FORM 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(212) 902-1000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

INDEX

1

PART I

Overview

Goldman Sachs is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of services worldwide to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. As of November 26, 2004, we operated offices in over 20 countries and approximately 36% of our 20,722 employees were based outside the United States.

Goldman Sachs is the successor to a commercial paper business founded in 1869 by Marcus Goldman. On May 7, 1999, we converted from a partnership to a corporation and completed an initial public offering of our common stock.

All references to 2004, 2003 and 2002 refer to our fiscal years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, November 26, 2004, November 28, 2003 and November 29, 2002, respectively.

When we use the terms “Goldman Sachs,” “we,” “us” and “our,” we mean The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries. References herein to the Annual Report on Form 10-K are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 26, 2004.

Financial information concerning our business segments and geographic regions for each of 2004, 2003 and 2002 is set forth in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, which are in Part II, Items 7, 7A and 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our Internet address is www.gs.com and the investor relations section of our web site is located at www.gs.com/investor_relations. We make available free of charge, on or through the investor relations section of our web site, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Also posted on our web site, and available in print upon request of any shareholder to our Investor Relations Department, are our charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, our Policy Regarding Director Independence Determinations, our Policy on Reporting of Concerns Regarding Accounting and Other Matters, our Corporate Governance Guidelines and a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics governing our directors, officers and employees. Within the time period required by the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange, we will post on our web site any amendment to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and any waiver applicable to our senior financial officers, as defined in the Code, and our executive officers or directors. In addition, our web site includes information concerning purchases and sales of our equity securities by our executive officers and directors, as well as disclosure relating to certain non-GAAP financial measures (as defined in the SEC’s Regulation G) that we may make public orally, telephonically, by webcast, by broadcast or by similar means from time to time.

Our Investor Relations Department can be contacted at The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 85 Broad Street, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10004, Attn: Investor Relations, telephone: 212-902-0300, e-mail: gs-investorrelations@gs.com.

2

Business Segments

Our activities are divided into three segments:

The following table sets forth the net revenues, operating expenses and pre-tax earnings of our segments:

Operating Results by Segment
(in millions)

3

These segments consist of various products and activities that are set forth in the following chart:

4

Investment Banking

Investment Banking represented 16% of 2004 net revenues. We provide a broad range of investment banking services to a diverse group of corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals and seek to develop and maintain long-term relationships with these clients as their lead investment bank.

Our current structure, which is organized by regional, industry and product groups, seeks to combine client-focused investment bankers with execution and industry expertise. We continually assess and adapt our organization to meet the demands of our clients in each geographic region. Through our commitment to teamwork, we believe that we provide services in an integrated fashion for the benefit of our clients.

In order to more effectively service our clients, in 2004 we created a global financing group to increase coordination among our equity and debt underwriting businesses and our corporate risk and liability management businesses. This increased coordination is intended to better assist our clients engaged in equity and debt underwritings in managing the asset and liability exposures resulting from those transactions.

Our Investment Banking segment is divided into two components:

Financial Advisory

Goldman Sachs is a leading investment bank in worldwide mergers and acquisitions. Our mergers and acquisitions capabilities are evidenced by our significant share of assignments in large, complex transactions for which we provide multiple services, including “one-stop” acquisition financing and cross-border structuring expertise, as well as services in other areas of the firm, such as currency hedging.

Underwriting

We underwrite a wide range of securities and other financial instruments, including common and preferred stock, convertible and exchangeable securities, investment-grade debt, high-yield debt, sovereign and emerging market debt, municipal debt, bank loans, asset-backed securities and real estate-related securities, such as mortgage-backed securities and the securities of real estate investment trusts.

Equity Underwriting. Equity underwriting has been a long-term core strength of Goldman Sachs. As with mergers and acquisitions, we have been particularly successful in winning mandates for large, complex transactions. We believe our leadership in worldwide initial public offerings and worldwide public common stock offerings reflects our expertise in complex transactions, prior experience and distribution capabilities.

Debt Underwriting. We engage in the underwriting and origination of various types of debt instruments, including investment-grade debt securities, high-yield debt securities, bank and bridge loans and emerging market debt securities, which instruments may be issued by, among others, corporate, sovereign and agency issuers. In addition, we underwrite and originate structured securities, which include asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. We have employed a focused approach in debt underwriting, emphasizing high value-added areas in servicing our clients.

5

Trading and Principal Investments

Trading and Principal Investments represented 65% of 2004 net revenues. Trading and Principal Investments facilitates customer transactions with a diverse group of corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals and takes proprietary positions through market making in, and trading of, fixed income and equity products, currencies, commodities and derivatives on such products. In addition, we engage in floor-based and electronic market making as a specialist on U.S. equities and options exchanges and we clear customer transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide. In connection with our merchant banking and other investment activities, we make principal investments directly and through funds that we raise and manage.

In order to meet the needs of our clients, Trading and Principal Investments is diversified across a wide range of products. We believe our willingness and ability to take risk distinguishes us from many of our competitors and substantially enhances our client relationships.

Our Trading and Principal Investments segment is divided into three components:

Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities and Equities

Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities (FICC) and Equities are large and diversified operations through which we engage in a variety of customer-driven and proprietary trading activities.

In their customer-driven businesses, FICC and Equities strive to deliver high-quality service by offering broad market-making and market knowledge to our clients on a global basis. In addition, we use our expertise to take positions in markets, by committing capital and taking risk, to facilitate customer transactions and provide liquidity. Our willingness to make markets, commit capital and take risk in a broad range of fixed income, currency, commodity and equity products and their derivatives is crucial both to our client relationships and to support our underwriting business by providing secondary market liquidity.

We generate trading net revenues from our customer-driven businesses in three ways.

6

In our proprietary activities in both FICC and Equities, we assume a variety of risks and devote resources to identify, analyze and benefit from these exposures. We leverage our strong proprietary research capabilities and capitalize on our analytical models to analyze information and make informed trading judgments. In our proprietary activities, we seek to benefit from perceived disparities in the value of assets in the trading markets and from macroeconomic and company-specific trends.

We continue to increase coordination among our FICC and Equities businesses as we respond to what we believe is client demand for more centralized services and as we attempt to take advantage of perceived synergies.

We believe that our trading and market-making capabilities are key ingredients to our success. While these businesses have generally earned attractive returns, we have in the past incurred significant trading losses in periods of market turbulence, such as in 1994 and the second half of 1998, and from time to time in connection with large block trades.

In both our customer-driven and proprietary activities in FICC and Equities, we manage our exposure to credit and other financial risks on a global basis across all our products. Our trading risk management process seeks to balance our ability to profit from trading positions with our exposure to potential losses. As part of this process, we analyze not only market risk but also credit and other financial risks. Risk management includes input from all levels of Goldman Sachs, from the trading desks to the Firmwide Risk Committee. For a further discussion of our risk management policies and procedures, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management” in Part II, Item 7 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

FICC. FICC’s primary businesses are:

A core activity in FICC is market making in a broad array of securities and products. For example, we are a primary dealer in many of the largest government bond markets around the world, including the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom. We are a member of the major futures exchanges, and also have interbank dealer status in the currency markets in New York, London, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Our FICC research and strategy group provides services that enhance our ability to provide high-quality products and service to our clients, including quantitative and qualitative analyses of global economic, currency and financial market trends, as well as credit analyses of corporate and sovereign fixed income securities.

As part of our commodities business, we acquired in 2003 Cogentrix Energy, Inc. and the common equity interests in East Coast Power L.L.C., companies engaged in the electric power generation business. In addition, on January 31, 2005, we acquired interests in power plants and related businesses from National Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc., including additional interests in some of the same power plants and a natural gas pipeline in which Cogentrix Energy, Inc. already

7

holds interests. As of January 31, 2005, we indirectly owned interests in 29 power plants located in the United States and one power plant located outside the United States. Of these plants, 12 are fueled by natural gas, 11 by coal, five by waste coal, one by oil and one by wind power. Most of our power plants have contracted to sell their electricity to utilities under long-term agreements. We seek to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns from our portfolio of power plants that have entered into these contracts by using our commodities trading and capital markets expertise selectively to restructure the underlying power sale contracts and to refinance related project and corporate-level debt.

Equities. Our Equities primary businesses are:

Equities Products Group. Our equities products group (EPG) includes primarily customer-driven activities in the shares, convertible securities and derivatives businesses of the firm. These activities also include clearing client transactions on major stock, options and futures exchanges worldwide. We offer clients direct electronic access to these markets through the Electronic Transaction Services division of our specialist subsidiary.

We trade equity securities and equity-related products (such as convertible securities, options, futures and over-the-counter (OTC) derivative instruments) on a global basis as an agent, as a market maker or otherwise as a principal. As a principal, we facilitate customer transactions, often by committing capital and taking risk, to provide liquidity to clients with large blocks of stocks or options. For example, we are active in the execution of large block trades (trades of 50,000 or more shares).

We are a member of most of the world’s major stock, options and futures exchanges, including those located in New York, Chicago, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo and Hong Kong, and we are a designated market maker in a number of stocks traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

In the options and futures markets, we structure, distribute and execute derivatives on market indices, industry groups and individual company stocks to facilitate customer transactions and our proprietary activities. We develop quantitative strategies and render advice with respect to portfolio hedging and restructuring and asset allocation transactions. We also create specially tailored instruments to enable sophisticated investors to undertake hedging strategies and establish or liquidate investment positions. We are one of the leading participants in the trading and development of equity derivative instruments. We are an active participant in the trading of futures and options on most of the major exchanges in the United States, Europe and Asia.

Principal Strategies. Our equities principal strategies business includes a multi-strategy proprietary investment business that invests and trades for the firm’s own account. Principal strategies trades and invests the firm’s capital across global markets employing equity arbitrage and other strategies that are primarily focused in public markets. Some strategies include fundamental equities and relative value trading (which involves trading strategies to take advantage of perceived discrepancies in the relative value of financial instruments, including equity, equity-related and debt instruments). Other strategies include event-driven investments (i.e., those that focus on event-oriented special situations such as corporate restructurings, recapitalizations, mergers and acquisitions and legal and regulatory events) as well as convertible bond trading, various types of volatility trading and some principal finance (private structured investments in public companies).

Specialist Activities. Our specialist activities business includes our stock, exchange-traded funds (ETF) and option specialist and market-making businesses. We engage in floor-based and

8

electronic specialist and market-making activities on U.S. equities and options exchanges. In the United States, we are one of the leading stock specialists on the NYSE. For ETFs, we are a specialist on the NYSE and a specialist and market maker on the American Stock Exchange. In options, we are a specialist and market maker on the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the International Securities Exchange and a market maker on the Boston Options Exchange.

Principal Investments

In connection with our merchant banking activities, we invest by making principal investments directly and through funds that we raise and manage. As of November 2004, the aggregate carrying value of our principal investments held directly or through our merchant banking funds was approximately $4.65 billion. In addition, we have outstanding equity capital commitments of up to $1.04 billion. These carrying values were comprised of corporate principal investments with an aggregate carrying value of approximately $1.27 billion, real estate investments with an aggregate carrying value of approximately $820 million and our investment in the convertible preferred stock of SMFG with a carrying value of $2.56 billion. Principal Investments includes revenues from the increased share of the income and gains derived from our merchant banking funds when the return on a fund’s investments exceeds certain threshold returns (typically referred to as an “override”).

Principal Investments also includes our investment in the convertible preferred stock of SMFG, which we acquired on February 7, 2003. This preferred stock is generally nontransferable. We will have the right to convert the SMFG preferred stock into shares of SMFG common stock beginning on February 8, 2005. Upon conversion, one-third of the underlying shares of SMFG common stock will become transferable on February 8, 2005, with the remaining shares of common stock becoming transferable in equal installments on February 7, 2006 and February 7, 2007. In addition, restrictions on our ability to hedge the underlying common stock will lapse in three equal annual installments beginning on February 7, 2005.

Asset Management and Securities Services

The components of the Asset Management and Securities Services segment, which represented 19% of 2004 net revenues, are set forth below:

Asset Management

We offer a broad array of investment strategies, advice and planning. We provide asset management services across all major asset classes: money markets, fixed income and currencies, equities and alternative investments (i.e., hedge funds, private equity, asset allocation overlay, currency overlay and products within our manager of manager business). Through our subsidiary, The Ayco Company, L.P. (Ayco), we also provide fee-based financial counseling in the United States.

Assets under management (AUM) typically generate fees as a percentage of asset value or based on investment performance. AUM include our mutual funds, alternative investment funds and separately managed accounts for institutional and individual investors. AUM also include our

9

merchant banking funds, which generate revenue as described below under “Merchant Banking.” We may also earn commissions, mark-ups and spreads on assets in accounts of high-net-worth individuals, and these revenues are included in the Trading and Principal Investments segment. The trend in our private wealth management business has been away from accounts that generate commission revenue to accounts that pay fees based on the assets under management.

The amount of AUM is set forth in the graph below. In the following graph, as well as in the following tables, substantially all assets under management are valued as of November 30.

Assets Under Management
(in billions)

The following table sets forth assets under management by asset class:

Assets Under Management by Asset Class
(in billions)

Clients. Our clients are institutions and individuals, including both high-net-worth and retail investors. We access institutional and high-net-worth clients through both direct and third-party channels and retail clients through third-party channels. Our institutional clients include pension funds, governmental organizations, corporations, insurance companies, foundations and endowments. In the third-party distribution channels, we distribute our mutual funds and separately managed accounts through brokerage firms, banks, insurance companies and other financial intermediaries. Our clients are located worldwide.

10

The table below sets forth the amount of assets under management by distribution channel and client category as of November 2004:

Assets Under Management by Distribution Channel
(in billions)

Merchant Banking. Goldman Sachs has sponsored numerous corporate and real estate private investment funds. Our strategy with respect to these funds generally is to invest opportunistically to build a portfolio of investments that is diversified by industry, product type, geographic region and transaction structure and type. Our corporate investment funds pursue on a global basis, long-term investments in equity and debt securities in privately negotiated transactions, leveraged buyouts, acquisitions and investments in funds managed by external parties. Our real estate investment funds invest in real estate operating companies, debt and equity interests in real estate assets, and other real estate-related investments. Our clients in private investment funds include pension plans, endowments, charitable institutions and high-net-worth individuals.

Since inception, we have raised $40.67 billion of committed equity capital in these funds, of which $28.54 billion relates to our corporate funds and $12.13 billion relates to our real estate funds. As of November 2004, $31.75 billion of the committed equity capital was funded and assets under management in these funds were $27.81 billion.

