “distributable profits.”

In Canada, the Bank operates a branch (the “Canadian Branch”) that is regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (“OSFI”). The Canadian Branch is a Schedule III Bank under the Canadian Bank Act, and it is subject to various banking and lending laws passed by the Canadian Parliament and various Canadian provinces. OSFI conducts periodic regulatory examinations of the Canadian Branch. The Canadian Branch may engage in the consumer lending activities conducted by the Bank, including credit card lending. The Canadian Branch is also authorized to accept deposits from Canadian customers, but does not currently do so.

As in the U.S., in non-U.S. jurisdictions where we operate, we face a risk that the laws and regulations that are applicable to us (or the interpretations of existing laws by relevant regulators) may change in ways that adversely impact our business. In December 2003, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom published a report entitled “Fair, Clear and Competitive: The Consumer Credit Market in the 21^st Century” which sets forth a number of government goals for reform to the consumer credit industry (which includes credit cards, loans and overdrafts.) This report sets out a recommended schedule for legislative and regulatory reform throughout 2004. At this time, we cannot predict the extent to which the recommendations would be implemented or, if implemented, how such changes would impact us. There can be no assurance that either the reforms, or the desired legislative reform schedule set forth in the report will be met. In addition, there is a

18

current examination by the OFT of whether the levels of interchange paid by retailers in respect of MasterCard credit and charge cards in the U.K. are too high. The preliminary conclusion of this examination is that they are too high which could, if not changed or if agreement is reached on a lower level of interchange, adversely affect the yield on U.K. credit card portfolios, including ours, and could therefore adversely impact our earnings. The European Commission has also concluded an examination of the level of cross-border interchange with the European Union in respect of VISA credit and charge cards and its findings will lead to a phased reduction in the rate of interchange to be paid by retailers in the future. Other U.K. legal developments include communications with the United Kingdom office of fair trading as to its interpretation of consumer credit law which could lead to changes in the lending agreements from time to time.

19

RISK FACTORS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. We also may make written or oral forward-looking statements in our periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Forms 10-Q and 8-K, in our annual report to shareholders, in our proxy statements, in our offering circulars and prospectuses, in press releases and other written materials and in statements made by our officers, directors or employees to third parties. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements about our beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include information relating to our future earnings per share, growth in managed loans outstanding, product mix, segment growth, managed revenue margin, funding costs, operations costs, employment growth, marketing expense, delinquencies and charge-offs. Forward-looking statements also include statements using words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “hope,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “estimate” or similar expressions. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current plans, estimates and projections, and you should not unduly rely on them.

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including the risks discussed below. Our future performance and actual results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Many of the factors that will determine these results and values are beyond our ability to control or predict. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. You should carefully consider the factors discussed below in evaluating these forward-looking statements.

This section highlights specific risks that could affect our business and us. Although we have tried to discuss key factors, please be aware that other risks may prove to be important in the future. New risks may emerge at any time and we cannot predict such risks or estimate the extent to which they may affect our financial performance. In addition to the factors discussed elsewhere in this report, among the other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially are the following:

We Face Strategic Risks in Sustaining Our Growth and Pursuing Diversification

Our growth strategy is threefold. First, we seek to continue to grow our domestic credit card business, and in particular to grow our upmarket business more quickly than our “subprime” business. Second, we desire to continue to build and grow our automobile finance business. Third, we hope to continue to diversify our business, both geographically and in product mix, by growing our lending business, including credit cards, internationally, principally in the United Kingdom and Canada, and by identifying, pursuing and expanding new business opportunities, such as installment lending. Our ability to grow is driven by the success of our fundamental business plan and our earnings may be adversely affected by our increased focus on upmarket growth (because of the potentially lower margins on such accounts), the level of our investments in new businesses or regions and our ability to successfully apply IBS to new businesses. This risk has many components, including:

20

We Face Intense Competition in All of Our Markets

We face intense competition from many other providers of credit cards and other consumer financial products and services. In particular, in our credit card activities, we compete with international, national, regional and local bank card issuers, with other general purpose credit or charge card issuers, and to a certain extent, issuers of smart cards and debit cards and providers of other types of financial services (such as home equity lines and other products). We face similar competitive markets in our auto financing and installment loan activities as well as in our international markets. Thus, the cost to acquire new accounts will continue to vary among product lines and may rise. In addition, the GLB Act, which permits greater affiliations between banks, securities firms and insurance companies, may increase competition in the financial services industry, including in the credit card business. Increased competition has resulted in, and may continue to cause, a decrease in credit card response rates and reduced productivity of marketing dollars invested in certain lines of business. Other credit card companies may compete with us for customers by offering lower interest rates and fees and/or higher credit limits. Because customers generally choose credit card issuers based on price (primarily interest rates and fees), credit limit and other product features, customer loyalty is limited. We may lose entire accounts, or may lose account balances, to competing card issuers. Our auto financing and installment products also face intense competition on the basis of price. Customer attrition from any or all of our products, together with any lowering of interest rates or fees that we might implement to retain customers, could reduce our revenues and therefore our earnings. We expect that competition will continue to grow more intense with respect to most of our products, including the products we offer internationally.

In addition, some of our competitors may be substantially larger than we are, which may give those competitors advantages, including a more diversified product and customer base, operational efficiencies and more versatile technology platforms. These competitors may also consolidate with other financial institutions in ways that enhance these advantages.

We Face Risk From Economic Downturns

Delinquencies and credit losses in the consumer finance industry generally increase during economic downturns or recessions. Likewise, consumer demand may decline during an economic downturn or recession. Accordingly, an economic downturn (either local or national), can hurt our financial performance as accountholders default on their loans or, in the case of credit card accounts, carry lower balances. Furthermore, because our business model is to lend across the credit spectrum, we make loans to lower credit quality customers. These customers generally have higher rates of charge-offs and delinquencies than do higher credit quality customers. Additionally, as we increasingly market our cards internationally, an economic downturn or recession outside the United States also could hurt our financial performance.

