MORGAN STANLEY

Regulatory Capital Framework

We are an FHC under the BHC Act and are subject to the regulation and oversight of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve establishes capital requirements for us, including “well-capitalized” standards, and evaluates our compliance with such capital requirements. The OCC establishes similar capital requirements and standards for our U.S. Bank

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Subsidiaries. The regulatory capital requirements are largely based on the Basel III capital standards established by the Basel Committee and also implement certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. For us to remain an FHC, we must remain well-capitalized in accordance with standards established by the Federal Reserve, and our U.S. Bank Subsidiaries must remain well-capitalized in accordance with standards established by the OCC. In addition, many of our regulated subsidiaries are subject to regulatory capital requirements, including regulated subsidiaries registered as swap dealers with the CFTC or conditionally registered as security-based swap dealers with the SEC or registered as broker-dealers or futures commission merchants. For additional information on regulatory capital requirements for our U.S. Bank Subsidiaries, as well as our subsidiaries that are swap entities, see Note 16 to the financial statements.

Regulatory Capital Requirements

We are required to maintain minimum risk-based and leverage-based capital and TLAC ratios. For additional information on TLAC, see “Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Long-Term Debt and Clean Holding Company Requirements” herein.

Risk-Based Regulatory Capital. Risk-based capital ratio requirements apply to Common Equity Tier 1 capital, Tier 1 capital and Total capital (which includes Tier 2 capital), each as a percentage of RWA, and consist of regulatory minimum required ratios plus our capital buffer requirement. Capital requirements require certain adjustments to, and deductions from, capital for purposes of determining these ratios.

Capital Buffer Requirements

1. For additional information on the SCB, see “Capital Plans, Stress Tests and the Stress Capital Buffer” herein.

2. For a further discussion of the G-SIB capital surcharge, see “G-SIB Capital Surcharge” herein.

3. The CCyB can be set up to 2.5% but is currently set by the Federal Reserve at zero.

The capital buffer requirement represents the amount of Common Equity Tier 1 capital we must maintain above the minimum risk-based capital requirements in order to avoid restrictions on our ability to make capital distributions, including the payment of dividends and the repurchase of stock, and to pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers. Our capital buffer requirement computed under the standardized approaches for calculating credit risk and market RWAs (“Standardized Approach”) is equal to the sum of our SCB, G-SIB capital surcharge and CCyB, and our capital

buffer requirement computed under the applicable advanced approaches for calculating credit risk, market risk and operational risk RWAs (“Advanced Approach”) is equal to our 2.5% capital conservation buffer, G-SIB capital surcharge and CCyB.

Risk-Based Regulatory Capital Ratio Requirements

1. Required ratios represent the regulatory minimum plus the capital buffer requirement.

Risk-Weighted Assets. RWA reflects both our on- and off-balance sheet risk, as well as capital charges attributable to the risk of loss arising from the following:

•Credit risk: The failure of a borrower, counterparty or issuer to meet its financial obligations to us;

•Market risk: Adverse changes in the level of one or more market prices, rates, spreads, indices, volatilities, correlations or other market factors, such as market liquidity; and

•Operational risk: Inadequate or failed processes or systems, from human factors or from external events (e.g., fraud, theft, legal and compliance risks, cyber attacks or damage to physical assets).

Our risk-based capital ratios are computed under each of (i) the Standardized Approach and (ii) the Advanced Approach. The credit risk RWA calculations between the two approaches differ in that the Standardized Approach requires calculation of RWA using prescribed risk weights and exposure methodologies, whereas the Advanced Approach utilizes models to calculate exposure amounts and risk weights. At December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the differences between the actual and required ratios were lower under the Standardized Approach.

Leverage-Based Regulatory Capital. Leverage-based capital requirements include a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%, a minimum SLR of 3% and an enhanced SLR capital buffer of at least 2%.

CECL Deferral. Beginning on January 1, 2020, we elected to defer the effect of the adoption of CECL on our risk-based and leverage-based capital amounts and ratios, as well as our RWA, adjusted average assets and supplementary leverage exposure calculations, over a five-year transition period. The deferral impacts began to phase in at 25% per year from January 1, 2022 and are phased-in at 50% from January 1, 2023. The deferral impacts will become fully phased-in beginning on January 1, 2025.

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Regulatory Capital Ratios

1. Required ratios are inclusive of any buffers applicable as of the date presented.

2. Adjusted average assets represents the denominator of the Tier 1 leverage ratio and is composed of the average daily balance of consolidated on-balance sheet assets for the quarters ending on the respective balance sheet dates, reduced by disallowed goodwill, intangible assets, investments in covered funds, defined benefit pension plan assets, after-tax gain on sale from assets sold into securitizations, investments in our own capital instruments, certain deferred tax assets and other capital deductions.