Merchant banking activities generate three primary revenue streams. First, we receive a management fee that is generally a percentage of a fund’s committed capital, invested capital, total gross acquisition cost or asset value. These annual management fees are included in our Asset Management net revenues. Second, Goldman Sachs, as a substantial investor in these funds, is allocated its proportionate share of the funds’ unrealized appreciation or depreciation arising from changes in fair value as well as gains and losses upon realization. Third, after the fund has achieved a minimum return for fund investors, we receive an increased share of the fund’s income and gains that is a percentage of the income and gains from the fund’s investments. The second and third of these revenue streams are included in net revenues of the Principal Investments component of our Trading and Principal Investments segment.

Securities Services

Securities Services provides prime brokerage, financing services and securities lending services to mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, foundations and high-net-worth individuals worldwide.

We offer prime brokerage services to our clients, allowing them the flexibility to trade with most brokers while maintaining a single source for financing and consolidated portfolio reports. Our prime brokerage activities provide clearing and custody in 45 markets (with revenues from clearing and

11

custody included in the Trading and Principal Investments segment), consolidated multi-currency accounting and reporting and offshore fund administration. Additionally, we provide financing to our clients for their securities trading activities through margin and securities loans that are collateralized by securities, cash or other acceptable collateral.

Securities lending activities principally involve the borrowing and lending of securities to cover customer and Goldman Sachs’ short sales and otherwise to make deliveries into the market. In addition, we are an active participant in the broker-to-broker securities lending business and the third-party agency lending business.

Global Investment Research

Our Global Investment Research Division provides fundamental research on companies, industries, economies, currencies, commodities and portfolio and quantitative strategy on a worldwide basis.

Global Investment Research employs a team approach that as of November 2004 provided research coverage of approximately 1,725 companies worldwide, over 50 economies and 25 stock markets. This is accomplished by six departments:

Further information regarding research at Goldman Sachs is provided below under “— Regulation — Regulations Applicable in and Outside the United States,” “— Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business — Legal and Regulatory” and “Legal Proceedings — Research Independence Matters” in Part I, Item 3 of the Annual Report on Form  10-K.

Technology Strategy

Goldman Sachs is committed to the ongoing development, maintenance and use of technology throughout the organization. Our technology initiatives can be broadly categorized into four efforts:

We have tailored our services to our clients by providing them with electronic access to our products and services. In particular, we have extended our global electronic trading and information distribution capabilities; such capabilities cover many of our fixed income, currency, commodity, equity and mutual fund products around the world.

12

Electronic commerce and technology have changed and will continue to change the ways that securities and other financial products are traded, distributed and settled. This creates both opportunities and challenges for our businesses. We remain committed to being at the forefront of technological innovation in the global capital markets.

Employees

Management believes that one of the strengths and principal reasons for the success of Goldman Sachs is the quality and dedication of its people and the shared sense of being part of a team. We strive to maintain a work environment that fosters professionalism, excellence, diversity and cooperation among our employees worldwide.

Instilling the Goldman Sachs culture in all employees is a continuous process, in which training plays an important part. All employees are offered the opportunity to participate in education and periodic seminars that we sponsor at various locations throughout the world. Another important part of instilling the Goldman Sachs culture is our employee review process. Employees are reviewed by supervisors, co-workers and employees they supervise in a 360-degree review process that is integral to our team approach.

As of November 2004, we had 20,722 employees, which excludes 1,206 employees of Goldman Sachs’ property management and loan servicing subsidiaries. The majority of the costs of the property management and loan servicing employees are reimbursed to Goldman Sachs by the investment funds for which these subsidiaries provide services. This also excludes employees of certain consolidated entities that are held for investment purposes only.

Competition

The financial services industry — and all of our businesses — are intensely competitive, and we expect them to remain so. Our competitors are other brokers and dealers, investment banking firms, insurance companies, investment advisors, mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, commercial banks and merchant banks. We compete with some of our competitors globally and with others on a regional, product or niche basis. Our competition is based on a number of factors, including transaction execution, our products and services, innovation, reputation and price.

We also face intense competition in attracting and retaining qualified employees. Our ability to continue to compete effectively in our businesses will depend upon our ability to attract new employees and retain and motivate our existing employees.

Over time, there has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the financial services industry, due in part to U.S. federal legislation that has expanded the activities permissible for firms affiliated with a U.S. bank. In particular, a number of large commercial banks, insurance companies and other broad-based financial services firms have established or acquired broker-dealers or have merged with other financial institutions. Many of these firms have the ability to offer a wide range of products, from loans, deposit-taking and insurance to brokerage, asset management and investment banking services, which may enhance their competitive position. They also have the ability to support investment banking and securities products with commercial banking, insurance and other financial services revenues in an effort to gain market share, which has resulted in pricing pressure in certain of our businesses and could result in pricing pressure in other of our businesses.

Moreover, we have faced, and expect to continue to face, pressure to retain market share by committing capital to businesses or transactions on terms that offer returns that may not be commensurate with their risks. In particular, corporate clients sometimes seek such commitments (such as agreements to participate in their commercial paper backstop or other revolving loan facilities) from financial services firms in connection with investment banking and other assignments. In 2003, we established the William Street entities, through which we have issued commitments to

13

lend to counterparties, primarily investment-grade clients. Substantially all of the credit risk associated with these commitments has been covered by credit loss protection provided to Goldman Sachs by SMFG. These arrangements may not be sufficient, however, to fully satisfy our clients’ desire for capital commitments. In addition, the credit loss protection is limited generally to 95% of the first loss Goldman Sachs realizes on approved investment-grade loan commitments, subject to a maximum of $1 billion, and Goldman Sachs may also obtain protection for 70% of the second loss on such commitments, subject to a maximum of $1.125 billion. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 6 to our consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information regarding the William Street entities and for a description of the credit loss protection provided by SMFG. We also issue capital commitments through Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P. and other entities in connection with investment banking transactions.

The trend toward consolidation and convergence has significantly increased the capital base and geographic reach of some of our competitors. This trend has also hastened the globalization of the securities and other financial services markets. As a result, we have had to commit capital to support our international operations and to execute large global transactions. In order to take advantage of some of our most significant challenges and opportunities, we will have to compete successfully with financial institutions that are larger and better capitalized and that may have a stronger local presence and longer operating history outside the United States.

We have experienced intense price competition in some of our businesses in recent years. There has been considerable pressure in the pricing of large block trades. Also, equity and debt underwriting discounts, as well as trading spreads, have been under pressure for a number of years and the ability to execute trades electronically, through the Internet and through other alternative trading systems, has increased the pressure on trading commissions. It appears that this trend toward alternative trading systems will continue. We own interests in and participate in a number of these trading systems. We believe that we will continue to experience competitive pressures in these and other areas in the future as some of our competitors seek to obtain market share by reducing prices.

Regulation

Goldman Sachs, as a participant in the securities and commodity futures and options industries, is subject to extensive regulation in the United States and elsewhere. As a matter of public policy, regulatory bodies in the United States and the rest of the world are charged with safeguarding the integrity of the securities and other financial markets and with protecting the interests of customers participating in those markets. They are not, however, charged with protecting the interests of Goldman Sachs’ shareholders or creditors.

Broker-dealers, in particular, are subject to regulations that cover all aspects of the securities business, including sales methods, trade practices, use and safekeeping of customers’ funds and securities, capital structure, recordkeeping, the financing of customers’ purchases, and the conduct of directors, officers and employees. A number of our affiliates are regulated by investment advisory laws in and outside the United States. Additional legislation, changes in rules promulgated by self-regulatory organizations, or changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules, either in the United States or elsewhere, may directly affect the operation and profitability of Goldman Sachs.

Regulation in the United States

In the United States, the SEC is the federal agency responsible for the administration of the federal securities laws. Our principal broker-dealer in the United States is Goldman, Sachs & Co., which is registered as a broker-dealer and as an investment adviser with the SEC and as a broker-

14

dealer in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Self-regulatory organizations, such as the NYSE and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), adopt rules that apply to, and examine, broker-dealers such as Goldman, Sachs & Co. In addition, state securities and other regulators also have regulatory or oversight authority over Goldman, Sachs & Co. Similarly, our businesses are also subject to regulation by various non-U.S. governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory authorities in virtually all countries where we have offices. Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. (formerly known as Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P.) and certain of its affiliates are registered U.S. broker-dealers and are regulated by the SEC, the NYSE and the NASD. Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. is registered with the SEC as an OTC derivatives dealer and conducts certain OTC derivatives businesses.

The commodity futures and commodity options industry in the United States is subject to regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the federal agency charged with the administration of the Commodity Exchange Act and the regulations thereunder. Several of Goldman Sachs’ subsidiaries, including Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P., are registered with the CFTC and act as futures commission merchants, commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisors and are subject to the Commodity Exchange Act and the regulations thereunder. The rules and regulations of various self-regulatory organizations, such as the Chicago Board of Trade, other futures exchanges and the National Futures Association, also govern the commodity futures and commodity options businesses of these entities.

As a registered broker-dealer and member of various self-regulatory organizations, Goldman, Sachs & Co. is subject to the SEC’s uniform net capital rule, Rule 15c3-1. This rule specifies the minimum level of net capital a broker-dealer must maintain and also requires that a significant part of its assets be kept in relatively liquid form. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is also subject to the net capital requirements of the CFTC and various securities and commodity exchanges. See Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The SEC has adopted rule amendments that establish alternative net capital requirements for broker-dealers that are part of a consolidated supervised entity. As a condition to its use of the alternative method, a broker-dealer’s ultimate holding company and affiliates (referred to collectively as a consolidated supervised entity or CSE) must consent to group-wide supervision and examination by the SEC. Goldman, Sachs & Co. anticipates applying for permission to use this alternative method. We expect that doing so will enable us to comply with the requirements of the Financial Groups Directive described below. On becoming subject to the SEC’s group-wide supervision, Goldman Sachs will be required to report to the SEC computations of our capital adequacy.

The SEC recently adopted rules requiring the registration of hedge funds advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. We cannot predict at this time the impact of the adoption of these rules on our trading, prime brokerage and other business relationships with hedge funds.

The SEC and various self-regulatory organizations impose rules that require notification when net capital falls below certain predefined criteria, limit the ratio of subordinated debt to equity in the regulatory capital composition of a broker-dealer and constrain the ability of a broker-dealer to expand its business under certain circumstances. Additionally, the SEC’s uniform net capital rule imposes certain requirements that may have the effect of prohibiting a broker-dealer from distributing or withdrawing capital and requiring prior notice to the SEC for certain withdrawals of capital.

Goldman Sachs has established The Goldman Sachs Trust Company, N.A. (GSTC), a national bank limited to fiduciary activities, in order to provide personal trust and estate administration and related services to its high-net-worth clients on a nationwide basis. GSTC maintains collective investment funds for eligible pension and profit sharing plan clients. As a national bank, GSTC is subject to regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and is a member bank of the Federal Reserve System. GSTC will not accept deposits or make loans and, as a result, it is not

15

considered to be a bank for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act. It also does not carry FDIC insurance and is not subject to the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act.

Goldman Sachs has established Goldman Sachs Bank USA (GS Bank), a Utah-chartered industrial loan company, in order to extend credit and to take deposits, other than demand deposits. GS Bank is subject to regulation by the FDIC and the Utah Commissioner of Financial Institutions. Because it does not accept demand deposits, GS Bank is not considered to be a bank for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act. The deposits maintained at GS Bank are insured by the FDIC to the extent permitted by law, and GS Bank is subject to the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act.

J. Aron & Company is authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to sell wholesale physical power at market-based rates. As a FERC-authorized power marketer, J. Aron & Company is subject to regulation under the Federal Power Act and FERC regulations.

The effort to combat money laundering and terrorist financing is a priority in governmental policy with respect to financial institutions. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 contains anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and mandates the implementation of various new regulations applicable to broker-dealers and other financial services companies, including standards for verifying client identification at account opening, and obligations to monitor client transactions and report suspicious activities. Through these and other provisions, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 seeks to promote the identification of parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering. Anti-money laundering laws outside the United States contain some similar provisions. The obligation of financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, to identify their customers, watch for and report suspicious transactions, respond to requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies, and share information with other financial institutions, has required the implementation and maintenance of internal practices, procedures and controls which have increased, and may continue to increase, our costs, and any failure with respect to our programs in this area could subject us to substantial liability and regulatory damages.

Certain of our businesses are subject to compliance with regulations enacted by U.S. federal and state governments, the European Union, other jurisdictions and/or enacted by various regulatory organizations or exchanges relating to the privacy of client information, and any failure to comply with these regulations could expose us to liability and/or reputational damage.

In addition, our power generation business is subject to extensive and evolving energy, environmental and other governmental laws and regulations, as discussed below under “— Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business — Investments in the Power Generation Industry.”

Regulation Outside the United States

Goldman Sachs is an active participant in the international fixed income and equity markets. Many of our principal subsidiaries that participate in these markets are subject to comprehensive regulations in the United States and elsewhere that include some form of capital adequacy rules and other customer protection rules. Goldman Sachs provides investment services in and from the United Kingdom under the regulation of the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Various Goldman Sachs entities are regulated by the banking and regulatory authorities of the other European countries in which Goldman Sachs operates, including, among others, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) and the Bundesbank in Germany, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers and Banque de France in France, Banca d’Italia and the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) in Italy and the Swiss Federal Banking Commission. Goldman Sachs entities are also regulated by the European securities, derivatives and commodities exchanges of which they are members. The investment services that are subject to oversight by the FSA and other European regulators are regulated in accordance with European Union directives requiring, among other things, compliance with certain capital adequacy standards, customer protection requirements and conduct of business rules. These standards, requirements and rules are similarly implemented, under the

16

same directives, throughout the European Union and are broadly comparable in scope and purpose to the regulatory capital and customer protection requirements imposed under the SEC and CFTC rules. Some European Union directives also permit local regulation in each jurisdiction, including those in which we operate, to be more restrictive than the requirements of such directives and these local requirements can result in certain competitive disadvantages to Goldman Sachs.

In addition, the Financial Services Agency, the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the Osaka Securities Exchange, The Tokyo International Financial Futures Exchange and the Japan Securities Dealers Association in Japan, the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the China Securities Regulatory Commission, among others, regulate various of our subsidiaries in Asia and also have capital standards and other requirements comparable to the rules of the SEC.