Reputational Risk and Social Factors May Impact our Results

Our ability to originate and maintain accounts is highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of our financial health and business practices. To this end, we carefully monitor internal and external developments for areas of

21

potential reputational risk and have established a Corporate Reputation Committee, a committee of senior management, to assist in evaluating such risks in our business practices and decisions. We have also aggressively pursued a campaign to enhance our brand image and awareness in recent years. Adverse developments in our brand campaign or in any of the areas described above, however, could damage our reputation in both the customer and funding markets, leading to difficulties in generating and maintaining accounts as well as in financing them. Adverse impacts on our reputation may also create difficulties with our regulators.

A variety of social factors may cause changes in credit card and other consumer finance use, payment patterns and the rate of defaults by accountholders and borrowers. These social factors include changes in consumer confidence levels, the public’s perception of the use of credit cards and other consumer debt, and changing attitudes about incurring debt and the stigma of personal bankruptcy and consumer concerns about the practices of certain lenders perceived as participating primarily in the “subprime” market. Our goal is to manage these risks through our underwriting criteria and product design, but these tools may not be sufficient to protect our growth and profitability during a sustained period of economic downturn or recession or a material shift in social attitudes.

We May Face Limited Availability of Financing, Variation in Our Funding Costs and Uncertainty in Our Securitization Financing

In general, the amount, type and cost of our funding, including financing from other financial institutions, the capital markets and deposits, directly impacts our expense in operating our business and growing our assets and therefore, can positively or negatively affect our financial results. A number of factors could make such financing more difficult, more expensive or unavailable on any terms both domestically and internationally (where funding transactions may be on terms more or less favorable than in the United States), including, but not limited to, financial results and losses, changes within our organization, specific events that adversely impact our reputation, changes in the activities of our business partners, disruptions in the capital markets, counter-party availability, changes affecting our assets, our corporate and regulatory structure, interest rate fluctuations, ratings agencies actions, general economic conditions and accounting and regulatory changes and relations. Our funding risks have been heightened, in particular, due to market perceptions of our lower unsecured debt rating compared to other credit card issuers and the proportion of certain accounts in our loan portfolio viewed by some as “subprime.” In addition, our ability to raise funds is strongly affected by the general state of the U.S. and world economies, and may become increasingly difficult due to economic and other factors.

The securitization of consumer loans, which involves the legal sale of beneficial interests in consumer loan balances, is one of our major sources of funding. The consumer asset-backed securitization market in the United States currently exceeds $1.4 trillion, with approximately $514.0 billion issued in 2003. We are a leading issuer in these markets, which have remained stable through adverse conditions. As of December 31, 2003, we had $44.2 billion of securitization funding outstanding, comprising 57% of our total managed liabilities. Despite the size and relative stability of these markets and our position as a leading issuer, if these markets experience difficulties we may be unable to securitize our loan receivables or to do so at favorable pricing levels. Factors affecting our ability to securitize our loan receivables or to do so at favorable pricing levels include the overall credit quality of our securitized loans, the stability of the market for securitization transactions, and the legal, regulatory, accounting and tax environments governing securitization transactions. If we were unable to continue to securitize our loan receivables at current levels, we would use our investment securities and money market instruments in addition to alternative funding sources to fund increases in loan receivables and meet our other liquidity needs. The resulting change in our current liquidity sources could potentially subject us to certain risks. These risks would include an increase in our cost of funds, an increase in the reserve for possible credit losses and the provision for possible credit losses as more loans would remain on our consolidated balance sheet, and lower loan growth, if we were unable to find alternative and cost-effective funding sources. Also, if we could not continue to remove the loan receivables from the balance sheet we would possibly need to raise additional capital to support loan and asset growth and potentially provide additional credit enhancement.

22

In addition, the occurrence of certain events may cause the securitization transactions to amortize earlier than scheduled, which would accelerate the need for additional funding. This early amortization could, among other things, have a significant effect on the ability of the Bank and the Savings Bank to meet the capital adequacy requirements as all off-balance sheet loans experiencing such early amortization would have to be recorded on the balance sheet. See page 52 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity Risk Management” of this form.

We May Experience Changes in Our Debt Ratings

In general, ratings agencies play an important role in determining, by means of the ratings they assign to issuers and their debt, the availability and cost of wholesale funding. We currently receive ratings from several ratings entities for our secured and unsecured borrowings. As private entities, ratings agencies have broad discretion in the assignment of ratings. A rating below investment grade typically reduces availability and increases the cost of market-based funding, both secured and unsecured. A debt rating of Baa3 or higher by Moody’s Investors Service, or BBB- or higher by Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, is considered investment grade. Currently, all three ratings agencies rate the unsecured senior debt of the Bank as investment grade. Two of the three ratings agencies rate the unsecured senior debt of the Corporation investment grade, with Standard & Poor’s assigning a rating of BB+, or one level below investment grade.

Because we depend on the capital markets for funding and capital, we could experience reduced availability and increased cost of funding if our debt ratings were lowered. This result could make it difficult for us to grow at or to a level we currently anticipate. The immediate impact of a ratings downgrade on other sources of funding, however, would be limited, as deposit funding and pricing is not generally determined by corporate debt ratings. The Savings Bank is authorized to engage in a full range of deposit-taking activities, but our ability to use deposits as a source of funding is generally regulated by federal laws and regulations. Likewise, our various credit facilities do not contain covenants that could be triggered by a ratings downgrade, although the pricing of any borrowings under these facilities is linked to these ratings.