3. Supplementary leverage exposure is the sum of Adjusted average assets used in the Tier 1 leverage ratio and other adjustments, primarily: (i) for derivatives, potential future exposure and the effective notional principal amount of sold credit protection offset by qualifying purchased credit protection; (ii) the counterparty credit risk for repo-style transactions; and (iii) the credit equivalent amount for off-balance sheet exposures.

Regulatory Capital

1. Other adjustments and deductions used in the calculation of Common Equity Tier 1 capital primarily includes net after-tax DVA, the credit spread premium over risk-free rate for derivative liabilities, defined benefit pension plan assets, after-tax gain on sale from assets sold into securitizations, investments in our own capital instruments and certain deferred tax assets.

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

RWA Rollforward

Regulatory VaR—VaR for regulatory capital requirements

In 2023, Credit risk RWA increased under the Standardized and Advanced Approaches. Under the Standardized Approach, the increase was primarily driven by higher derivatives, higher securities financing transactions, higher equity investments, as well as an increase in Other credit risk driven by higher deferred tax assets and securitizations. These increases were partially offset by decreases in lending activity. Under the Advanced Approach, the increase was primarily driven by growth in Corporate lending, higher equity investments, higher derivatives, as well as increase in Other credit risk driven by higher deferred tax assets and securitizations.

Market risk RWA decreased in 2023 under both the Standardized and Advanced Approaches, primarily due to lower Regulatory VaR and stressed VaR driven by reductions in macro and commodities businesses, partially offset by higher Specific risk charges on securitization and non-securitization standardized charges.

Operational risk RWA in 2023 remained relatively unchanged.

G-SIB Capital Surcharge

We and other U.S. G-SIBs are subject to an additional risk-based capital surcharge, the G-SIB capital surcharge, which must be satisfied using Common Equity Tier 1 capital and which functions as an extension of the capital conservation buffer. The surcharge is calculated based on the G-SIB’s size,

interconnectedness, cross-jurisdictional activity, and complexity and substitutability (“Method 1”) or use of short-term wholesale funding (“Method 2”), whichever is higher.

Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Long-Term Debt and Clean Holding Company Requirements

The Federal Reserve has established external TLAC, long-term debt (“LTD”) and clean holding company requirements for top-tier BHCs of U.S. G-SIBs (“covered BHCs”), including the Parent Company. These requirements are designed to ensure that covered BHCs will have enough loss-absorbing resources at the point of failure to be recapitalized through the conversion of eligible LTD to equity or otherwise by imposing losses on eligible LTD or other forms of TLAC where an SPOE resolution strategy is used (see “Business—Supervision and Regulation—Financial Holding Company—Resolution and Recovery Planning” and “Risk Factors—Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Risk”).

These TLAC and eligible LTD requirements include various restrictions, such as requiring eligible LTD to: be issued by the covered BHC; be unsecured; have a maturity of one year or more from the date of issuance; and not contain certain embedded features, such as a principal or redemption amount subject to reduction based on the performance of an asset, entity or index, or a similar feature. In addition, the requirements provide permanent grandfathering for debt instruments issued prior to December 31, 2016 that would be eligible LTD but for having impermissible acceleration clauses or being governed by foreign law.

A covered BHC is also required to maintain minimum external TLAC equal to the greater of (i) 18% of total RWA or (ii) 7.5% of its total leverage exposure (the denominator of its SLR). Covered BHCs must also meet a minimum external LTD requirement equal to the greater of (i) total RWA multiplied by the sum of 6% plus the higher of the Method 1 or Method 2 G-SIB capital surcharge applicable to the Parent Company or (ii) 4.5% of its total leverage exposure.

TLAC buffer requirements are imposed on top of both the risk-based and leverage exposure-based external TLAC minimum requirements. The risk-based TLAC buffer is equal to the sum of 2.5%, our Method 1 G-SIB surcharge and the CCyB, if any, as a percentage of total RWA. The leverage exposure-based TLAC buffer is equal to 2% of our total leverage exposure. Failure to maintain the buffers would result in restrictions on our ability to make capital distributions, including the payment of dividends and the repurchase of stock, and to pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers.

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Required and Actual TLAC and Eligible LTD Ratios

1. Required ratios are inclusive of applicable buffers.

2. External TLAC consists of Common Equity Tier 1 capital and Additional Tier 1 capital (each excluding any noncontrolling minority interests), as well as eligible LTD.