The European Financial Groups Directive (Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) introduced certain changes to the way in which financial conglomerates and other financial services organizations operating in Europe will be regulated, with the changes to be implemented by member states for fiscal years beginning in 2005. These changes will cause activities that are currently conducted in unregulated entities to become subject to certain forms of regulation, including consolidated supervision and capital adequacy requirements. Our efforts to comply with the directive involve applying to be subject to the consolidated supervised entity rules described above under “— Regulation in the United States.”

Regulations Applicable in and Outside the United States

The U.S. and non-U.S. government agencies, regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations, as well as state securities commissions in the United States, are empowered to conduct administrative proceedings that can result in censure, fine, the issuance of cease and desist orders, or the suspension or expulsion of a broker-dealer or its directors, officers or employees. From time to time, our subsidiaries have been subject to investigations and proceedings, and sanctions have been imposed for infractions of various regulations relating to our activities, none of which has had a material adverse effect on us or our businesses.

Compliance with the net capital requirements of U.S. and non-U.S. regulators could limit those operations of our subsidiaries that require the intensive use of capital, such as underwriting and trading activities, specialist activities and the financing of customer account balances, and also could restrict our ability to withdraw capital from our regulated subsidiaries, which in turn could limit our ability to repay debt or pay dividends on our common stock.

Our specialist businesses are subject to extensive regulation by a number of securities exchanges. The rules of these exchanges generally require our specialists to maintain orderly markets in the securities in which they are specialists. These requirements, in turn, may require us to commit significant amounts of capital to our specialist businesses. In addition, changes to the rules and regulations governing stock markets and the conduct of specialists on those markets, including the NYSE, may impose additional costs on us, adversely affect our specialist businesses or impair the value of our goodwill and identifiable intangible assets relating to those businesses.

The research areas of investment banks have been and remain the subject of increased regulatory scrutiny. In 2002 and 2003, acting in part pursuant to a mandate contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the SEC, the NYSE and the NASD adopted rules imposing heightened restrictions on the interaction between equity research analysts and investment banking personnel at member securities firms. Various non-U.S. jurisdictions have also changed or proposed to change their requirements with respect to research. In addition, in 2003, several leading securities firms operating in the United States, including Goldman, Sachs & Co., reached a settlement with certain federal and state securities regulators and self-regulatory organizations to resolve investigations into their equity research analysts’ alleged conflicts of interest pursuant to which the firms have been subject to certain restrictions and undertakings. As part of this settlement, restrictions have been

17

imposed on the interaction between research and investment banking departments, and these securities firms are required to fund the provision of independent research to their customers.

In connection with the research settlement, the firm has also subscribed to a voluntary initiative imposing restrictions on the allocation of shares in initial public offerings to executives and directors of public companies. During 2004, the FSA in the United Kingdom imposed new requirements on the conduct of the allocation process in equity and fixed income securities offerings (including initial public offerings and secondary distributions). The NASD has proposed rules that would further affect the manner in which securities are distributed and allocated in registered public offerings. We cannot fully predict the practical effect that such restrictions or measures will have on our business, and the SEC, NYSE and NASD and non-U.S. regulators such as the FSA may adopt additional and more stringent rules with respect to offering procedures and the management of conflicts of interest in the future.

Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business

Market Conditions

As an investment banking, securities and investment management firm, our businesses are materially affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic conditions generally. Business conditions continued to improve in 2004, after improving somewhat during the second half of 2003: the number and size of equity underwritings and completed mergers and acquisitions transactions increased significantly in 2004, after declining for three straight years, and fixed income origination levels remained strong; fixed income market conditions remained generally favorable, as interest rates, although rising, remained low by historical standards, and corporate credit spreads remained narrow; and in the global equity markets, although volatility levels and commission rates continued to decline, price levels and volumes were generally stronger.

Adverse or uncertain economic and market conditions have in the past adversely affected, and may in the future adversely affect, our business and profitability in many ways, including the following:

18

Risk Management, Liquidity and Credit

If any of the variety of instruments, processes and strategies we utilize to manage our exposure to various types of risk are not effective, we may incur losses. Our risk management strategies and techniques may not be fully effective in mitigating our risk exposure in all market environments or against all types of risk.

Liquidity is essential to our businesses. Our liquidity could be impaired by an inability to access secured and/or unsecured debt markets, an inability to access funds from our subsidiaries or an inability to sell assets. This situation may arise due to circumstances that we may be unable to control, such as a general market disruption or an operational problem that affects third parties or us. Further, our ability to sell assets may be impaired if other market participants are seeking to sell similar assets at the same time.

Our credit ratings are important to our liquidity. A reduction in our credit ratings could adversely affect our liquidity and competitive position, increase our borrowing costs, limit our access to the capital markets or trigger our obligations under certain bilateral provisions in some of our trading and collateralized financing contracts. Under such provisions, counterparties could be permitted to terminate contracts with Goldman Sachs or require us to post additional collateral. Termination of our trading and collateralized financing contracts could cause us to sustain losses and impair our liquidity by requiring us to find other sources of financing or to make significant cash payments or securities movements.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a holding company and, therefore, it depends on dividends, distributions and other payments from its subsidiaries to fund dividend payments and to fund all payments on its obligations, including debt obligations. Many of our subsidiaries, including Goldman, Sachs & Co., are subject to laws that authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the flow of

19

funds from those subsidiaries to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Regulatory action of that kind could impede access to funds that The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. needs to make payments on obligations, including debt obligations, or dividend payments. In addition, to the extent that The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (or any other entity) holds equity interests in the firm’s regulated or unregulated subsidiaries, its rights as an equity holder to the assets of such subsidiaries are subject to the satisfaction of the claims of the creditors of such subsidiaries.

We are exposed to the risk that third parties that owe us money, securities or other assets will not perform their obligations. These parties may default on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons. We are also subject to the risk that our rights against third parties may not be enforceable in all circumstances. The amount and duration of our credit exposures have been increasing over the past several years, as has the breadth of the entities to which we have credit exposures. As a clearing member firm, we finance our customer positions and we could be held responsible for the defaults or misconduct of our customers. In addition, we have experienced, due to competitive factors, pressure to extend credit and price more aggressively the credit risks we take. In particular, corporate clients sometimes seek to require credit commitments from us in connection with investment banking and other assignments. Although we regularly review credit exposures to specific clients and counterparties and to specific industries, countries and regions that we believe may present credit concerns, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect or foresee. In addition, concerns about, or a default by, one institution could lead to significant liquidity problems, losses or defaults by other institutions, which in turn could adversely affect Goldman Sachs.

Operations and Infrastructure

Our businesses are highly dependent on our ability to process, on a daily basis, a large number of transactions across numerous and diverse markets in many currencies, and the transactions we process have become increasingly complex. If any of our financial, accounting or other data processing systems do not operate properly or are disabled or if there are other shortcomings or failures in our internal processes, people or systems, we could suffer an impairment to our liquidity, financial loss, a disruption of our businesses, liability to clients, regulatory intervention or reputational damage. These systems may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, including a disruption of electrical or communications services or our inability to occupy one or more of our buildings. The inability of our systems to accommodate an increasing volume of transactions could also constrain our ability to expand our businesses.

We also face the risk of operational failure or termination of any of the clearing agents, exchanges, clearing houses or other financial intermediaries we use to facilitate our securities transactions. Any such failure or termination could adversely affect our ability to effect transactions and manage our exposure to risk.

In addition, despite the contingency plans we have in place, our ability to conduct business may be adversely impacted by a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our businesses and the communities in which we are located. This may include a disruption involving electrical, communications, transportation or other services used by Goldman Sachs or third parties with which we conduct business. These disruptions may occur, for example, as a result of events that affect only the buildings of Goldman Sachs or such third parties, or as a result of events with a broader impact on the cities where those buildings are located. Nearly all of our employees in our primary locations, including New York, London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Tokyo, work in close proximity to each other, in one or more buildings. If a disruption occurs in one location and our employees in that location are unable to communicate with or travel to other locations, our ability to service and interact with our clients may suffer and we may not be able to successfully implement contingency plans that depend on communication or travel.

20

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. Although we take protective measures and endeavor to modify them as circumstances warrant, our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses or other malicious code and other events that could have a security impact. If one or more of such events occur, this potentially could jeopardize our or our clients’ or counterparties’ confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, our clients’, our counterparties’ or third parties’ operations. We may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify our protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures, and we may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered through any insurance maintained by us.

Business Continuity and Information Security

Business continuity and information security are high priorities for Goldman Sachs. Our Business Continuity Program has been developed to provide reasonable assurance of business continuity in the event of disruptions at the firm’s critical facilities. The key elements of the program are crisis management, business recovery, systems and data recovery, people recovery facilities and process improvement. In the area of information security, a framework of principles, policies and technology has been developed to protect the information assets of the firm and its clients. Safeguards are applied to maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information resources.

Legal and Regulatory

Firms in the financial services industry have been operating in a difficult regulatory environment. The industry has experienced increased scrutiny from a variety of regulators, including the SEC, NYSE, NASD and state attorneys general. Penalties and fines sought by regulatory authorities have increased substantially over the last several years. This environment has led some of our clients to be less willing to engage in transactions that may carry a risk of increased scrutiny by regulators. In addition, while the firm always strives to fully comply with all legal and regulatory requirements, this regulatory and enforcement environment has created uncertainty with respect to a number of transactions that had historically been entered into by financial services firms, including our firm, and that were generally believed to be permissible and appropriate. This environment has led us and our competitors to modify transaction structures and, in some cases, to limit or cease our execution of some types of transactions. We have also implemented additional policies and procedures, and have enhanced existing policies and procedures, to address the risks arising from the current environment.

Substantial legal liability or significant regulatory action against Goldman Sachs could have material adverse financial effects or cause significant reputational harm to Goldman Sachs, which in turn could seriously harm our business prospects. We face significant legal risks in our businesses, and the volume of claims and amount of damages and penalties claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against financial institutions have been increasing.

Goldman Sachs, as a participant in the financial services industry, is subject to extensive regulation in jurisdictions around the world. We face the risk of significant intervention by regulatory authorities in all jurisdictions in which we conduct business. Among other things, we could be fined, prohibited from engaging in some of our business activities or subject to limitations or conditions on our business activities. New laws or regulations or changes in enforcement of existing laws or regulations applicable to our clients may also adversely affect our businesses.

As discussed above under “Regulation,” the research areas of investment banks have been and remain the subject of increased regulatory scrutiny which has led to increased restrictions on

21

the interaction between equity research analysts and investment banking personnel at securities firms. Various non-U.S. jurisdictions have also changed or proposed changing their requirements with respect to research matters. In addition, several leading securities firms in the United States, including Goldman, Sachs & Co., reached a global settlement in 2003 with certain federal and state securities regulators and self-regulatory organizations to resolve investigations into equity research analysts’ alleged conflicts of interest pursuant to which the firms have been subject to certain restrictions and undertakings. Certain of these requirements and restrictions have imposed additional costs and limitations on the conduct of our businesses. Current or future civil lawsuits implicating investment research analysts’ conflicts of interest were not settled as part of the global settlement. Goldman Sachs’ total potential liability in respect of such civil cases cannot be reasonably estimated but could be material to results of operations in a given period. The global settlement also did not resolve potential charges involving individual employees, including supervisors, and regulatory investigations are continuing.

In addition, the SEC and other federal and state regulators have increased their scrutiny of complex, structured finance transactions and have brought enforcement actions against a number of financial institutions in connection with such transactions. In some of the enforcement actions, clients of the financial institutions allegedly engaged in accounting, disclosure or other violations of the securities laws, and the financial institutions allegedly facilitated these improprieties by entering into transactions with the clients. We seek to create innovative solutions to address our clients’ needs, and we have entered into, and continue to enter into, structured transactions with clients. While we have policies and procedures in place that are intended to ensure that the structured transactions we enter into are appropriately reviewed and comply with applicable laws and regulations, it is possible that certain of these transactions could give rise to litigation or enforcement actions. It is possible that the heightened regulatory scrutiny of, and litigation in connection with, structured finance transactions will make our clients less willing to enter into these transactions, and will adversely affect our business in this area.

Recently, there have been industry-wide and other investigations by federal and state authorities concerning market timing, late trading and other activities involving mutual funds and investment advisors. Federal and state authorities have made informational requests regarding trading practices broadly across all of the major fund companies and broker-dealers. Goldman Sachs has received requests for information and has been fully cooperating with those authorities. While we believe that we have in place reasonable measures to detect and deter disruptive and abusive trading practices and comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, we cannot predict the course that the existing inquiries and areas of focus may take or the impact that any new laws or regulations governing mutual funds may have on our business.

The NYSE and the SEC have also been conducting investigations into certain trading practices of NYSE specialist firms, including our specialist unit. In March 2004, certain of these NYSE specialist firms, including our specialist unit, agreed to a global settlement with the SEC and the NYSE to resolve charges that the firms violated certain federal securities laws and NYSE rules in connection with their activities as NYSE specialists during the years 1999 through 2003. The global settlement involves, among others, restitution and penalties, a censure, cease and desist order and certain undertakings with respect to our specialist unit’s systems and procedures. The settlement did not resolve the related civil actions discussed under “Legal Proceedings — Specialist Matters” in Part I, Item 3 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K, or potential regulatory charges against individuals. This global settlement, including the restrictions imposed on the activities of our specialist unit, or new laws or regulations governing specialists may have an adverse impact on our specialist businesses. As a result of this global settlement and any related developments, our specialist businesses may be adversely affected and the value of our goodwill and identifiable intangible assets related to these businesses may be impaired.

There have been a number of highly publicized cases involving fraud or other misconduct by employees in the financial services industry in recent years, and we run the risk that employee

22

misconduct could occur. It is not always possible to deter or prevent employee misconduct and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases.

Regulatory Impact on Capital Markets

Financial scandals in recent years have led to insecurity and uncertainty in the financial markets and contributed to declines in capital markets. In response to these scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the rules of the SEC, the NYSE and Nasdaq have necessitated significant changes to corporate governance and public disclosure. These provisions generally apply to companies with securities listed on U.S. securities exchanges, and some provisions apply to non-U.S. issuers with securities traded on U.S. securities exchanges. To the extent that private companies, in order to avoid becoming subject to these new requirements, decide to forgo initial public offerings, our equity underwriting business may be adversely affected and our ability to successfully exit some of our merchant banking investments may be adversely affected. Similarly, the imposition of those provisions on non-U.S. issuers has made these issuers less likely to list their securities in the United States or undertake merger or acquisition transactions that would result in their securities being listed in the United States. These measures may result in less activity by non-U.S. issuers in the United States and, as a result, the U.S. capital markets and our investment banking business may be adversely affected.

The provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the NYSE and Nasdaq corporate governance rules have diverted many companies’ attention away from capital market transactions, including securities offerings and acquisition and disposition transactions. In particular, companies that are or are planning to be public are incurring significant expenses in complying with the SEC and accounting standards relating to internal control over financial reporting, and companies that disclose material weaknesses in such controls under the new standards may have some difficulty accessing the capital markets. These factors, in addition to adopted or proposed accounting and disclosure changes, including those relating to off-balance-sheet entities, may have an adverse effect on our investment banking business.

Competition and Conflicts of Interest

The financial services industry — and all of our businesses — are intensely competitive, and we expect them to remain so. We compete on the basis of a number of factors, including transaction execution, our products and services, innovation, reputation and price. We believe that we may experience pricing pressures in the future as some of our competitors seek to increase market share by reducing prices. Over time, there has been substantial consolidation and convergence among companies in the financial services industry. U.S. federal legislation, which significantly expanded the activities permissible for firms affiliated with a U.S. bank, may accelerate this consolidation and further increase competition. This trend toward consolidation and convergence has significantly increased the capital base and geographic reach of our competitors. This trend has also hastened the globalization of the securities and other financial services markets. As a result, we have had to commit capital to support our international operations and to execute large global transactions.

Our reputation is one of our most important assets. As we have expanded the scope of our business and our client base, we increasingly have to address conflicts of interest. We have extensive procedures and controls that are designed to address these issues. However, appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with conflicts of interest.

In addition, the SEC and other federal and state regulators have increased their scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest. While we have policies and procedures in place that are intended to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are appropriately addressed, it is possible that potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to litigation or enforcement actions. It is possible that the heightened regulatory scrutiny of, and litigation in connection with, conflicts of interest will make our

23

clients less willing to enter into transactions in which such a conflict may occur, and will adversely affect our business.

Technology is fundamental to our overall business strategy. The growth of electronic trading and the introduction of new technologies is changing our business and presenting us with new challenges. Securities, futures and options transactions are increasingly occurring electronically and through other alternative trading systems and it appears that the trend toward alternative trading systems will continue and probably accelerate. Some of these alternative trading systems compete with our trading businesses, including our specialist businesses, and Goldman Sachs may experience continued competitive pressures in these and other areas.

Recruiting and Employee Retention

Our performance is largely dependent on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals. Competition in the financial services industry for qualified employees is intense. In addition, competition with businesses outside the financial services industry, such as hedge funds, private equity funds and venture capital funds, for the most highly skilled individuals has been intense. Our continued ability to compete effectively in our businesses depends on our ability to attract new employees and to retain and motivate our existing employees. Changes in the business environment may cause us to move employees from one business to another or to reduce the number of employees in certain businesses; this may cause temporary disruptions as our employees adapt to new roles and may reduce our ability to take advantage of improvements in the business environment. In addition, current and future laws (including laws relating to immigration and outsourcing) may restrict our ability to move responsibilities or personnel from one jurisdiction to another. This may impact our ability to take advantage of business opportunities or potential efficiencies.

Acquisitions and Joint Ventures

We expect the growth of our core businesses to come through both internal expansion and through acquisitions and joint ventures. We have undertaken joint ventures in Australia and China and may enter into additional joint ventures from time to time. To the extent we make acquisitions or enter into combinations or joint ventures, we face numerous risks and uncertainties combining or integrating the relevant businesses and systems, including the need to combine accounting and data processing systems and management controls and to integrate relationships with customers and business partners. In the case of joint ventures, we are subject to additional risks and uncertainties in that we may be dependent upon, and subject to liability, losses or reputational damage relating to, systems, controls and personnel that are not under our control. In addition, conflicts or disagreements between us and our joint venture partners may negatively impact our businesses.

Investments in the Power Generation Industry

We own equity interests in companies engaged in electric power generation, principally Cogentrix Energy, Inc. and East Coast Power L.L.C., and have acquired interests in power plants and related businesses from National Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc. As a result of these interests and future investments that we may make in the power generation industry, we face numerous risks and uncertainties.

We are a relatively new entrant to the power generation business. As a result, we have less expertise and experience in owning and managing power generation businesses than many of our competitors and we may not be successful in owning and managing our power generation facilities. In particular, in the future we may be unable to attract and retain qualified independent contractors and employees.

The operation of power generation facilities may be disrupted. The continued operation of power generation facilities involves many risks, including the breakdown or failure of power

24

generation equipment, transmission lines or other equipment or processes, and performance below expected levels of output or efficiency. Although our facilities contain various redundancies and backup mechanisms, a breakdown or failure may prevent the affected facilities from performing under applicable power sales agreements or otherwise operating as planned.

The power plants in which we own interests are dependent on the availability of raw materials, such as coal and natural gas, and the market for and availability of these raw materials may be adversely affected by numerous factors beyond our control. For example, during 2004 we faced difficulties in obtaining and retaining adequate coal inventories at many plants due to supply constraints on coal and a rationing of services by railroads. Any inability to obtain coal or other raw materials in sufficient amounts could lead to lost revenues, reputational damage and defaults under our long-term contracts with energy purchasers, which contracts with respect to coal-fired plants generally contain standards regarding inventory levels of coal.

We are subject to extensive and evolving energy, environmental and other governmental laws and regulations. In the past several years, intensified scrutiny of the energy market by federal, state and local authorities and the public has resulted in increased regulatory and legal proceedings involving energy companies, including those engaged in power generation. We may incur substantial costs in complying with current or future laws and regulations relating to power generation, and our overall businesses and reputation may be adversely affected by legal and regulatory proceedings arising out of our power generation business. In particular, our power generation operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations relating to, among others, air quality, water quality, waste management, natural resources, site remediation, and health and safety. Compliance with these environmental laws and regulations may require us to commit significant capital toward environmental monitoring, installation of pollution control equipment, payment of emission fees, and application for, and holding of, permits and licenses at our facilities. Our failure to comply with environmental laws or regulations or the associated requirements and provisions of the permits and licenses may result in the assessment of severe civil or criminal liabilities against us and the need to expend substantial additional capital for compliance or remediation. Insurance covering some of these environmental risks with respect to our power generation facilities may not be available, and the proceeds from insurance recovery, if any, may not be adequate to cover our liabilities in a particular incident. As a result, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected by an environmental or a health and safety problem at one of our facilities.

We are subject to the risk of unforeseen or catastrophic events, including terrorist attacks and other hostile or catastrophic events. We may not have insurance against these risks, and, in cases in which we do have insurance, the insurance proceeds may be inadequate to cover our losses.

International Operations

In conducting our businesses and maintaining and supporting our operations around the world, we are subject to political, economic, legal, operational and other risks that are inherent in operating in many countries, including risks of possible nationalization, expropriation, price controls, capital controls, exchange controls and other restrictive governmental actions, as well as the outbreak of hostilities. In many countries, the laws and regulations applicable to the securities and financial services industries are uncertain and evolving, and it may be difficult for us to determine the exact requirements of local laws in every market. Our inability to remain in compliance with local laws in a particular foreign market could have a significant and negative effect not only on our businesses in that market but also on our reputation generally. We are also subject to the enhanced risk that transactions we structure might not be legally enforceable in all cases.

In the last several years, various emerging market countries have experienced severe economic and financial disruptions, including significant devaluations of their currencies, capital and currency exchange controls, and low or negative growth rates in their economies. The possible effects of

25

these conditions include an adverse impact on our businesses and increased volatility in financial markets generally.

Cautionary Statement Pursuant to The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

We have included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, and from time to time our management may make, statements that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are not historical facts but instead represent only our belief regarding future events, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and outside of our control. These statements include statements other than historical information or statements of current condition and may relate to our future plans and objectives and results, among other things, and may also include our belief regarding the effect of various legal proceedings, as set forth under “Legal Proceedings” in Part I, Item 3 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as statements about the objectives and effectiveness of our liquidity policies, statements about trends in our businesses and statements about our investment banking transaction backlog, in Part II, Item 7 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K. It is possible that our actual results may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results indicated in these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements include, among others, those discussed below and under “— Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In the case of statements about our investment banking transaction backlog, such statements are subject to the risk that the terms of these transactions may be modified or that they may not be completed at all; therefore, the net revenues that we expect to earn from these transactions may differ, possibly materially, from those currently expected. Important factors that could result in a modification of the terms of a transaction or a transaction not being completed include, in the case of underwriting transactions, a decline in general economic conditions, outbreak of hostilities, volatility in the securities markets generally or an adverse development with respect to the issuer of the securities and, in the case of financial advisory transactions, a decline in the securities markets, an adverse development with respect to a party to the transaction or a failure to obtain a required regulatory approval.

Our principal executive offices are located at 85 Broad Street, New York, New York, and comprise approximately 1 million square feet of leased space, pursuant to a lease agreement expiring in June 2008 (with options to renew for up to 20 additional years). We also occupy over 680,000 square feet at One New York Plaza under lease agreements expiring primarily in 2009 (with options to renew for up to five additional years), and we lease space at various other locations in the New York metropolitan area. In total, we lease over 4.2 million square feet in the New York metropolitan area.

In September 2004, we completed the construction of a new office building at 30 Hudson Street in Jersey City, New Jersey. This building, which includes approximately 1.3 million square feet of office space, was constructed to complement our offices in lower Manhattan. The building is being occupied in phases.

We have additional offices in the United States and elsewhere in the Americas. Together, these offices comprise approximately 2.3 million square feet of leased space.

We also have offices in Europe, Asia and Africa. In Europe, we have offices that total approximately 2.0 million square feet, which includes approximately 55,000 square feet in Frankfurt that we expect to exit by 2006. Our European headquarters is located in London at Peterborough

26

Court, pursuant to a lease expiring in 2016. In total, we lease approximately 1.6 million square feet in London through various leases, relating to various properties.

In Asia, we have offices that total approximately 900,000 square feet. Our headquarters in this region are in Tokyo, at the Roppongi Hills Mori Tower, and in Hong Kong, at the Cheung Kong Center. In Tokyo, we currently lease 290,910 square feet through a lease that expires in 2018 and 96,959 square feet through a lease that expires in March 2005 at the Roppongi Hills Mori Tower. In Hong Kong, we currently lease approximately 270,000 square feet under lease agreements, the majority of which expire in fiscal 2012. We currently lease approximately 28,000 square feet of office space in a temporary facility in Bangalore, India, with a plan to occupy a total of approximately 150,000 square feet of office space by July 2005.

Our occupancy expenses include costs associated with office space held in excess of our current requirements. This excess space, the cost of which is charged to earnings as incurred, is being held for potential growth or to replace currently occupied space that we may exit in the future. We continually evaluate our current and future space capacity in relation to current and projected future staffing levels. In 2004, we reduced our global office space and incurred exit costs of $41 million (included in occupancy and depreciation and amortization expenses). We may incur additional exit costs in 2005 and thereafter to the extent we (i) further reduce our capacity or (ii) commit to new properties in the locations in which we operate and, consequently, dispose of existing space that had been held for potential growth. Such exit costs may be material to our results of operations in a given period.

We are involved in a number of judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our businesses. We believe, based on currently available information, that the results of such proceedings, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, but might be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

IPO Process Matters

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. are among the numerous financial services companies that have been named as defendants in a variety of lawsuits alleging improprieties in the process by which those companies participated in the underwriting of public offerings in recent years.

Certain purported class actions have been brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, beginning on November 3, 1998 by purchasers of securities in public offerings as well as certain purported issuers of such offerings, that allege that the defendants have conspired to fix at 7% the discount that underwriting syndicates receive from issuers of shares in certain offerings in violation of federal antitrust laws. On March 15, 1999, the purchaser plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint seeking treble damages as well as injunctive relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on April 29, 1999. On February 9, 2001, the federal district court granted with prejudice the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims asserted by the purchasers of securities on the ground that they lacked antitrust standing. The plaintiffs in those actions appealed, and by a decision dated December 13, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal on the ground that the lower court had engaged in improper fact-finding on the motion and remanded for consideration of other potential bases for dismissal. On September 28, 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaints filed by the issuer plaintiffs on statute of limitations grounds. On September 25, 2002, the federal district court denied the underwriter defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2003, defendants moved to dismiss the claims asserted by both the issuers and the purchasers of securities on preemption grounds, but the

27

motion was denied on June 27, 2003. On June 24, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted by the purchasers of securities on standing grounds, and on February 24, 2004, the district court granted the motion to dismiss as to the purchasers’ damages claims.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of numerous financial services firms that have been named as defendants in purported class actions filed beginning on March 9, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by purchasers of securities in public offerings, who claim that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to “tie” allocations in certain offerings to higher customer brokerage commission rates as well as purchase orders in the aftermarket, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 2, 2002 seeking treble damages as well as injunctive relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 24, 2002, the motion was granted by a decision dated November 3, 2003, and the plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration and also appealed. Goldman, Sachs & Co. has also, together with other underwriters in certain offerings as well as the issuers and certain of their officers and directors, been named as a defendant in a number of related lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the prospectuses for the offerings violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose the existence of the alleged “tying” arrangements. On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss those complaints. By an opinion and order dated February 19, 2003, the federal district court denied the motion to dismiss in all material respects relating to the underwriter defendants. By a decision dated October 13, 2004, the federal district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and the underwriter defendants have petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to review that certification decision on an interlocutory basis. On June 10, 2004, plaintiffs entered into a definitive settlement agreement with respect to their claims against the issuer defendants and the issuers’ present or former officers and directors named in the lawsuits. On June 14, 2004, those parties jointly moved for approval of the proposed settlement.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. has been named as a defendant in an action commenced on May 15, 2002 in New York Supreme Court, New York County, by an official committee of unsecured creditors on behalf of eToys, Inc., alleging that the firm intentionally underpriced eToys, Inc.’s initial public offering. The action seeks, among other things, consequential damages resulting from the alleged lower amount of offering proceeds. On August 1, 2002, Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss the complaint. On May 2, 2003, the court granted Goldman, Sachs & Co.’s motion to dismiss as to five of the claims; plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of the five claims, and Goldman, Sachs & Co. appealed from the denial of its motion as to the remaining claim. By a decision dated May 20, 2004, the New York Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court’s ruling on the firm’s motion to dismiss, permitting all claims to proceed except the claim for fraud, as to which the appellate court granted leave to replead. On June 18, 2004, Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved for reargument or leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and by an order dated October 12, 2004, the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has also been named as a defendant in a purported shareholder derivative action commenced in Delaware Court of Chancery on October 23, 2002 alleging that certain officers and directors of eBay, Inc. (who are also defendants), aided and abetted by The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., breached their fiduciary duties and usurped corporate opportunities by receiving allocations of initial public offerings as customers of Goldman Sachs. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 23, 2002, but the motions were denied by a decision dated January 23, 2004.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has, together with other underwriters in certain offerings, received subpoenas and requests for documents and information from various governmental agencies and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services in connection with investigations relating to the public offering process. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with the investigations. On January 25, 2005, in connection with an investigation by the SEC of certain

28

allocation practices employed by Goldman, Sachs & Co. and other firms, the SEC announced a settlement pursuant to which Goldman, Sachs & Co., without admitting or denying the allegations, (i) consented to the entry of an order permanently enjoining Goldman, Sachs & Co. from violating Rule 101 of Regulation M of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by inducing or attempting to induce customers receiving IPO allocations to buy additional shares in the aftermarket; and (ii) agreed to pay a penalty of $40 million. In connection with effectuation of the settlement, the SEC filed a civil action against Goldman, Sachs & Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 25, 2005.