We compete for funding with other banks, savings banks and similar companies. Some of these institutions are publicly traded. Many of these institutions are substantially larger, have more capital and other resources and have better debt ratings than we do. In addition, as some of these competitors consolidate with other financial institutions, these advantages may increase. Competition from these institutions may increase our cost of funds. Events that disrupt capital markets and other factors beyond our control could also make our funding sources more expensive or unavailable.

We Face Exposure from Our Unused Customer Credit Lines

Because we offer our customers credit lines, the full amount of which is most often not used, we have exposure to these unfunded lines of credit. These credit lines could be used to a greater extent than our historical experience would predict. If actual use of these lines were to materially exceed predicted line usage, we would need to raise more funding than anticipated in our current funding plans. It could be difficult to raise such funds, either at all, or at favorable rates.

Our Accounts and Loan Balances Can Be Volatile

Changes in our aggregate accounts or consumer loan balances and the growth rate and composition thereof, including changes resulting from factors such as shifting product mix, amount of actual marketing expenses and

23

attrition of accounts and loan balances, can have a material adverse effect on our financial results. The number of accounts and aggregate total of loan balances of our consumer loan portfolio (including the rate at which it grows) will be affected by a number of factors, including the level of our marketing investment, how we allocate such marketing investment among different products, the rate at which customers transfer their accounts and loan balances to us or away from us to competing lenders. Such accounts and loan balances are also affected by our desire to avoid unsustainable growth rates, and general economic conditions, which may increase or decrease the amount of spending by our customers and affect their ability to repay their loans, and other factors beyond our control.

We Face Risk Related to the Strength of our Operational and Organizational Infrastructure

Our ability to grow is also dependent on our ability to build or acquire the necessary operational and organizational infrastructure, manage expenses as we expand, and recruit management and operations personnel with the experience to run an increasingly complex business. Similar to other large corporations, operational risk can manifest itself at Capital One in many ways, such as errors related to failed or inadequate processes, faulty or disabled computer systems, fraud by employees or persons outside the Company and exposure to external events. We are subject to business interruptions arising from events either partially or completely beyond our control such as disruption in the U.S. Postal Service that could adversely impact our response rates and consumer payments. Failure to build and maintain the necessary operational infrastructure can lead to risk of loss of service to customers, legal actions or noncompliance with applicable laws or regulatory standards. Although we have devoted and will continue to devote resources to building and maintaining our operational infrastructure, including our system of internal control, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer losses from operational risks in the future.

We May Experience Increased Delinquencies and Credit Losses

Like other credit card lenders and providers of consumer financing, we face the risk that our customers will not repay their loans. A customer’s failure to repay is generally preceded by missed payments. In some instances, a customer may declare bankruptcy prior to missing payments, although this is not generally the case. Customers who declare bankruptcy frequently do not repay credit card or other consumer loans. Where we have collateral, we attempt to seize it when customers default on their loans. The value of the collateral may not equal the amount of the unpaid loan and we may be unsuccessful in recovering the remaining balance from our customers. Rising delinquencies and rising rates of bankruptcy are often precursors of future charge-offs. High charge-off rates may hurt our overall financial performance if we are unable to raise revenue to compensate for these losses, may adversely impact the performance of our securitizations, and may increase our cost of funds.

Our ability to assess the credit worthiness of our customers may diminish. We market our products to a wide range of customers including those with less experience with credit products and those with a history of missed payments. We select our customers, manage their accounts and establish prices and credit limits using proprietary models and other techniques designed to accurately predict future charge-offs. Our goal is to set prices and credit limits such that we are appropriately compensated for the credit risk we accept for both high and low risk customers. We face a risk that the models and approaches we use to select, manage, and underwrite our customers may become less predictive of future charge-offs due to changes in the competitive environment or in the economy. Intense competition, a weak economy, or even falling interest rates can adversely affect our actual charge-offs and our ability to accurately predict future charge-offs. These factors may cause both a decline in the ability and willingness of our customers to repay their loans and an increase in the frequency with which our lower risk customers defect to more attractive, competitor products. In our auto finance business, declining used-car prices reduce the value of our collateral and can adversely affect charge-offs. We attempt to mitigate these risks by adopting a conservative approach to our predictions of future charge-offs. Nonetheless, there can be no assurance that we will be able to accurately predict charge-offs, and our failure to do so may adversely affect our profitability and ability to grow.

24

The trends that have caused the reduction of charge-offs over the course of 2003 may not continue. In 2003, we increased the proportion of lower-risk borrowers in our portfolio and increased the proportion of lower risk asset classes, like auto loans, relative to credit cards. In addition, in 2003, our managed loan portfolio grew 19%. Especially in the credit card business, higher growth rates cause lower charge-offs. This is primarily driven by lower charge-offs in the first six to eight months of the life of a pool of new accounts. Finally, the U.S. economy improved over the course of the year. There can be no assurance that these trends will continue in the future.

We hold an allowance for expected losses inherent in our existing reported loan portfolio as provided for by the applicable accounting rules. There can be no assurance, however, that such allowances will be sufficient to account for actual losses. We record charge-offs according to accounting practices consistent with accounting and regulatory guidelines and rules. These rules could change and cause our charge-offs to increase for reasons unrelated to the underlying performance of our portfolio. Unless offset by other changes, this could reduce our profits. See “Credit Risk Management” above.

We Face Market Risk of Interest Rate and Exchange Rate Fluctuations

Like other financial institutions, we borrow money from institutions and depositors, which we then lend to customers. We earn interest on the consumer loans we make, and pay interest on the deposits and borrowings we use to fund those loans. Changes in these two interest rates affect the value of our assets and liabilities. If the rate of interest we pay on our borrowings increases more than the rate of interest we earn on our loans, our net interest income, and therefore our earnings, could fall. Our earnings could also be hurt if the rates on our consumer loans fall more quickly than those on our borrowings.