3. Consists of TLAC-eligible LTD reduced by 50% for amounts of unpaid principal due to be paid in more than one year but less than two years from each respective balance sheet date.

Furthermore, under the clean holding company requirements, a covered BHC is prohibited from incurring any external debt with an original maturity of less than one year or certain other liabilities, regardless of whether the liabilities are fully secured or otherwise senior to eligible LTD, or entering into certain other prohibited transactions. Certain other external liabilities, including those with certain embedded features noted above, are subject to a cap equal to 5% of the covered BHC’s outstanding external TLAC amount. Additionally, as of April 1, 2021, we and our U.S. Bank Subsidiaries are required to make certain deductions from regulatory capital for investments in certain unsecured debt instruments (including eligible LTD in the TLAC framework) issued by the Parent Company or other G-SIBs.

We are in compliance with all TLAC requirements as of December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022.

Capital Plans, Stress Tests and the Stress Capital Buffer

The Federal Reserve has capital planning and stress test requirements for large BHCs, which form part of the Federal Reserve’s annual CCAR framework.

We must submit, on at least an annual basis, a capital plan to the Federal Reserve, taking into account the results of separate annual stress tests designed by us and the Federal Reserve, so that the Federal Reserve may assess our systems and processes that incorporate forward-looking projections of revenues and losses to monitor and maintain our internal capital adequacy. As banks with less than $250 billion of total assets, our U.S. Bank Subsidiaries are not subject to company-run stress test regulatory requirements.

The capital plan must include a description of all planned capital actions over a nine-quarter planning horizon, including any issuance or redemption of a debt or equity capital instrument, any capital distribution (i.e., payments of dividends or stock repurchases) and any similar action that the Federal Reserve determines could impact our consolidated

capital. The capital plan must include a discussion of how we will maintain capital above the minimum regulatory capital ratios and how we will serve as a source of strength to our U.S. Bank Subsidiaries under supervisory stress scenarios. In addition, the Federal Reserve has issued guidance setting out its heightened expectations for capital planning practices at certain large financial institutions, including us.

As part of its annual capital supervisory stress testing process, the Federal Reserve determines an SCB for each large BHC, including us. The SCB applies only with respect to Standardized Approach risk-based capital requirements and replaced the Common Equity Tier 1 capital conservation buffer of 2.5%. The SCB is the greater of (i) the maximum decline in our Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio under the severely adverse scenario over the supervisory stress test measurement period plus the sum of the four quarters of planned common stock dividends divided by the projected RWAs from the quarter in which the Firm’s projected Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio reaches its minimum in the supervisory stress test and (ii) 2.5%.

The supervisory stress test assumes that BHCs generally maintain a constant level of assets and RWAs throughout the projection period.

A firm’s SCB is subject to revision each year, taking effect from October 1 to reflect the results of the Federal Reserve’s annual supervisory stress test. The Federal Reserve has discretion to recalculate a firm’s SCB outside of the October 1 annual cycle and to require approval for certain actions, in some circumstances. The Federal Reserve also has the authority to impose restrictions on capital actions as a supervisory matter.

For the 2023 capital planning and stress test cycle, we submitted our capital plan and company-run stress test results to the Federal Reserve on April 5, 2023. On June 28, 2023, the Federal Reserve published summary results of its supervisory stress tests of each large BHC, in which the projected decline in our Common Equity Tier 1 ratio in the severely adverse scenario improved from the prior annual supervisory stress test by 50 basis points, from 4.6% to 4.1%. Following the publication of the supervisory stress test results, and as a result of the increase in our common stock dividend and the resulting dividend add-on, we announced that our SCB will be 5.4% from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024. Together with other features of the regulatory capital framework, this SCB results in an aggregate Standardized Approach Common Equity Tier 1 ratio of 12.9%.

We also disclosed a summary of the results of our company-run stress tests on our Investor Relations website and increased our quarterly common stock dividend to $0.85 per share from $0.775, beginning with the common stock dividend announced on July 18, 2023. Additionally, our Board of Directors reauthorized a multi-year common stock repurchase program of up to $20 billion, without a set

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

expiration date, beginning in the third quarter of 2023, which will be exercised from time to time as conditions warrant.

Attribution of Average Common Equity According to the Required Capital Framework

Our required capital (“Required Capital”) estimation is based on the Required Capital framework, an internal capital adequacy measure. Common equity attribution to the business segments is based on capital usage calculated under the Required Capital framework, as well as each business segment’s relative contribution to our total Required Capital.