Stock Options Litigation

Hull Trading Co. L.L.C. and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. (now known as Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P.), affiliates of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., are among the numerous market makers in listed equity options which have been named as defendants, together with five national securities exchanges, in a purported class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased or sold listed equity options. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on October 4, 1999 (which consolidated certain previously pending actions and added Hull Trading Co. L.L.C. and other market makers as defendants), generally alleges that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to preclude the multiple listing of certain equity options on the exchanges and seeks treble damages under the antitrust laws as well as injunctive relief. Certain of the parties, including Hull Trading Co. L.L.C. and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P., have entered into a stipulation of settlement, subject to court approval, pursuant to which Hull Trading Co. L.L.C. will be required to pay an aggregate of $2.48 million and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. an aggregate of $19.59 million. On February 14, 2001, the federal district court granted the motion of certain non-settling defendants for summary judgment. By a decision dated April 24, 2001, the district court ruled that in light of that order granting summary judgment, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proposed settlement. Plaintiffs appealed, and by a decision dated January 9, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, but held that the decision did not divest the lower court of jurisdiction to entertain the proposed settlement, and remanded for further proceedings. By an Order dated March 17, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc of the Court’s January 9, 2003 decision.

Iridium Securities Litigation

Goldman, Sachs & Co. has been named as a defendant in two purported class action lawsuits commenced, beginning on May 26, 1999, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia brought on behalf of purchasers of Class A common stock of Iridium World Communications, Ltd. in a January 1999 underwritten secondary offering of 7,500,000 shares of Class A common stock at a price of $33.50 per share, as well as in the secondary market. The defendants in the actions include Iridium, certain of its officers and directors, Motorola, Inc. (an investor in Iridium) and the lead underwriters in the offering, including Goldman, Sachs & Co. On May 13, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging substantively identical claims as the original complaints. On July 15, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and by a decision dated August 31, 2004, the motion was denied. The complaints in both actions allege violations of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seek compensatory and/or rescissory damages. Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote 996,500 shares of common stock and Goldman Sachs International underwrote 320,625 shares of common stock for a total offering price of approximately $44 million.

On August 13, 1999, Iridium World Communications, Ltd. filed for protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

29

World Online Litigation

Several lawsuits have been commenced in the Netherlands courts based on alleged misstatements and omissions relating to the initial public offering of World Online in March 2000. Goldman Sachs and ABN AMRO Rothschild served as joint global coordinators of the approximately €2.9 billion offering. Goldman Sachs International underwrote 20,268,846 shares and Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote 6,756,282 shares for a total offering price of approximately €1.16 billion.

On September 11, 2000, several Dutch World Online shareholders as well as a Dutch entity purporting to represent the interests of certain World Online shareholders commenced a proceeding in Amsterdam District Court against “ABN AMRO Bank N.V., also acting under the name of ABN AMRO Rothschild,” alleging misrepresentations and omissions relating to the initial public offering of World Online. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, the return of the purchase price of the shares purchased by the plaintiffs or unspecified damages. By a decision dated May 7, 2003, the court held that the claims failed and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed, and by a decision dated October 7, 2004, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the complaint.

In March 2001, a Dutch shareholders association initiated legal proceedings in Amsterdam District Court in connection with the World Online offering. Goldman Sachs International is named as a defendant in the writ served on its Dutch attorneys on March 14, 2001. The amount of damages sought is not specified in the writ. Goldman Sachs International filed its Statement of Defense on January 16, 2002 and a rejoinder on January 14, 2003. By a decision dated December 17, 2003, the court rejected the claims against Goldman Sachs International, but found World Online liable in an amount to be determined. On March 12, 2004, the Dutch shareholders association appealed from the dismissal of their claims against Goldman Sachs International.

Owens Corning Bondholder Litigation

Goldman, Sachs & Co. has been named as a defendant in a purported class action filed on April 27, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from a 1998 offering by Owens Corning of two series of its notes. The defendants include certain of Owens Corning’s officers and directors and the underwriters for the offering (including Goldman, Sachs & Co., which was the lead manager in the offering). The offering included a total of $550 million principal amount of notes, of which Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote $275 million.

The lawsuit, brought by certain institutional purchasers of the notes, alleges that the prospectus issued in connection with the offering was false and misleading in violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified damages. The underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on November 14, 2001. By a decision dated August 26, 2002, the federal district court denied the underwriter defendants’ motion to dismiss, and by a decision dated March 9, 2004 granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On October 5, 2000, Owens Corning filed for protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

Research Independence Matters

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its affiliates, together with other financial services firms, have received requests for information from various governmental agencies in connection with their review of research independence issues, including the New York State Attorney General, the Utah Attorney General, the NYSE (which has issued a joint inquiry together with the SEC and NASD), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with the requests.

On April 28, 2003, a final global settlement relating to investment research analysts’ alleged conflicts of interest and involving various of the leading securities firms operating in the United States, including The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.’s U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary Goldman, Sachs &

30

Co., was announced. In that connection, without admitting or denying the allegations, findings or conclusions by various federal and state regulators, Goldman Sachs entered into consents, agreements and other definitive documentation with the SEC, the NYSE, the NASD and the Utah Division of Securities, to resolve their investigations of Goldman, Sachs & Co. relating to those matters. Pursuant to the final arrangements, Goldman, Sachs & Co. agreed, among other things, to (i) pay an aggregate of $25 million as penalties, (ii) pay an aggregate of $25 million as disgorgement of commissions and other monies, (iii) contribute an aggregate of $50 million over five years to provide independent third-party research to clients, (iv) contribute an aggregate of $10 million over five years for investor education, (v) adopt various additional policies, systems, procedures and other safeguards to ensure further the integrity of Goldman, Sachs & Co. investment research and (vi) be permanently restrained and enjoined from violating certain rules of the NYSE and the NASD relating to investment research activities. In connection with the global settlement, Goldman, Sachs & Co. also subscribed to a voluntary initiative imposing restrictions on the allocation of shares in initial public offerings to executives and directors of public companies. In connection with effectuation of the global settlement, in a civil action brought by the SEC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the settling firms, including Goldman, Sachs & Co., on October 31, 2003, the court entered a final judgment imposing the permanent restraint and injunction. In addition, Goldman, Sachs & Co. has entered into settlement stipulations with all 50 states and certain U.S. territories in connection with the global settlement. Current or future civil lawsuits implicating investment research analysts’ conflicts of interest were not settled as part of the global settlement. The global settlement also did not resolve potential charges involving individual employees, including supervisors, and regulatory investigations are continuing.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of several investment firms that have been named as defendants in substantively identical purported class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with research coverage of certain issuers and seeking compensatory damages. In one such action, relating to coverage of RSL Communications, Inc. commenced on July 5, 2003, Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss the complaint on January 13, 2004, and the motion was denied by a decision dated May 21, 2004. On November 9, 2004, plaintiffs moved for class certification. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is also a defendant in several actions relating to coverage of Exodus Communications, Inc. that commenced beginning in May 2003. The actions were consolidated, and on March 15, 2004, Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss.

A purported shareholder derivative action was filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County on June 13, 2003 against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its board of directors, which, as amended, alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the firm’s research as well as the firm’s IPO allocations practices. An amended complaint was filed on March 3, 2004.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Henry M. Paulson, Jr. have been named as defendants in a purported class action filed on July 18, 2003 and now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. stock from July 1, 1999 through May  7, 2002. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated the federal securities laws in connection with the firm’s research activities. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and/or rescission. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 30, 2004.

On June 23, 2003, the West Virginia Attorney General filed an action against all of the settling securities firms in West Virginia Circuit Court, Marshall County, alleging violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act in connection with their research activities and seeking monetary penalties. On August 25, 2003, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to disqualify the private law firms retained by the Attorney General in connection with the action. On May 6, 2004, the circuit court denied the motion to disqualify the private law firms. On July 23, 2004,

31

the circuit court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss but certified the matter to the West Virginia Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act applies to the alleged activities. The West Virginia Supreme Court accepted the appeal by order dated January 19, 2005.

Enron Litigation Matters

Goldman Sachs affiliates are defendants in certain actions arising relating to Enron Corp., which filed for protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws on December 2, 2001.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and co-managing underwriters have been named as defendants in certain purported securities class and individual actions commenced beginning on December 14, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and California Superior Court brought by purchasers of $222,500,000 of Exchangeable Notes of Enron Corp. in August 1999. The notes were mandatorily exchangeable in 2002 into shares of Enron Oil & Gas Company held by Enron Corp. or their cash equivalent. The complaints also name as defendants certain past and present officers and directors of Enron Corp. and the company’s outside accounting firm. The complaints generally allege violations of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and/or state law, and seek compensatory damages. Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote $111,250,000 principal amount of the notes. Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss the class action complaint in the Texas federal court on March 15, 2004.

Several funds which allegedly sustained investment losses of approximately $125 million in connection with secondary market purchases of the Exchangeable Notes as well as Zero Coupon Convertible Notes of Enron Corp. commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 16, 2002. As amended, the lawsuit names as defendants the underwriters of the August 1999 offering, the company’s outside accounting firm, various former officers and directors of Enron Corp., as well as other financial services firms, and alleges violations of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws, fraud and misrepresentation. By an Order dated June 24, 2002, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring that action to the Texas federal district court for purposes of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with other matters relating to Enron Corp. On March 20, 2002, Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss the complaint. By a decision dated December 10, 2003, the motion was granted in part and denied in part; Goldman, Sachs & Co. has sought clarification and reconsideration of the decision.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. have been named as defendants in two substantively identical purported class actions filed on June 5, 2003 in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, on behalf of former shareholders of Portland General Corporation. The complaints generally allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with Portland General’s 1997 merger with Enron Corp., in respect of which Goldman, Sachs & Co. acted as financial advisor to Portland General. The defendants also include Arthur Andersen, LLP, Andersen-U.S., and certain former officers and directors of Portland General. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages. In July 2003, defendants removed the actions to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, and the actions have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated proceedings with other actions relating to Enron Corp. On February 25, 2004, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss the action, and on August 5, 2004, the federal district court granted the motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the actions to state court. On October 14, 2004, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, and on November 10, 2004, the motion was denied.

On September 26, 2003, Enron North America Corp. commenced an adversary proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York against Goldman Sachs Capital Markets, L.P., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its predecessor, The Goldman Sachs Group,

32

L.P., seeking to recover approximately $45 million and other unspecified damages in connection with the early termination in late 2001 of an agreement for the trading of over-the-counter derivatives between Enron North America Corp. and Goldman Sachs Capital Markets, L.P., whose obligations under the agreement were allegedly guaranteed by The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. In addition, on November 26, 2003, Enron Corp. filed an adversary proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against J. Aron & Company seeking to avoid certain guarantees issued by Enron Corp. in favor of J. Aron & Company allegedly guaranteeing obligations of Enron North America Corp. to J. Aron & Company. An agreement in principle has been reached to resolve both of these adversary proceedings.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is among numerous defendants in two substantively identical actions filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in November 2003 seeking to recover as fraudulent transfers and/or preferences payments made by Enron Corp. in repurchasing its commercial paper shortly before its bankruptcy filing. Goldman, Sachs & Co., which had acted as a commercial paper dealer for Enron Corp., resold to Enron Corp. approximately $30 million of commercial paper as principal, and as an agent facilitated Enron Corp.’s repurchase of additional commercial paper from various customers who have also been named as defendants. Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss the complaints on February 19, 2004.

Exodus Securities Litigation

By an amended complaint dated July 11, 2002, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and the other lead underwriters for the February 2001 offering of 13,000,000 shares of common stock and $575,000,000 of 5 1/4% convertible subordinated notes of Exodus Communications, Inc. were added as defendants in a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, which also names as defendants certain officers and directors of Exodus Communications, Inc., alleges violations of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seeks compensatory damages. On October 23, 2002, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. By a decision dated August 19, 2003, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to replead, and the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 15, 2004. On March 12, 2004, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint. Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote 5,200,000 shares of common stock for a total offering price of approximately $96,200,000, and $230,000,000 principal amount of the notes.

On September 26, 2001, Exodus Communications, Inc. filed for protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

Montana Power Shareholders Litigation

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. have been named as defendants in a purported class action commenced originally on October 1, 2001 in Montana District Court, Second Judicial District on behalf of shareholders of Montana Power Company. The complaint generally alleges that Montana Power Company violated Montana law by failing to procure shareholder approval of certain corporate strategies and transactions, that the company’s board breached its fiduciary duties in pursuing those strategies and transactions, and that Goldman, Sachs & Co. aided and abetted the board’s breaches and rendered negligent advice in its role as financial advisor to the company. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. In addition to Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., the defendants include Montana Power Company, certain of its officers and directors, an outside law firm for the Montana Power Company, and certain companies that purchased assets from Montana Power Company and its affiliates. The Montana state court denied motions to dismiss by a decision dated August 1, 2002. On July 18, 2003, following the bankruptcies of certain defendants in the action, defendants removed the action to federal court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division.