However, our goal is generally to maintain an interest rate neutral or “matched” position, where interest rates and exchange rates on loans and borrowings or foreign currencies go up or down by the same amount and at the same time so that interest rate and exchange rate changes for loans or borrowings or foreign currencies will not affect our earnings. The financial instruments and techniques we use to manage the risk of interest rate and exchange rate fluctuations, such as asset/liability matching and interest rate and exchange rate swaps and hedges and some forward exchange contracts, may not always work successfully or may not be available at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, if these techniques become unavailable or impractical, our earnings could be subject to volatility and decreases as interest rates and exchange rates change.

We also manage these risks partly by changing the interest rates we charge on our credit card accounts. The success of repricing accounts to match an increase or decrease in our borrowing rates depends on the overall product mix of such accounts, the actual amount of accounts repriced, the rate at which we are originating new accounts and our ability to retain accounts (and the related loan balances) after repricing. For example, if we increase the interest rate we charge on our credit card accounts and the accountholders close their accounts as a result, we may not be able to match our increased borrowing costs as quickly, if at all.

Changes in interest rates also affect the balances our customers carry on their credit cards and affect the rate of pre-payment for installment loan products. When interest rates fall, there may be more low-rate product alternatives available to our customers. Consequently, their credit card balances may fall and pre-payment rates may rise. We can mitigate this risk by reducing the interest rates we charge or by refinancing installment loan products. However, these changes can reduce the overall yield on our portfolio if we do not adequately provide for them in our interest rate hedging strategies. When interest rates rise, there are fewer low-rate alternatives available to customers. Consequently, credit card balances may rise (or fall more slowly) and pre-payment rates on installment lending products may fall. In this circumstance, we may have to raise additional funds at higher interest rates. In our credit card business, we can mitigate this risk by increasing the interest rates we charge, although such changes may increase opportunities for our competitors to offer attractive products to our customers and consequently increase customer attrition from our portfolio. See page 54 in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Interest Rate Risk Management” of this form.

25

We Face the Risk of a Complex and Changing Regulatory and Legal Environment

Due to our significant reliance on certain contractual relationships, including our funding providers, as well as our unique corporate structure and heavily regulated industry, we face a risk of loss due to legal contracts, aspects of or changes in our legal structure, and changes in laws and regulations. We also are subject to an array of banking, consumer lending and deposit laws and regulations that apply to almost every element of our business. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could result in financial, structural and operational penalties, including receivership. In addition, efforts to comply with these laws and regulations may increase our costs and/or limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities. See “Supervision and Regulation” above.

Federal and state laws and rules, as well as accounting rules and rules to which we are subject in foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct business, significantly limit the types of activities in which we may engage. For example, federal and state consumer protection laws and rules, and laws and rules of foreign jurisdictions where we conduct business, limit the manner in which we may offer and extend credit. From time to time, the U.S. Congress, the states and foreign governments consider changing these laws and may enact new laws or amend existing laws to regulate further the consumer lending industry. Such new laws or rules could limit the amount of interest or fees we can charge, restrict our ability to collect on account balances, or materially affect us or the banking or credit card industries in some other manner. Additional federal, state and foreign consumer protection legislation also could seek to expand the privacy protections afforded to customers of financial institutions and restrict our ability to share or receive customer information.

The laws governing bankruptcy and debtor relief, in the U.S. or in foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct business, also could change, making it more expensive or more difficult for us to collect from our customers. Congress has recently considered, and the House of Representatives has passed, legislation that would change the existing federal bankruptcy laws. One intended purpose of this legislation is to increase the collectibility of unsecured debt; however, it is not clear whether or in what form Congress may adopt this legislation and we cannot predict how the final version of this legislation may affect us, if passed into law.

In addition, banking regulators possess broad discretion to issue or revise regulations, or to issue guidance, which may significantly impact us. In 2001, regulators restricted the ability of two of our competitors to provide further credit to higher risk customers due principally to supervisory concerns over rising charge-off rates and capital adequacy. We cannot, however, predict whether and how any new guidelines issued or other regulatory actions taken by the banking regulators will be applied to the Bank or the Savings Bank or the resulting effect on the Corporation, the Bank or the Savings Bank. In addition, certain state and federal regulators are considering or have approved rules affecting certain practices of “subprime” mortgage lenders. There can also be no assurance that these regulators will not also consider or approve additional rules with respect to “subprime” credit card lending or, if so, how such rules would be applied to or affect the Corporation, the Bank or the Savings Bank.

Furthermore, various federal and state agencies and standard-setting bodies may from time to time consider changes to accounting rules or standards that could impact our business practices or funding transactions.

In addition, existing laws and rules in the U.S., at the state level, and in the foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct operations, are complex. If we fail to comply with them, we may not be able to collect our loans in full, or we might be required to pay damages or penalties to our customers. For these reasons, new or changes in existing laws or rules could hurt our profits.

Fluctuations in Our Expenses and Other Costs May Hurt Our Financial Results

Our expenses and other costs, such as human resources and marketing expenses, directly affect our earnings results. Many factors can influence the amount of our expenses, as well as how quickly they grow. For example, further increases in postal rates or termination of our negotiated service arrangement with the United States Postal Service could raise our costs for postal service, which is a significant component of our expenses for

26

marketing and for servicing our 47.0 million accounts as of December 31, 2003. As our business develops, changes or expands, additional expenses can arise from asset purchases, structural reorganization, a reevaluation of business strategies and/or expenses to comply with new or changes laws or regulations. Other factors that can affect the amount of our expenses include legal and administrative cases and proceedings, which can be expensive to pursue or defend. In addition, changes in accounting policies can significantly affect how we calculate expenses and earnings.

Statistical Information

The statistical information required by Item 1 can be found in Item 6 “Selected Financial Data”, Item 7 “Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”, as follows:

We lease our new, 570,000 square foot, headquarters building at 1680 Capital One Drive, McLean, Virginia. The building houses our primary executive offices and Northern Virginia staff, and is leased through December 2010, with the right to purchase at a fixed cost at the end of the lease term.