The Required Capital framework is a risk-based and leverage-based capital measure, which is compared with our regulatory capital to ensure that we maintain an amount of going concern capital after absorbing potential losses from stress events, where applicable, at a point in time. The amount of capital allocated to the business segments is generally set at the beginning of each year and remains fixed throughout the year until the next annual reset unless a significant business change occurs (e.g., acquisition or disposition). We define the difference between our total average common equity and the sum of the average common equity amounts allocated to our business segments as Parent Company common equity. We generally hold Parent Company common equity for prospective regulatory requirements, organic growth, potential future acquisitions and other capital needs.

Average Common Equity Attribution under the Required Capital Framework 1

1. The attribution of average common equity to the business segments is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Selected Non-GAAP Financial Information” herein.

2. The total average common equity and the allocation to the Investment Management business segment in 2021 reflect the Eaton Vance acquisition on March 1, 2021.

We continue to evaluate our Required Capital framework with respect to the impact of evolving regulatory requirements, as appropriate.

Resolution and Recovery Planning

We are required to submit once every two years to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC (“Agencies”) a resolution plan that describes our strategy for a rapid and orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the event of our material financial distress or failure. We submitted our 2021 targeted resolution plan on June 30, 2021. In November 2022, we received joint feedback on our 2021 resolution plan from the Agencies. The feedback indicated that there are no shortcomings or deficiencies in our 2021 resolution plan and that we had successfully addressed a prior shortcoming identified by the Agencies in the review of our 2019 full resolution plan. We submitted our 2023 full resolution plan

on June 30, 2023. For more information about resolution planning requirements, see “Business—Supervision and Regulation—Financial Holding Company—Resolution and Recovery Planning.”

As described in our most recent resolution plan, our preferred resolution strategy is an SPOE strategy. In line with our SPOE strategy, the Parent Company has transferred, and has agreed to transfer on an ongoing basis, certain assets to its wholly owned, direct subsidiary Morgan Stanley Holdings LLC (the “Funding IHC”). In addition, the Parent Company has entered into an amended and restated support agreement with its material entities (including the Funding IHC) and certain other subsidiaries. In the event of a resolution scenario, the Parent Company would be obligated to contribute all of its contributable assets to our supported entities and/or the Funding IHC. The Funding IHC would be obligated to provide capital and liquidity, as applicable, to our supported entities. The combined implication of the SPOE resolution strategy and the requirement to maintain certain levels of TLAC is that losses in resolution would be imposed on the holders of eligible LTD and other forms of eligible TLAC issued by the Parent Company before any losses are imposed on creditors of our supported entities and without requiring taxpayer or government financial support.

The obligations of the Parent Company and the Funding IHC under the amended and restated support agreement are in most cases secured on a senior basis by the assets of the Parent Company (other than shares in subsidiaries of the Parent Company and certain other assets) and the assets of the Funding IHC. As a result, claims of our supported entities, including the Funding IHC, with respect to the secured assets, are effectively senior to unsecured obligations of the Parent Company.

For more information about resolution and recovery planning requirements and our activities in these areas, including the implications of such activities in a resolution scenario, see “Business—Supervision and Regulation—Financial Holding Company—Resolution and Recovery Planning” and “Risk Factors—Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Risk.”

Regulatory Developments and Other Matters

Replacement of London Interbank Offered Rate and Replacement or Reform of Other Interest Rate Benchmarks

Central banks around the world, including the Federal Reserve, have sponsored initiatives in recent years to replace LIBOR and replace or reform certain other interest rate benchmarks (collectively, the “IBORs”).

With the cessation of publication of U.S. dollar LIBOR rates on a representative basis as of June 30, 2023, all LIBOR publications have ceased on a representative basis. However, the one-, three- and six-month U.S. dollar LIBOR and three-month sterling LIBOR rates are being published for a limited period for use in legacy transactions on the basis of a

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

synthetic methodology (known as “synthetic LIBOR”). Publication of the three-month synthetic sterling LIBOR will cease at the end of March 2024 and publication of the one-, three- and six-month synthetic U.S. dollar LIBOR will cease at the end of September 2024.

As of December 31, 2023, a significant majority of our U.S. dollar LIBOR-referenced contracts contained fallback provisions or otherwise had a path that allowed for the transition to an alternative reference rate following the cessation of the applicable U.S. dollar LIBOR rate. We continue to execute against our Firmwide IBOR transition plan to complete the transition in all relevant markets to alternative reference rates.