33

On October 26, 2004, a creditors’ committee of Touch America Holdings, Inc. brought an action against Goldman, Sachs & Co., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and a former outside law firm for Montana Power Company in Montana District Court, Second Judicial District. The complaint asserts that Touch America Holdings, Inc. is the successor to Montana Power Corporation and alleges substantially the same claims as in the purported class action. Defendants removed the action to the federal district court on November 19, 2004. On January 14, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

WorldCom Bondholders Litigation

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and other underwriters of WorldCom, Inc. bonds have been named as defendants in certain purported securities class and individual actions commenced beginning in June 2002 alleging that the offering materials issued in connection with certain securities offerings were false and misleading. Certain of the lawsuits (some of which were originally filed in various state courts and removed to federal court) have been transferred by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and similar requests for transfer are pending in other actions. Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote $75,000,000 principal amount out of a total principal amount of $5,000,000,000 of notes in a May 24, 2000 offering. Among the defendants in these actions in addition to the underwriters are WorldCom, Inc., certain of WorldCom, Inc.’s present or former officers and/or directors, and/or WorldCom, Inc.’s outside accounting firm. Each of these actions seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. The district court denied the underwriter defendants’ motion to dismiss by a decision dated May 19, 2003 and granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification by an order dated October 24, 2003. On August 20, 2004, the underwriter defendants moved for summary judgment and plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment as to liability. By a decision dated December 15, 2004, the district court granted in part and denied in part the motions.

On May 10, 2004, plaintiffs entered into a definitive settlement agreement with Citicorp, Inc. and certain related parties, including as to claims asserted against such parties in respect of the 2000 offering in which Goldman, Sachs & Co. participated as a member of the syndicate. The settlement, pursuant to which the settling defendants have agreed to pay $2.65 billion (subsequently reduced to $2.575 billion), was approved by a decision dated November 12, 2004. The settlement does not resolve claims against the balance of the syndicate, including Goldman, Sachs & Co.

On July 21, 2002, WorldCom, Inc. filed for protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing Securities Litigation

Goldman, Sachs & Co. has been named as a defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to various securities offerings by Global Crossing, Ltd. and Asia Global Crossing Ltd. in which Goldman, Sachs & Co. acted as an underwriter. The claims had originally been asserted in separate actions, reflected in an amended complaint filed on January 28, 2003 as to Global Crossing, Ltd. and in a complaint filed on November 8, 2002 as to Asia Global Crossing Ltd., but the claims were consolidated into a single amended complaint on August 11, 2003, which was further amended on March 22, 2004 (including to drop The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. as a defendant). The consolidated action includes claims relating to Global Crossing, Ltd.’s concurrent April 2000 offerings of 43 million shares of common stock at $33 per share and 4.6 million shares (including the overallotment) of 6 3/4% cumulative preferred stock at $250 per share, as well as Asia Global Crossing Ltd.’s October 2000 initial public offering of 68,500,000 shares (including the overallotment) of common stock at a price of $7 per share. Goldman, Sachs & Co. acted as a co-lead underwriter of both Global Crossing, Ltd. offerings, underwriting 12.9 million shares of common stock and 1,840,000 shares of convertible preferred stock. Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote 20,670,000 shares of common stock in the Asia Global Crossing Ltd. offering for a total offering price of approximately $145 million. The claims assert

34

violations of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws as to such offerings and seek compensatory and/or rescissory damages. The defendants as to such claims include certain officers and directors of Global Crossing, Ltd. and Asia Global Crossing Ltd. (who have since settled the claims against them), the lead and other underwriters in the offerings, and the company’s former outside auditors. On April 21, 2003, the underwriter defendants as to the Global Crossing, Ltd. offerings moved to dismiss the claims relating to such offerings; the motion was denied in significant part by a decision dated December 18, 2003. On July 23, 2004, the underwriter defendants as to the Asia Global Crossing Ltd. offering moved to dismiss the claims relating to that offering.

Global Crossing, Ltd. filed for protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws on January 28, 2002, and Asia Global Crossing Ltd. filed for such protection on November 17, 2002.

Adelphia Communications Fraudulent Conveyance Litigations

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is among numerous entities named as defendants in two adversary proceedings commenced in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, one on July 6, 2003 by a creditors’ committee, and the second on or about July 31, 2003 by an equity committee of Adelphia Communications, Inc. The nearly identical complaints seek, among other things, to recover, as fraudulent conveyances, payments made allegedly by Adelphia Communications, Inc. and its affiliates to certain brokerage firms, including approximately $62.9 million allegedly paid to Goldman, Sachs & Co., in respect of margin calls made in the ordinary course of business on accounts owned by members of the family that formerly controlled Adelphia Communications, Inc.

Specialist Matters

Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC (SLKS) and certain affiliates have received requests for information from the SEC, the NYSE and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as part of an industry-wide investigation relating to activities of NYSE floor specialists in recent years. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with the requests.

On March 30, 2004, a final global settlement with the SEC and the NYSE was announced covering certain activities during the years 1999 through 2003 of certain specialist firms on the NYSE, including SLKS. Without admitting or denying the allegations, SLKS and the other specialist firms entered into settlements to resolve these SEC and NYSE investigations of the firms with respect to those activities. The SLKS settlement involves, among other things, (i) findings by the SEC and the NYSE that SLKS violated certain federal securities laws and NYSE rules, and in some cases failed to supervise certain individual specialists, in connection with trades that allegedly disadvantaged customer orders, (ii) a cease and desist order against SLKS, (iii) a censure of SLKS, (iv) SLKS’ agreement to pay an aggregate of $45.3 million in disgorgement and a penalty to be used to compensate customers, (v) certain undertakings with respect to SLKS’ systems and procedures, and (vi) SLKS’ retention of an independent consultant to review and evaluate certain of SLKS’ compliance systems, policies and procedures. Comparable findings were made and sanctions imposed in the settlements with other specialist firms. The settlement did not resolve the related private civil actions against SLKS and other firms or regulatory investigations involving individuals.

SLKS, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. are among numerous defendants named in purported class actions brought on behalf of investors beginning in October 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in connection with NYSE floor specialist activities. The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and sellers of unspecified securities between October 17, 1998 and October 15, 2003. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on September 16, 2004, and on November 16, 2004, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

35

Treasury Matters

On September 4, 2003, the SEC announced that Goldman, Sachs & Co. had settled an administrative proceeding arising from certain trading in U.S. Treasury bonds over an approximately eight-minute period after Goldman, Sachs & Co. received an October 31, 2001 telephone call from a Washington, D.C.-based political consultant concerning a forthcoming Treasury refunding announcement. The administrative complaint alleged that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (i) violated Section 15(c)(1) and Rule 15c1-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of the trading; and (ii) violated Section 15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to maintain policies and procedures specifically addressed to the possible misuse of information obtained by consultants from confidential government sources. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Goldman, Sachs & Co. consented to the entry of an order that, among other things, (i) censured Goldman, Sachs & Co.; (ii) directed Goldman, Sachs & Co. to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Section 15(c)(1)(A) & (C) and 15(f) of, and Rule 15c1-2 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (iii) ordered Goldman, Sachs & Co. to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,742,642, and a civil monetary penalty of $5 million; and (iv) directed Goldman, Sachs & Co. to conduct a review of its policies and procedures and adopt, implement and maintain policies and procedures consistent with the order and that review. Goldman, Sachs & Co. also undertook to pay $2,562,740 in disgorgement and interest relating to certain trading in U.S. Treasury bond futures during the same eight-minute period.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. has been named as a defendant in a purported class action filed on March 10, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of holders of short positions in 30-year U.S. Treasury futures and options on the morning of October 31, 2001. The complaint alleges that the firm purchased 30-year bonds and futures prior to the Treasury’s refunding announcement that morning based on non-public information about that announcement, and that such purchases increased the costs of covering such short positions. The complaint also names as defendants the Washington, D.C.-based political consultant who allegedly was the source of the information, a former Goldman, Sachs & Co. economist who allegedly received the information, and another company and one of its employees who also allegedly received and traded on the information prior to its public announcement. The complaint alleges violations of the federal commodities and antitrust laws, as well as Illinois statutory and common law, and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages including treble damages under the antitrust laws. On June 28, 2004, Goldman, Sachs & Co. moved to dismiss the complaint.

Mutual Fund Matters

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and certain mutual fund affiliates have received subpoenas and requests for information from various regulators including the SEC as part of the industry-wide investigation relating to the practices of mutual funds and their customers. Goldman, Sachs & Co. and its affiliates are cooperating with such requests.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and various asset management affiliates and employees have been named as defendants in several putative consolidated class and derivative actions commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in April 2004 by purported shareholders of certain Goldman Sachs mutual funds. The consolidated complaint also names as nominal defendants certain of the Goldman Sachs family of mutual funds. The cases are brought on behalf of all persons or entities which held shares in these mutual funds between April 2, 1999 and January 9, 2004, and allege violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and common law breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Goldman Sachs charged the mutual funds improper Rule 12b-1 fees, paid excessive brokerage commissions and made other undisclosed payments to brokers in exchange for selling shares of the mutual funds, and made untrue statements of material fact in registration statements and reports filed pursuant to the Investment Company Act. The complaint further alleges that the funds’ trustees, officers and directors breached

36

their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to prevent such violations. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages; rescission of the funds’ investment advisory agreements with Goldman Sachs and recovery of fees paid; an accounting of all fund-related fees, commissions and other payments; restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily-obtained fees and charges; and costs and expenses incurred in connection with these lawsuits.

There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of our fiscal year ended November 26, 2004.

37

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

Set forth below are the name, age, present title, principal occupation and certain biographical information for our executive officers as of February 1, 2005, all of whom have been appointed by and serve at the pleasure of our board of directors.

Henry M. Paulson, Jr., 58

Mr. Paulson has been our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since May 1999, and a director since August 1998. He was Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer or Co-Chief Executive Officer of The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P., our predecessor, from June 1998 to May 1999, and served as Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998. Mr. Paulson is not on the board of any public company other than Goldman Sachs. He is affiliated with certain non-profit organizations, including as a member of the Board of Directors of Catalyst. He also serves on the Advisory Board of the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University and is a member of the Board of the Dean’s Advisors of the Harvard Business School. Mr. Paulson is a member of the Advisory Board of the Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management and a member of the Governing Board of the Indian School of Business. He is also Chairman of the Board of Governors of The Nature Conservancy, Co-Chairman of the Asia/Pacific Council of The Nature Conservancy and Chairman Emeritus of The Peregrine Fund, Inc.

Lloyd C. Blankfein, 50

Mr. Blankfein has been our President and Chief Operating Officer since January 2004, and a director since April 2003. Prior to that, from April 2002 until January 2004, he was a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs, with management responsibility for the FICC Division and the Equities Division. Prior to becoming a Vice Chairman, he had been Co-Head of FICC since its formation in 1997. From 1994 until then, he headed or co-headed the J. Aron Currency and Commodities Division. Mr. Blankfein is not on the board of any public company other than Goldman Sachs. He is affiliated with certain non-profit organizations, including as Chairman of the Harvard University Financial Aid Task Force and as a member of the Executive Committee of the Harvard University Committee on University Resources, the Board of Trustees of the New York Historical Society, the Board of Overseers of the Weill Medical College of Cornell University and the Board of Directors of the Partnership for New York City and The Robin Hood Foundation.

Alan M. Cohen, 54

Mr. Cohen has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs and our Global Head of Compliance since February 2004. From 1991 until January 2004, he was a partner in the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP. Mr. Cohen is also affiliated with the Chelsea Piers Scholarship Fund, a non-profit organization.

Edward C. Forst, 44

Mr. Forst has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs and our Chief Administrative Officer since February 2004. Prior to that, he was our Chief of Staff for FICC from November 2003 to February 2004 (after having served in that position earlier from July 2000 to March 2002), our Chief of Staff for the Equities Division from August 2003 to February 2004, and Co-Head of Global Credit Markets in FICC from March 2002 to August 2003. Prior to July 2000, Mr. Forst served as Co-Head of our Global Bank Debt business. Mr. Forst serves as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Bond Market Association and is currently its Chairman-elect, with his term as Chairman beginning as of July 1, 2005. He also serves as a corporation member of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a non-profit organization.

38

Robert S. Kaplan, 47

Mr. Kaplan has been a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs since April 2002. He served as global Co-Head of the Investment Banking Division from 1999 through April 2002 and was Co-Chief Operating Officer of global Investment Banking from 1998 to 1999. He became Head of the Americas Corporate Finance Department in 1994. Previously, he had been Head of Asia-Pacific Investment Banking from 1990 through 1993. Mr. Kaplan is a Director of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., which is a public company. In addition, he is affiliated with certain non-profit organizations, including as Co-Chairman of the Board of The TEAK Fellowship, Co-Chairman of the Board of Project A.L.S. and a Director of the Harvard Medical School, the Harvard Center for Neurodegeneration and Repair, The Jewish Theological Seminary and The Jewish Museum.

Kevin W. Kennedy, 56

Mr. Kennedy has been our Executive Vice President — Human Capital Management since December 2001. From 1999 until 2001, he served as a member of the Executive Office. From 1994 to 1999, he served as Head of the Americas Group, in the Investment Banking Division, and, from 1988 to 1994, as Head of Corporate Finance. Mr. Kennedy is a life trustee and a former Chairman of the Board of Hamilton College, a Managing Director and Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of the Metropolitan Opera, a trustee of the New York Public Library, a member of the Board of Directors of the Wallace Foundation and an honorary trustee of the Chewonki Foundation.

Suzanne M. Nora Johnson, 47

Ms. Nora Johnson has been a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs since November 2004. She has served as chairman of the Global Market Institute since April 2004 and has headed our Global Investment Research Division since February 2002. Ms. Nora Johnson served as head of our global healthcare business in the Investment Banking Division from 1994 to 2002. She also serves on the boards of The Goldman Sachs Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the University of Southern California, RAND Health, Technoserve, Children Now and Women’s World Banking, and is on an advisory council of Harvard Medical School.

Gregory K. Palm, 56

Mr. Palm has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs since May 1999, and our General Counsel and Head or Co-Head of the Legal Department since May 1992.

Esta E. Stecher, 47

Ms. Stecher has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs and our General Counsel and Co-Head of the Legal Department since December 2000. From 1994 to 2000, she was Head of the firm’s Tax Department, over which she continues to have senior oversight responsibility. She is also a trustee of Columbia University and a member of the Board of Directors of the Securities Industry Association.

David A. Viniar, 49

Mr. Viniar has been an Executive Vice President of Goldman Sachs and our Chief Financial Officer since May 1999. He has been the Head of Operations, Technology and Finance Division since December 2002. He was Head of the Finance Division and Co-Head of Credit Risk Management and Advisory and Firmwide Risk from December 2001 to December 2002. Mr. Viniar was Co-Head of Operations, Finance and Resources from March 1999 to December 2001. He was Chief Financial Officer of The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. from March 1999 to May 1999. From July 1998 until March 1999, he was Deputy Chief Financial Officer and from 1994 until July 1998, he was Head of Finance, with responsibility for Controllers and Treasury. From 1992 to 1994, he was Head of Treasury and prior to that was in the Structured Finance Department of Investment Banking. He also serves on the Board of Trustees of Union College.