Additionally, we own approximately 316 acres of land in Goochland County, Virginia for the construction of an office campus to consolidate certain operations in the Richmond area. In 2002 two office buildings and a support facility consisting of approximately 365,000 square feet, and in 2003 five buildings consisting of approximately 750,000 square feet were completed and occupied respectively.

Other owned facilities include 460,000 square feet in office buildings and a 120,000 square foot facility in Tampa, Florida; 240,000 square feet in office and production buildings in Seattle, Washington; 460,000 square feet in office, data and production buildings in Richmond, Virginia; a 484,000 square foot facility in Nottingham, Great Britain; and 470,000 square feet in administrative offices and credit card facilities in Richmond, Virginia, from which we conduct credit, collections, customer service and other operations.

We currently lease 2.5 million square feet of office space from which credit, collections, customer service and other operations are conducted, in Virginia, Texas, Idaho, California, Massachusetts, the United Kingdom, Canada, and insignificant space for business development in other locations. We are currently migrating out of approximately 1 million square feet of leased office space and into our new campuses in McLean, Virginia and Goochland County, Virginia.

Generally, we use our properties to support all three of our business segments, although our properties located outside of the U.S. are used principally to support our Global Financial Services segment, and our properties in Texas and California are used principally to support our Auto Finance segment.

The information required by Item 3 is included in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note P” on pages 89-90.

27

During the fourth quarter of our fiscal year ending December 31, 2003, no matters were submitted for a vote of our stockholders.

PART II

The information required by Item 5 is included under the following:

28

29

Introduction

Capital One Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) is a holding company whose subsidiaries market a variety of financial products and services to consumers using its Information-Based Strategy (“IBS”). The Corporation’s principal subsidiaries are Capital One Bank (the “Bank”), which offers credit card products, Capital One, F.S.B. (the “Savings Bank”), which offers consumer lending (including credit cards) and deposit products, and Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. (“COAF”), which offers automobile and other motor vehicle financing products. The Corporation and its subsidiaries are hereafter collectively referred to as the “Company.” As of December 31, 2003, the Company had 47.0 million accounts and $71.2 billion in managed consumer loans outstanding and was one of the largest providers of MasterCard and Visa credit cards in the world.

The Company’s profitability is affected by the net interest income and non-interest income generated on earning assets, consumer usage patterns, credit quality, levels of marketing expense and operating efficiency. The Company’s revenues consist primarily of interest income on consumer loans (including past-due fees) and securities and non-interest income consisting of servicing income on securitized loans, fees (such as annual membership, cash advance, cross-sell, interchange, overlimit and other fee income, collectively “fees”) and gains on the securitizations of loans. Loan securitization transactions qualifying as sales under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) remove the loan receivables from the consolidated balance sheet. However, the Company continues to own and service the related accounts. The Company generates earnings from its managed loan portfolio that includes both on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet loans. Interest income, fees, and recoveries in excess of the interest paid to investors and charge-offs generated from off-balance sheet loans are recognized as servicing and securitizations income.

The Company’s primary expenses are the costs of funding assets, provision for loan losses, operating expenses (including salaries and associate benefits), marketing expenses and income taxes. Marketing expenses (e.g., advertising, printing, credit bureau costs and postage) to implement the Company’s new product strategies are incurred and expensed prior to the acquisition of new accounts while the resulting revenues are recognized over the life of the acquired accounts. Revenues recognized are a function of the response rate of the initial marketing program, usage and attrition patterns, credit quality of accounts, product pricing and effectiveness of account management programs.

Significant Accounting Policies

The Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements contain a summary of the Company’s significant accounting policies, including a discussion of recently issued accounting pronouncements. Several of these policies are considered to be important to the portrayal of the Company’s financial condition, since they require management to make difficult, complex or subjective judgements, some of which may relate to matters that are inherently uncertain. These policies include determination of the level of allowance for loan losses, accounting for securitization transactions, and finance charge and fee revenue recognition.

Additional information about accounting policies can be found in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note A” on page 65.

Allowance for Loan Losses

The allowance for loan losses is maintained at the amount estimated to be sufficient to absorb probable losses, net of principal recoveries (including recovery of collateral), inherent in the existing reported loan portfolio. The provision for loan losses is the periodic cost of maintaining an adequate allowance. The amount of allowance necessary is determined primarily based on a migration analysis of delinquent and current accounts and forward loss curves. The entire balance of an account is contractually delinquent if the minimum payment is not received by the payment due date. In evaluating the sufficiency of the allowance for loan losses, management takes into

30

consideration the following factors: recent trends in delinquencies and charge-offs including bankrupt, deceased and recovered amounts; forecasting uncertainties and size of credit risks; the degree of risk inherent in the composition of the loan portfolio; economic conditions; legal and regulatory guidance; credit evaluations and underwriting policies; seasonality; and the value of collateral supporting the loans. To the extent credit experience is not indicative of future performance or other assumptions used by management do not prevail, loss experience could differ significantly, resulting in either higher or lower future provision for loan losses, as applicable.

Accounting for Securitization Transactions

Loan securitization involves the sale, generally to a trust or other special purpose entity, of a pool of loan receivables and is accomplished through the public or private issuance of asset-backed securities by the special purpose entity. The Company removes loan receivables from the consolidated balance sheet for those asset securitizations that qualify as sales in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities—a Replacement of FASB Statement No. 125 (“SFAS 140”). For those asset securitizations that qualify as sales in accordance with SFAS 140, the trusts to which the loans were sold are not subsidiaries of the Company, and are not included in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Gains on securitization transactions represent the present value of estimated excess cash flows the Company will receive over the estimated life of the receivables. This excess cash flow essentially represents an interest-only strip, consisting of the following estimates: the excess of finance charges and past-due fees over the sum of the return paid to investors, contractual servicing fees and credit losses. Gains on securitization transactions, fair value adjustments of retained interests and excess spread on the Company’s securitizations are included in servicing and securitizations income in the consolidated statement of income and amounts due from the trusts are included in accounts receivable from securitizations on the consolidated balance sheet.