See also “Risk Factors—Risk Management” for a further discussion of risks related to the planned replacement of the IBORs and/or reform of other interest rate benchmarks and related risks.

FDIC Final Rulemaking on Special Assessment

Following the failures of certain banks and resulting losses to the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund in the first half of 2023, the FDIC adopted a final rule on November 16, 2023 to implement a special assessment to recover the cost associated with protecting uninsured depositors. Under the final rule, the assessment base for the special assessment is equal to an IDI’s estimated uninsured deposits reported as of December 31, 2022, adjusted to exclude the first $5 billion of uninsured deposits. The $5 billion exclusion is applied once to the aggregate uninsured deposits of our U.S. Bank Subsidiaries. The final rule provides that, starting in 2024, the FDIC will collect the special assessment at a quarterly rate of 3.36 basis points over eight quarterly assessment periods, subject to change depending on any adjustments to the loss estimate, mergers, failures, or amendments to reported estimates of uninsured deposits. We recorded the cost of the entire special assessment of $286 million in Non-interest expenses when the final rule was published in the Federal Register, in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Basel III Endgame Proposal

On July 27, 2023, U.S. banking agencies proposed revisions to risk-based capital and related standards applicable to us and our U.S. Bank Subsidiaries (“Basel III Endgame Proposal”). The proposal would introduce a new measure of RWAs known as “Expanded Total RWAs” (the “Expanded Approach”), reflecting new RWA methodologies that generally align with changes to the global Basel Accord adopted by the Basel Committee. The proposal would eliminate the current capital rule’s Advanced Approach and effectively replace it with the Expanded Approach, which more heavily relies on standardized methodologies. As compared with the Standardized Approach, the Expanded Approach includes more granular risk weights for credit risk and introduces a new market risk framework. In addition, unlike the Standardized Approach, the Expanded Approach

includes operational risk and credit valuation adjustment RWA components.

The Basel III Endgame Proposal, if adopted as a final rule, would maintain the current capital rule’s dual-requirement structure, whereby we and our U.S. Bank Subsidiaries would be required to calculate our risk-based capital ratios under both the Expanded Approach and the Standardized Approach. In addition, the proposal would modify the Standardized Approach by requiring that the new market risk standards from the proposal also be applied in the Standardized Approach.

The Basel III Endgame Proposal would apply the SCB and G-SIB surcharge to risk-based capital requirements calculated under both the Expanded Approach and the Standardized Approach. The proposal includes a proposed effective date of

July 1, 2025, with three-year transition arrangements until revised standards are fully phased in on July 1, 2028.

Based on our current understanding of the Basel III Endgame Proposal, we estimate that, if the Expanded Approach had applied on a fully phased-in basis as of December 31, 2023, and in the absence of taking any actions to mitigate its impact, our Expanded Approach RWAs as of that date would have been approximately 40% higher than our actual Standardized Approach RWAs as of that date.

The increase in RWAs resulting from the Expanded Approach would result, assuming all other surcharge elements remained unchanged, in a lower SCB and lower G-SIB Method 2 surcharge as compared with current surcharges, as RWAs are included in the denominators of the relevant calculations for each buffer. Lower surcharges would, therefore, partially decrease the otherwise higher regulatory capital requirements under the Expanded Approach. The proposal would phase in the higher Expanded Approach RWAs on July 1 of each year during the transition, thereby increasing our regulatory capital requirements, with delayed incorporation of the potentially lower SCB and G-SIB Method 2 capital surcharge calculations.

Any estimate of how the Expanded Approach may impact us is a forward-looking statement and subject to uncertainty, as actual results may differ from the anticipated results and may be materially affected by and dependent on a range of factors, including business performance, future capital actions, the results of future supervisory stress tests, and potential modifications to the proposal by the U.S. banking agencies in a final rulemaking. The Firm does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement.

G-SIB Surcharge Proposal

On July 27, 2023, the Federal Reserve proposed revisions to the G-SIB capital surcharge framework applicable to us (“G-SIB Surcharge Proposal”). The G-SIB Surcharge Proposal includes various technical revisions to the G-SIB capital surcharge methodology and would revise the resulting

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Method 2 G-SIB capital surcharge from 0.5-percentage point increments to 0.1-percentage point increments. The G-SIB Surcharge Proposal includes a proposed effective date two calendar quarters after the date of adoption of a final rule by the Federal Reserve. We continue to evaluate the G-SIB Surcharge Proposal and the potential impacts, if adopted, on our capital requirements and our Required Capital framework.