39

PART II

The principal market on which our common stock is traded is the NYSE. Information relating to the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock, as reported by the Consolidated Tape Association, for each full quarterly period during fiscal 2003 and 2004 is set forth under the caption “Supplemental Financial Information — Common Stock Price Range” in Part II, Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K. As of January 28, 2005, there were 5,660 holders of record of our common stock.

During fiscal 2003 and 2004, dividends of $0.12 per share of common stock were declared on December 18, 2002 and March 19, 2003, and dividends of $0.25 per share of common stock were declared on June 24, 2003, September 22, 2003, December 17, 2003, March 22, 2004, June 21, 2004 and September 20, 2004. The holders of our common stock share proportionately on a per share basis in all dividends and other distributions declared by our board of directors.

The declaration of dividends by Goldman Sachs is subject to the discretion of our board of directors. Our board of directors will take into account such matters as general business conditions, our financial results, capital requirements, contractual, legal and regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends by us to our shareholders or by our subsidiaries to us, the effect on our debt ratings and such other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant. See “Business — Regulation” in Part I, Item 1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of potential regulatory limitations on our receipt of funds from our regulated subsidiaries.

40

The table below sets forth the information with respect to purchases made by or on behalf of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. or any “affiliated purchaser” (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) of our common stock during the fourth quarter of our fiscal year ended November 26, 2004.

Information relating to compensation plans under which equity securities of the Registrant are authorized for issuance is set forth in Part III, Item 12 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Selected Financial Data table is set forth in Part II, Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form  10-K.

41

INDEX

42

Introduction

Goldman Sachs is a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a wide range of services worldwide to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.

Our activities are divided into three segments:

Unless specifically stated otherwise, all references to 2004, 2003 and 2002 refer to our fiscal years ended, or the dates, as the context requires, November 26, 2004, November 28, 2003 and November 29, 2002, respectively.

When we use the terms “Goldman Sachs,” “we,” “us” and “our,” we mean The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries. References herein to the Annual Report on Form 10-K are to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 26, 2004.

In this discussion, we have included statements that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts but instead represent only our beliefs regarding future events, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and beyond our control. These statements relate to our future plans and objectives, among other things. By identifying these statements for you in this manner, we are alerting you to the possibility that our actual results may differ, possibly materially, from the results indicated in these forward-looking statements. Important factors, among others, that could cause our results to differ, possibly materially, from those indicated in the forward-looking statements are discussed below under “— Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” as well as “Business — Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” in Part I, Item 1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Executive Overview

Our diluted earnings per share were $8.92 for 2004, a 52% increase compared with 2003. Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity was 25.2% ⁽¹⁾ and return on average shareholders’ equity was 19.8%. Our results in 2004 reflected strong growth in Trading and Principal Investments, Asset Management and Securities Services, and Investment Banking. The increase in Trading and

43

Principal Investments reflected significantly higher net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities (FICC), as all major businesses and regions performed well in a generally favorable environment. Net revenues in our Principal Investments business also increased significantly, due to an unrealized gain on our investment in the convertible preferred stock of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. (SMFG), as well as gains from other corporate principal investments. In addition, Equities net revenues improved, primarily reflecting higher customer-driven activity and favorable market conditions early in 2004, but results remained below the peak levels achieved in 2001 and 2000. Equities operated in a less favorable environment after our first fiscal quarter of 2004, as volatility levels continued to decline and markets generally lacked direction before moving higher in the last several weeks of our fiscal year. Asset Management and Securities Services generated strong net revenue growth, primarily reflecting higher average assets under management, increased incentive fees and significantly higher customer balances in Securities Services. In Investment Banking, net revenues increased for the first time in three years, highlighted by strong growth in our Financial Advisory and Equity Underwriting businesses, primarily reflecting an increase in industry-wide corporate activity. Our investment banking backlog at the end of 2004 was higher than at the end of 2003.⁽²⁾

Our operating results in 2004 reflected improvement in the economic environment as well as a number of trends that have emerged in recent years. We continued to see increased trading and investing opportunities for our clients and ourselves in 2004 and, consequently, we increased our market risk during the year to capitalize on these opportunities. Our Investment Banking results reflected our best performance in three years as corporate activity began to recover, although competitive pressures remained. In our Equities business, although our results were higher compared with 2003 as customer-driven activity improved, commission rates continued to decline and demands for us to commit capital remained significant. In the regulatory environment, financial services firms continued to be under intense scrutiny, with the scope of such scrutiny unabated in the last year. Consequently, the volume and amount of claims against financial institutions and other related costs remained significant in 2004. Given the range of litigation and investigations presently under way, our litigation expenses can be expected to remain high.

Though our operating results were strong in 2004, our business, by its nature, does not produce predictable earnings. Our results in any given period can be materially affected by conditions in global financial markets and economic conditions generally. For a further discussion of these trends and other factors affecting our businesses, see “— Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” included below as well as “Business — Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” in Part I, Item 1 of the Annual Report on Form  10-K.

Business Environment

As an investment banking, securities and investment management firm, our businesses are materially affected by conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally, both in the United States and elsewhere around the world. A favorable business environment is generally characterized by low inflation, low and declining interest rates, and strong equity markets. Over the business cycle, these factors provide a positive climate for our investment banking activities, for many of our trading businesses and for wealth creation, which contributes to growth in our asset management business. Although geopolitical uncertainty continued and inflation was slightly higher, interest rates, although rising, remained low, merger activity improved, and global equity prices, although spending much of the year in a fairly narrow range, generally increased. For a further discussion of how market conditions can affect our businesses, see “— Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” included below as well as “Business — Certain Factors That May Affect Our

44

Business” in Part I, Item 1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K. A further discussion of the business environment in 2004 is set forth below.

Global. After improving during the second half of 2003, growth in the global economy continued to improve during 2004, with worldwide real gross domestic product in the calendar year growing at one of its highest rates in the last twenty years. The pace of growth was particularly strong in the first half of 2004, but slowed throughout the remainder of the year. The Japanese economy grew very strongly early in 2004 but slowed significantly after the first quarter. After rising early in our fiscal year, global equity markets spent much of the year in a fairly narrow range, but many of the major markets rallied beginning in late October, leading to solid gains over the year. Although the U.S. Federal Reserve began to raise its federal funds rate target in June 2004, fixed income markets generally performed well, as long-term bond yields ended the year close to, or below the levels at the beginning of the year, and corporate credit spreads remained tight. In the currency markets, the U.S. dollar weakened further against the major currencies, though the weakening was generally smaller than in 2003 and occurred largely at the end of our fiscal year. Corporate activity, as measured by industry-wide completed and announced mergers and acquisitions as well as equity underwriting volumes, increased significantly during the year, reflecting the continued economic recovery and strengthening equity markets. In addition, industry-wide debt origination volumes remained strong.

United States. The U.S. economy grew at a strong pace during the year. Real gross domestic product in the 2004 calendar year rose by approximately 4.4%. Although quarterly growth fell from the very high level seen in the third quarter of 2003, it remained strong throughout the year. A brief softening in consumer spending led to a decline in quarterly real gross domestic product growth during the second calendar quarter, but the pace of economic growth appears to have accelerated again in subsequent quarters. Strong economic and productivity growth contributed to strong corporate profit growth during the year. Inflation increased throughout the year. In response to the improving environment and rising inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate target by 25 basis points in June, and subsequently raised rates a further 75 basis points by the end of our fiscal year to 2.0%. Despite rising short-term interest rates, long-term yields moved higher only briefly, for several months around midyear, and ended the year close to levels at the beginning of the year. With the U.S. dollar weakening further, financial conditions remained supportive of economic activity. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500 Index and the Nasdaq Composite Index increased 8%, 12% and 7%, respectively, during our fiscal year.

Europe. Economic conditions improved in Europe during 2004. Real gross domestic product growth in the Eurozone economies rose to approximately 1.8% in the 2004 calendar year, a significant improvement from the previous two years, as domestic demand rose and export performance improved. Growth in the Eurozone economies appears to have been stronger in the first half of the year than the second half of the year, as consumer spending slowed from the strong first quarter, and the strengthening euro, in part, restrained economic activity later in the year. The European Central Bank left interest rates unchanged through the year, but long-term bond yields fell significantly in response to signs of softer economic activity and the sharp rise in the euro in late 2004. The U.K. economy recorded strong growth in 2004, though real gross domestic product growth slowed significantly during the third quarter. After starting to raise interest rates in November 2003, the Bank of England raised interest rates during 2004 by 100 basis points. The FTSE 100 Index increased 9% during our fiscal year.

Asia. Japan’s economy grew very strongly in early 2004, though the pace of growth slowed significantly after the first calendar quarter, as investment spending and export growth slowed. Despite slowing after the first quarter, consumer spending growth remained strong through much of 2004 and corporate profitability continued to improve. The Bank of Japan continued to provide substantial liquidity to the market and continued to hold short-term interest rates at zero percent through the year. The Ministry of Finance ceased intervention to support the Japanese yen in March 2004 and the yen remained generally strong. Bond yields rose significantly in the middle of

45

the year but subsequently declined in line with global trends, while the Nikkei 225 Index increased 7% during our fiscal year.

Growth in other Asian economies remained very strong in 2004, reflecting strong global demand growth, though the pace of economic growth appears to have peaked in many economies around the middle of the year. China’s growth generally remained firm, though the pace of growth slowed in the middle of the year, as administrative measures to slow certain parts of the economy had a dampening effect on investment spending. Inflation generally rose throughout the year and, in October, the Central Bank of China increased interest rates for the first time since July 1995, raising its benchmark lending rate by 27 basis points.

Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business

We face a variety of risks that are substantial and inherent in our businesses, including market, credit, liquidity, operational, legal and regulatory risks. For a discussion of how management seeks to manage some of these risks, see “— Risk Management” included below. A summary of some of the important factors that could affect our business follows below. For a further discussion of these and other important factors that could affect our business, see “Business — Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” in Part I, Item 1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Market Conditions and Market Risk. Our businesses are materially affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic conditions generally. Business conditions continued to improve in 2004, after improving somewhat during the second half of 2003: the number and size of equity underwritings and completed mergers and acquisitions transactions increased significantly in 2004, after declining for three straight years, and fixed income origination levels remained strong; fixed income market conditions remained generally favorable, as interest rates, although rising, remained low by historical standards, and corporate credit spreads remained narrow; and in the global equity markets, although volatility levels and commission rates continued to decline, price levels and volumes were generally stronger.

Adverse or uncertain economic and market conditions have in the past adversely affected, and may in the future adversely affect, our business and profitability in many ways, including the following:

46

Credit Risk. We are exposed to the risk that third parties that owe us money, securities or other assets will not perform their obligations. These parties may default on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons. We are also subject to the risk that our rights against third parties may not be enforceable in all circumstances. The amount and duration of our credit exposures have been increasing over the past several years, as has the breadth of the entities to which we have credit exposure. As a clearing member firm, we finance our customer positions and we could be held responsible for the defaults or misconduct of our customers. In addition, we have experienced, due to competitive factors, pressure to extend credit and price more aggressively the credit risks we take. In particular, corporate clients sometimes seek to require credit commitments from us in connection with investment banking and other assignments. Although we regularly review credit exposures to specific clients and counterparties and to specific industries, countries and regions that we believe may present credit concerns, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect or foresee. In addition, concerns about, or a default by, one institution could lead to significant liquidity problems, losses or defaults by other institutions, which in turn could adversely affect Goldman Sachs.

Liquidity Risk. Liquidity is essential to our businesses. Our liquidity could be impaired by an inability to access secured and/or unsecured debt markets, an inability to access funds from our subsidiaries or an inability to sell assets. This situation may arise due to circumstances that we may be unable to control, such as a general market disruption or an operational problem that affects third parties or us. Further, our ability to sell assets may be impaired if other market participants are seeking to sell similar assets at the same time.

Our credit ratings are important to our liquidity. A reduction in our credit ratings could adversely affect our liquidity and competitive position, increase our borrowing costs, limit our access to the capital markets or trigger our obligations under certain bilateral provisions in some of our trading and collateralized financing contracts. Under such provisions, counterparties could be permitted to

47

terminate contracts with Goldman Sachs or require us to post additional collateral. Termination of our trading and collateralized financing contracts could cause us to sustain losses and impair our liquidity by requiring us to find other sources of financing or to make significant cash payments or securities movements. For a discussion of the potential impact on Goldman Sachs of a reduction in our credit ratings, see “— Capital and Funding — Credit Ratings” included below.

Operational Risk. Our businesses are highly dependent on our ability to process, on a daily basis, a large number of transactions across numerous and diverse markets in many currencies, and the transactions we process have become increasingly complex. Shortcomings or failures in our internal processes, people or systems could lead to, among other consequences, financial loss and reputational damage. In addition, despite the contingency plans we have in place, our ability to conduct business may be adversely impacted by a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our businesses and the communities in which we are located. This may include a disruption involving electrical, communications, transportation or other services used by Goldman Sachs or third parties with which we conduct business.

Legal and Regulatory Risk. Substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against Goldman Sachs could have material adverse financial effects or cause significant reputational harm to Goldman Sachs, which in turn could seriously harm our business prospects. Firms in the financial services industry have been operating in a difficult regulatory environment. We face significant legal risks in our businesses, and the volume of claims and amount of damages and penalties claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against financial institutions have been increasing. For a discussion of how we account for our legal and regulatory exposures, see “— Use of Estimates” included below.

Critical Accounting Policies

Fair Value

“Total financial instruments owned, at fair value” and “Financial instruments sold, but not yet purchased, at fair value” in the consolidated statements of financial condition consist of financial instruments carried at fair value or amounts that approximate fair value, with related unrealized gains or losses recognized in our results of operations. The use of fair value to measure these financial instruments, with related unrealized gains and losses recognized immediately in our results of operations, is fundamental to our financial statements and is our most critical accounting policy. The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount at which the instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale.

48

In determining fair value, we separate our financial instruments into three categories — cash (i.e., nonderivative) trading instruments, derivative contracts and principal investments, as set forth in the following table:

Financial Instruments by Category
(in millions)

Cash Trading Instruments. Fair values of our cash trading instruments are generally obtained from quoted market prices in active markets, broker or dealer price quotations, or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. The types of instruments valued in this manner include U.S. government and agency securities, other sovereign government obligations, liquid mortgage products, investment-grade corporate bonds, listed equities, money market securities, state, municipal and provincial obligations, and physical commodities.