Certain estimates inherent in the determination of the fair value of the retained interests are influenced by factors outside the Company’s control, and as a result, such estimates could materially change and actual results could be materially different from such estimates. Any future gains that will be recognized in accordance with SFAS 140 will be dependent on the timing and amount of future securitizations. The Company intends to continuously assess the performance of new and existing securitization transactions, and therefore the valuation of retained interests, as estimates of future cash flows change.

Finance Charge and Fee Revenue Recognition

The Company recognizes earned finance charges and fee income on loans according to the contractual provisions of the credit arrangements. When, based on historic performance of the portfolio, payment in full of finance charge and fee income is not expected, the estimated uncollectible portion is not accrued as income. Total finance charge and fee amounts billed but not accrued as income were $2.0 billion and $2.2 billion for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. To the extent assumptions used by management do not prevail, payment experience could differ significantly resulting in either higher or lower future finance charge and fee income, as applicable.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Off-Balance Sheet Securitizations

As discussed in “Significant Accounting Policies—Accounting for Securitization Transactions,” the Company actively engages in off-balance sheet securitization transactions of loans for funding purposes. Securities ($37.8 billion outstanding as of December 31, 2003) representing undivided interests in the pool of consumer loan receivables that are sold in underwritten offerings or in private placement transactions. The Company receives the proceeds of the securitization as payment for the receivables transferred.

31

The credit quality of the receivables is supported by credit enhancements, which may be in various forms including interest-only strips, subordinated interests in the pool of receivables, cash collateral accounts, cash reserve accounts and accrued interest and fees on the investor’s share of the pool of receivables. The Company’s retained residual interests are generally restricted or subordinated to investors’ interests and their value is subject to substantial credit, repayment and interest rate risks on transferred assets. The investors and the trusts have no recourse to the Company’s assets, other than the retained residual interests, if the off-balance sheet loans are not paid when due. See page 90 in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note R” for quantitative information regarding retained interests.

Collections of interest and fees received on securitized receivables are used to pay interest to investors, servicing and other fees, and are available to absorb the investors’ share of credit losses. For revolving securitizations, amounts collected in excess of that needed to pay the above amounts are remitted to the Company. For amortizing securitizations, amounts in excess of the amount that is used to pay interest, fees and principal are generally remitted to the Company, but may be paid to investors in further reduction of their outstanding principal. See page 90 in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note R” for quantitative information regarding revenues, expenses and cash flows that arise from securitization transactions.

The securitization of consumer loans has been a significant source of liquidity for the Company. Maturity terms of the existing securitizations vary from 2004 to 2013 and, for revolving securitizations, have accumulation periods during which principal payments are aggregated to make payments to investors. As payments on the loans are accumulated and are no longer reinvested in new loans, the Company’s funding requirements for such new loans increase accordingly. Significant reduction or termination of the Company’s off-balance sheet securitizations could require the Company to utilize secured borrowings or unsecured debt, increase its deposit base or slow asset growth based on its strategy.

Securitization transactions may amortize earlier than scheduled due to certain early amortization triggers, which would accelerate the need for funding. Additionally, early amortization would have a significant impact on the ability of the Bank and Savings Bank to meet regulatory capital adequacy requirements as all off-balance sheet loans experiencing such early amortization would be recorded on the balance sheet. At December 31, 2003, early amortization of its off-balance sheet securitizations was not expected. The Company believes that it has the ability to continue to utilize off-balance sheet securitization arrangements as a source of liquidity.

The amounts of investor principal from off-balance sheet consumer loans as of December 31, 2003 that are expected to amortize into the Company’s consumer loans, or be otherwise paid over the periods indicated, are summarized in Table 13. 53% of the Company’s total managed loans were included in off-balance sheet securitizations for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

Guarantees

Residual Value Guarantees

In December 2000, the Company entered into a 10-year agreement for the lease of the headquarters building being constructed in McLean, Virginia. The agreement called for monthly rent to commence upon completion, which occurred in the first quarter of 2003, and is based on LIBOR rates applied to the cost of the building funded. If, at the end of the lease term, the Company does not purchase the property, the Company guarantees a maximum residual value of up to $114.8 million representing approximately 72% of the $159.5 million cost of the building. This agreement, made with a multi-purpose entity that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the Company’s lenders, provides that in the event of a sale of the property, the Company’s obligation would be equal to the sum of all amounts owed by the Company under a note issuance made in connection with the lease inception. As of December 31, 2003, the value of the building was estimated to be above the maximum residual value that the Company guarantees; thus, no deficiency existed and no liability was recorded relative to this property.

32

Other Guarantees

In connection with an installment loan securitization transaction, the transferee (off-balance sheet special purpose entity receiving the installment loans) entered into an interest rate hedge agreement (the “swap”) with a counterparty to reduce interest rate risk associated with the transaction. In connection with the swap, the Corporation entered into a letter agreement guaranteeing the performance of the transferee under the swap. If at anytime the Class A invested amount equals zero and the notional amount of the swap is greater than zero resulting in an “Early Termination Date” (as defined in the securitization transaction’s Master Agreement), then (a) to the extent that, in connection with the occurrence of such Early Termination Date, the transferee is obligated to make any payments to the counterparty pursuant to the Master Agreement, the Corporation shall reimburse the transferee for the full amount of such payment and (b) to the extent that, in connection with the occurrence of an Early Termination Date, the transferee is entitled to receive any payment from the counterparty pursuant to the Master Agreement, the transferee will pay to the Corporation the amount of such payment. At December 31, 2003, the maximum exposure to the Corporation under the letter agreement was approximately $10.4 million.

Reconciliation to GAAP Financial Measures

The Company’s consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP are referred to as its “reported” financial statements. Loans included in securitization transactions which qualified as sales under GAAP have been removed from the Company’s “reported” balance sheet. However, interest income, interchange, fees and recoveries generated from the securitized loan portfolio, net of charge-offs, in excess of the interest paid to investors of asset-backed securitizations are recognized as servicing and securitizations income on the “reported” income statement.

The Company’s “managed” consolidated financial statements reflect adjustments made related to effects of securitization transactions qualifying as sales under GAAP. The Company generates earnings from its “managed” loan portfolio which includes both the on-balance sheet loans and off-balance sheet loans. The Company’s “managed” income statement takes the components of the servicing and securitizations income generated from the securitized portfolio and distributes the revenue and expense to appropriate income statement line items from which it originated. For this reason, the Company believes the “managed” consolidated financial statements and related managed metrics to be useful to stakeholders.

As of and for the Year Ended December 31, 2003

33

Adoption of Accounting Pronouncements and Accounting Changes

In December 2003, the Company adopted the expense recognition provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123 (“SFAS 123”) Accounting for Stock Based Compensation, prospectively to all awards granted, modified or settled after January 1, 2003. The adoption of SFAS 123 resulted in the recognition of compensation expense of $5.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2003. Compensation expense resulted from the discounts provided under the Associate Stock Purchase Plan and the amortization of the estimated fair value of stock options granted during 2003.

In July 2003, the Company adopted the provisions of FASB interpretation No. 46 (“FIN 46”), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an Interpretation of ARB No. 51. The Company has consolidated all material variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which the Company is the primary beneficiary, as defined by FIN 46. The consolidation of the VIEs resulted in a $15.0 million ($23.9 pre-tax) charge for the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle.

In 2002, the Company changed its financial presentation of recoveries which resulted in a one-time increase in the Company’s allowance for loan losses of $133.4 million, and a corresponding increase in the recognition of interest income of $38.4 million (pre-tax) and non-interest income of $44.4 million (pre-tax). Therefore, net income for the year ended December 31, 2002 was negatively impacted by $31.4 million after-tax.

Consolidated Earnings Summary

The following discussion provides a summary of 2003 results compared to 2002 results and 2002 results compared to 2001 results. Each component is discussed in further detail in subsequent sections of this analysis.

Year Ended December 31, 2003 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2002

Net income increased to $1.1 billion, or $4.85 per share, for the year ended December 31, 2003, compared to net income of $899.6 million, or $3.93 per share, in 2002. This represents 26% net income growth and 23% earnings per share growth in 2003. The growth in earnings for 2003 was primarily attributable to the growth in the Company’s managed loan portfolio, a reduction in the provision for loan losses and increases in the sales of auto loans, offset in part by the adoption of new accounting pronouncements (discussed above), a reduction in the managed net interest margin, net losses on the sale of securities and increases in marketing and operating expenses.

Managed loans consist of the Company’s reported loan portfolio combined with the off-balance sheet securitized loan portfolio. The Company has retained servicing rights for its securitized loans and receives servicing fees in addition to the excess spread generated from the off-balance sheet loan portfolio. Average managed loans increased $10.1 billion, or 19%, to $62.9 billion for 2003 from $52.8 billion for 2002.

Although the average managed loan balances increased, the managed net interest margin for the year ended December 31, 2003, decreased to 8.64% from 9.23% for the year ended December 31, 2002. This decrease was due to a reduction in managed earning asset yields. Managed loan yields decreased by 76 basis points to 13.88% for the year ended December 31, 2003, from 14.64% compared to the same period in the prior year. The decrease in managed loan yields resulted from the shift in the mix of the managed loan portfolio to higher credit quality, lower yielding loans, an increase in low introductory rate accounts compared to the prior year and reduced pricing on many of the Company’s new loans in response to lower funding costs and increased competitive pressure. In addition, the Company built its average liquidity portfolio by $2.5 billion to $7.0 billion in 2003, from $4.5 billion in 2002, placing additional downward pressure on managed earning asset yields.

For the year ended December 31, 2003, the provision for loan losses decreased to $1.5 billion from $2.1 billion for the year ended December 31, 2002. Excluding the impact of the one-time change in recoveries estimate of $133.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2002, the provision decreased $498.4 million, or 25%. The decrease in the provision for loan losses reflects improving delinquency rates and lower forecasted charge-offs

34

for the reported loan portfolio at December 31, 2003. The decrease in delinquency and forecasted charge-off rates reflects a change in the mix of the reported loan portfolio towards a higher concentration of higher credit quality loans; as a result the allowance to reported loans decreased to 4.86% at December 31, 2003 from 6.29% at December 31, 2002.

For the year ended December 31, 2003, after-tax gains on sales of auto loans increased $24.4 million to $41.9 million from $17.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2002. The Company continued to enter into whole loan auto sale transactions during 2003 in accordance with its corporate funding plan.

During 2003, the Company realized after-tax losses on the sales of securities totaling $5.9 million, compared to $48.1 million of after-tax gains on sales of securities recognized in 2002. In addition, there were no gains on the repurchase of senior bank notes recognized during 2003, compared to after-tax gains of $16.7 million recognized in 2002. The Company routinely evaluates its liquidity portfolio positions and rebalances its investment portfolio when appropriate, which results in periodic gains and losses.

Marketing expense increased $47.8 million to $1.1 billion for the year ended December 31, 2003, compared to the same period in the prior year. The increase in marketing expense resulted from favorable opportunities to originate higher credit quality loans during 2003 combined with continued branding efforts. Operating expenses increased $223.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2003 to $3.7 billion from $3.5 billion for the same period in the prior year. The increases were primarily due to increased credit and recovery efforts, investment in IT infrastructure to support future growth and costs associated with the expansion of the Company’s enterprise risk management program and systems to further strengthen internal controls.

Year Ended December 31, 2002 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2001

Net income increased to $899.6 million, or $3.93 per share, for the year ended December 31, 2002, compared to net income of $642.0 million, or $2.91 per share, in 2001. This represents 40% net income growth and 35% earnings per share growth in 2002. The growth in earnings for 2002 was primarily attributable to the growth in the Company’s managed loan portfolio, combined with gains on sale of securities and the repurchase of senior notes, offset by a reduction in the managed net interest margin, significant increases in the provision for loan losses, write-downs of interest-only strips, certain one-time charges, and the impact of the change in recoveries classification.

The Company has retained servicing rights for its securitized loans and receives servicing fees in addition to the excess spread generated from the securitized loan portfolio. Average managed loans increased 48% to $52.8 billion for 2002 from $35.6 billion for 2001. Total managed loans increased 32% to $59.7 billion at December 31, 2002 from $45.3 billion at December 31, 2001.

During 2002, the Company realized after-tax gains on the sale of securities totaling $48.1 million, compared with similar after tax gains in 2001 of $8.4 million. In addition, during 2002 the Company realized after-tax gains on the repurchase of senior notes of $16.7 million.

The managed net interest margin for the year ended December 31, 2002, decreased to 9.23% from 9.40% for the year ended December 31, 2001. This decrease was primarily the result of a 124 basis point decrease in consumer loan yield to 14.64% for 2002, from 15.88% in 2001, largely offset by a decrease in the cost of funds. This decline in yield was due to a shift in the mix of the managed portfolio to lower yielding, higher credit quality loans, an increase in low introductory rate accounts as compared to the prior year and reduced pricing on many of the Company’s new loans in response to lower funding costs and increased competitive pressure.

During 2002, the provision for loan losses increased by $1.0 billion over 2001. The ratio of allowance for loan losses to reported loans increased to 6.29% at December 31, 2002, compared to 4.02% at December 31, 2001. The increase in the provision for loan losses and corresponding build in the allowance for loan losses reflects an

35

increase in the reported loan portfolio of $6.4 billion or 31% over 2001, the change in the treatment of recoveries of charged-off accounts, the adoption of a revised application of regulatory guidelines related to “subprime” loans, as well as an increase in forecasted charge-off rates.

During 2002, the fair value of the Company’s interest-only strips decreased $33.1 million, including both the impact of gains from securitization transactions and changes to key fair value assumptions. Comparatively, the fair value of the Company’s interest-only strips increased $150.0 million in 2001, including both the impact of gains associated with securitization transactions and changes to key fair value assumptions. The 2002 decrease in the fair value of the interest-only strips primarily relates to the addition of introductory rate loans to the trusts, the reduced interest rate environment, and increasing charge-off rates. See page 90 in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements—Note R”.

During 2002, marketing expense was relatively consistent with 2001, which reflected the Company’s shift in strategy to reduce loan growth during the second half of the year. During 2002, operating expenses increased 18%, compared with managed loan growth of 32%, reflecting lower account growth and increased operating efficiencies, offset by $110.0 million of one-time charges.

Consolidated Statements of Income

Net Interest Income

Net interest income is interest and past-due fees earned and deemed collectible from the Company’s consumer loans, securities income, less interest expense on borrowings, which includes interest-bearing deposits, borrowings from senior notes and other borrowings.

Reported net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2003, was $2.8 billion compared to $2.7 billion for 2002. Excluding the one-time impact of the change in recoveries estimate of $38.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2002, net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2003 increased $27.6 million, or 1% compared to the same period in the prior year. The slight increase in net interest income is primarily a result of a 20% increase in the Company’s earning assets for the year ended December 31, 2003 compared to the same period in the prior year, offset by a decrease in earning asset yields. The reported net interest margin was 7.45% for the year ended December 31, 2003 compared to 8.73% for the same period in the prior year. Excluding the one-time impact of the change in recoveries estimate of 12 basis points, the net interest margin decreased 116 basis points for the year ended December 31, 2003. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in the reported loan yield. The reported loan yield decreased 144 basis points to 13.71% for the year ended December 31, 2003, compared to 15.15% for the year ended December 31, 2002. The yield on reported loans decreased due to a shift in the mix of the reported loan portfolio towards a greater composition of lower yielding, higher credit quality loans and an increase in low introductory rate accounts compared to the prior year. In addition, the Company increased its average liquidity portfolio by $2.5 billion during 2003. The yield on liquidity portfolio assets is significantly lower than those on consumer loans and served to reduce the overall earning assets yields.

Reported net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2002, was $2.7 billion compared to $1.8 billion for 2001, representing an increase of $968.9 million, or 55%. Net interest income increased primarily as a result of growth in the Company’s earning assets. Average earning assets increased 50% for the year ended December 31, 2002, to $31.1 billion from $20.7 billion for the year ended December 31, 2001. The reported net interest margin increased to 8.73% in 2002, from 8.45% in 2001. The increase is primarily due to a 93 basis point decrease in the cost of funds, offset by a 64 basis point decrease in the yield on consumer loans to 15.15% for the year ended December 31, 2002, from 15.79% for the year ended December 31, 2001. The yield on consumer loans decreased primarily due to a shift in the mix of the reported portfolio toward a greater composition of lower yielding, higher credit quality loans as compared to the prior year. $38.4 million of the increase in net interest income, representing a 12 basis point increase in the net interest margin in 2002, relates to the one-time impact of the change in recoveries assumptions.

36

Table 1 provides average balance sheet data and an analysis of net interest income, net interest spread (the difference between the yield on earning assets and the cost of interest-bearing liabilities) and net interest margin for each of the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001.

Table 1: Statements of Average Balances, Income and Expense, Yields and Rates