Certain cash trading instruments trade infrequently and, therefore, have little or no price transparency. Such instruments may include certain high-yield debt, corporate bank loans, mortgage whole loans and distressed debt. We value these instruments using methodologies such as the present value of known or estimated cash flows and generally do not adjust underlying valuation assumptions unless there is substantive evidence supporting a change in the value of the underlying instrument or valuation assumptions (such as similar market transactions, changes in financial ratios and changes in credit ratings of the underlying companies).

49

The following table sets forth the valuation of our cash trading instruments by level of price transparency:

Cash Trading Instruments by Price Transparency
(in millions)

Cash trading instruments we own (long positions) are marked to bid prices and instruments we have sold but not yet purchased (short positions) are marked to offer prices. If liquidating a position is reasonably expected to affect its prevailing market price, our valuation is adjusted generally based on market evidence or predetermined policies. In certain circumstances, such as for highly illiquid positions, management’s estimates are used to determine this adjustment.

Derivative Contracts. Derivative contracts consist of exchange-traded and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. The following table sets forth the fair value of our exchange-traded and OTC derivative assets and liabilities:

Derivative Assets and Liabilities
(in millions)

50

Fair values of our exchange-traded derivatives are generally determined from quoted market prices. OTC derivatives are valued using valuation models. We use a variety of valuation models including the present value of known or estimated cash flows, option-pricing models and option-adjusted spread models. The valuation models that we use to derive the fair values of our OTC derivatives require inputs including contractual terms, market prices, yield curves, credit curves, measures of volatility, prepayment rates and correlations of such inputs. The selection of a model to value an OTC derivative depends upon the contractual terms of, and specific risks inherent in, the instrument as well as the availability of pricing information in the market. We generally use similar models to value similar instruments. Where possible, we verify the values produced by our pricing models to market transactions. For OTC derivatives that trade in liquid markets, such as generic forwards, swaps and options, model selection does not involve significant judgment because market prices are readily available. For OTC derivatives that trade in less liquid markets, model selection requires more judgment because such instruments tend to be more complex and pricing information is less available in the market. As markets continue to develop and more pricing information becomes available, we continue to review and refine the models that we use.

At the inception of an OTC derivative contract (day one), we value the contract at the model value if we can verify all of the significant model inputs to observable market data and verify the model to market transactions. When appropriate, valuations are adjusted to reflect various factors such as liquidity, bid/offer and credit considerations. These adjustments are generally based on market evidence or predetermined policies. In certain circumstances, such as for highly illiquid positions, management’s estimates are used to determine these adjustments.

Where we cannot verify all of the significant model inputs to observable market data and verify the model to market transactions, we value the contract at the transaction price at inception and, consequently, record no day one gain or loss in accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 02-3, “Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities.”

Following day one, we adjust the inputs to our valuation models only to the extent that changes in such inputs can be verified by similar market transactions, third-party pricing services and/or broker quotes or can be derived from other substantive evidence such as empirical market data. In circumstances where we cannot verify the model to market transactions, it is possible that a different valuation model could produce a materially different estimate of fair value.

51

The following tables set forth the fair values of our OTC derivative assets and liabilities by product and by remaining contractual maturity:

OTC Derivatives
(in millions)

We enter into certain OTC option transactions that provide us or our counterparties with the right to extend the maturity of the underlying contract. The fair value of these option contracts is not material to the aggregate fair value of our OTC derivative portfolio. In the tables above, for option contracts that require settlement by delivery of an underlying derivative instrument, the classification of the remaining contractual maturity is generally based upon the maturity date of the underlying derivative instrument. In those instances when the underlying instrument does not have a maturity date or either counterparty has the right to settle in cash, the remaining contractual maturity date is generally based upon the option expiration date.

52

Price transparency for OTC derivative model inputs varies depending on, among other factors, product type, maturity and the complexity of the contract. Price transparency for interest rate and currency contracts varies by the underlying currencies, with the currencies of the leading industrialized nations having the most price transparency. Price transparency for commodity contracts varies by type of underlying commodity. Price transparency for equity contracts varies by market, with the equity markets of the leading industrialized nations having the most price transparency. Price transparency is inherently more limited for more complex structures because they often combine one or more product types, requiring additional inputs such as correlations and volatilities.

Principal Investments. In valuing our corporate and real estate principal investments, we separate our portfolio into investments in private companies, investments in public companies (excluding our investment in the convertible preferred stock of SMFG) and our investment in SMFG.

The following table sets forth the carrying value of our principal investments portfolio:

Principal Investments
(in millions)

Our private principal investments, by their nature, have little or no price transparency. Such investments are initially carried at cost as an approximation of fair value. Adjustments to carrying value are made if there are third-party transactions evidencing a change in value. Downward adjustments are also made, in the absence of third-party transactions, if we determine that the expected realizable value of the investment is less than the carrying value. In reaching that determination, we consider many factors including, but not limited to, the operating cash flows and financial performance of the companies or properties relative to budgets or projections, trends within sectors and/or regions, underlying business models, expected exit timing and strategy, and any specific rights or terms associated with the investment, such as conversion features and liquidation preferences.

Our public principal investments, which tend to be large, concentrated holdings that result from initial public offerings or other corporate transactions, are valued using quoted market prices discounted for restrictions on sale. If liquidating a position is reasonably expected to affect market prices, valuations are adjusted accordingly based on predetermined written policies.

53

Our investment in the convertible preferred stock of SMFG is carried at fair value, which is derived from a model that incorporates SMFG’s common stock price and credit spreads, the impact of nontransferability and illiquidity and the downside protection on the conversion strike price. The fair value of our investment is particularly sensitive to movements in the SMFG common stock price. As a result of transfer restrictions and the downside protection on the conversion strike price, the relationship between changes in the fair value of our investment and changes in SMFG’s common stock price is nonlinear. During the fiscal year, the fair value of our investment increased 42% (expressed in Japanese yen), primarily due to an increase in the SMFG common stock price and the passage of time in respect of the transfer restrictions on the underlying common stock.

Goldman Sachs has the right to convert our preferred stock investment in SMFG into shares of SMFG common stock beginning on February 8, 2005. The current conversion price is ¥322,300, but this price is subject to downward adjustment if the price of SMFG common stock at the time of conversion is less than the conversion price (subject to a floor of ¥106,300). Our convertible preferred investment is generally nontransferable. One-third of the underlying shares of SMFG common stock will become transferable on February 8, 2005, with the remaining shares of common stock becoming transferable in equal installments on February 7, 2006 and February 7, 2007. In addition, restrictions on our ability to hedge the underlying common stock will lapse in three equal annual installments beginning on February 7, 2005.

Controls Over Valuation of Financial Instruments. Proper controls, independent of the trading and principal investing functions, are fundamental to ensuring that our financial instruments are appropriately and consistently valued and that fair value measurements are reliable. This is particularly important in valuing instruments with lower levels of price transparency.

We employ an oversight structure that includes appropriate segregation of duties. Senior management, independent of the trading functions, is responsible for the oversight of control and valuation policies and procedures and reporting the results of such work to the Audit Committee. We seek to maintain the necessary resources, with the appropriate experience and training, to ensure that control and independent price verification functions are performed to the highest standards. In addition, we employ procedures for the approval of new transaction types and markets, independent price verification, review of daily profit and loss, and review of valuation models by personnel with appropriate technical knowledge of relevant products and markets. For a further discussion of how we manage the risks inherent in our trading and principal investing businesses, see “— Risk Management” included below.

Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets

As a result of our business combinations, principally with SLK LLC (SLK) in fiscal 2000, we have acquired goodwill and identifiable intangible assets. Goodwill is the cost of acquired companies in excess of the fair value of net assets, including identifiable intangible assets, at the acquisition date.

Goodwill. We test the goodwill in each of our operating segments for impairment at least annually in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” by comparing the estimated fair value of each operating segment with its estimated net book value. We derive the fair value of each of our operating segments primarily based on price-earnings multiples. We derive the net book value of our operating segments by estimating the amount of shareholders’ equity required to support the assets of each operating segment. Our last annual impairment test was performed during our fiscal 2004 fourth quarter and no impairment was identified.

54

The following table sets forth the carrying value of our goodwill by operating segment:

Goodwill by Operating Segment
(in millions)

Identifiable Intangible Assets. We amortize our identifiable intangible assets over their estimated useful lives in accordance with SFAS No. 142, and test for potential impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances suggest that an asset’s or asset group’s carrying value may not be fully recoverable in accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.” An impairment loss, calculated as the difference between the estimated fair value and the carrying value of an asset or asset group, is recognized if the sum of the estimated undiscounted cash flows relating to the asset or asset group is less than the corresponding carrying value.

During the fiscal fourth quarter of 2003, the American Stock Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange all announced proposed restructuring plans and continued to experience loss of market share to the International Securities Exchange, which became the leading U.S. options exchange during 2003. Consequently, we tested our related option specialist rights for impairment during the fourth quarter of 2003, and recognized an impairment charge of $133 million. The estimated fair value of the option specialist rights was derived from estimated discounted cash flows. We also surrendered certain option specialist rights in earlier quarters of 2003, recognizing total charges of $20 million. There were no intangible asset impairments in fiscal 2004.

55

The following table sets forth the carrying value and range of remaining useful lives of our identifiable intangible assets by major asset class:

Identifiable Intangible Assets by Asset Class
($ in millions)

A prolonged period of weakness in global equity markets and the trading of securities in multiple markets and on multiple exchanges could adversely impact our businesses and impair the value of our goodwill and/or identifiable intangible assets. In addition, an announced restructuring by the NYSE or any other exchange on which we hold specialist rights or an adverse action or assessment by a regulator could indicate a potential impairment of the associated identifiable intangible assets.

Use of Estimates

The use of generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make certain estimates. In addition to the estimates we make in connection with fair value measurements and the accounting for goodwill and identifiable intangible assets, the use of estimates is also important in determining provisions for potential losses that may arise from litigation and regulatory proceedings and tax audits. We estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation and regulatory proceedings and tax audits to the extent that such losses are probable and can be estimated, in accordance with SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies.” Significant judgment is required in making these estimates and our final liabilities may ultimately be materially different.

Our total liability in respect of litigation and regulatory proceedings is determined on a case-by-case basis and represents an estimate of probable losses after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case, our experience and the experience of others in similar cases, and the opinions and views of legal counsel. Given the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of our litigation matters, particularly in cases in which claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, we cannot estimate losses or ranges of losses for cases where there is only a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred. See “Legal Proceedings” in Part I, Item 3 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for information on our judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings.

Results of Operations

The composition of our net revenues has varied over time as financial markets and the scope of our operations have changed. The composition of net revenues can also vary over the shorter

56

term due to fluctuations in U.S. and global economic and market conditions. For a further discussion of the impact of economic and market conditions on our results of operations, see “— Business Environment” and “— Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” included above, and “— Business — Certain Factors That May Affect Our Business” in Part I, Item 1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Financial Overview

The following table sets forth an overview of our financial results:

Financial Overview
($ in millions, except per share amounts)

Net Revenues

2004 versus 2003. Our net revenues were $20.55 billion in 2004, an increase of 28% compared with 2003, reflecting strong growth in Trading and Principal Investments, Asset Management and Securities Services, and Investment Banking. The increase in Trading and Principal Investments reflected significantly higher net revenues in FICC, as all major businesses and regions performed well in a generally favorable environment. Net revenues in our Principal Investments business also increased significantly, due to an unrealized gain on our investment in the convertible preferred stock of SMFG, as well as gains from other corporate principal investments. In addition, Equities net revenues improved, primarily reflecting higher customer-driven activity and favorable market conditions early in 2004. Equities operated in a less favorable environment after our first fiscal quarter of 2004, as volatility levels continued to decline and markets generally lacked direction before moving higher in the last several weeks of our fiscal year. Asset Management and Securities Services generated strong revenue growth, primarily reflecting higher average assets

57

under management, increased incentive fees and significantly higher customer balances in Securities Services. In Investment Banking, net revenues also increased, highlighted by strong growth in both our Financial Advisory and Equity Underwriting businesses, primarily reflecting an increase in industry-wide corporate activity.

2003 versus 2002. Our net revenues were $16.01 billion in 2003, an increase of 14% compared with 2002, primarily reflecting higher net revenues in Trading and Principal Investments. The increase in Trading and Principal Investments net revenues was primarily driven by FICC, which operated in a generally favorable environment throughout 2003, and by Principal Investments, which included an unrealized gain on our investment in the convertible preferred stock of SMFG. Net revenues in Asset Management and Securities Services increased 14% compared with 2002, primarily reflecting higher average assets under management and higher customer balances in Securities Services. Net revenues in Investment Banking declined 4% compared with 2002, due to generally lower levels of corporate activity.

Operating Expenses

Our operating expenses are primarily influenced by compensation, headcount and levels of business activity. A substantial portion of our compensation expense represents discretionary bonuses, with our overall compensation and benefits expenses generally targeted at 50% (plus or minus a few percentage points) of consolidated net revenues. In addition to the level of net revenues, our compensation expense in any given year is also influenced by, among other factors, prevailing labor markets, business mix and the structure of our equity-based compensation programs.

The following table sets forth our operating expenses and number of employees:

Operating Expenses and Employees
($ in millions)

2004 versus 2003. Operating expenses were $13.87 billion for 2004, 20% above 2003. Compensation and benefits expenses of $9.59 billion increased 30% compared with 2003, due to higher discretionary compensation, reflecting higher net revenues, and increased employment levels. The ratio of compensation and benefits to net revenues for 2004 was 46.7% compared with 46.2% for 2003. Employment levels increased 6% compared with November 2003. The adoption of the recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” as amended by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation — Transition and Disclosure,” in fiscal 2003 did not have a material effect on our results of operations in 2004 or 2003, because

58

substantially all of the employee equity-based compensation granted for each year was in the form of restricted stock units. See Note 2 and Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information regarding our stock-based compensation.

Non-compensation-related expenses of $4.22 billion for 2004 increased 4% compared with 2003. Other expenses included net provisions for litigation and regulatory proceedings of $103 million for 2004 compared with $159 million for 2003. Excluding these provisions, other expenses increased $258 million, primarily due to the acquisition of consolidated entities held for investment purposes, increased levels of business activity and higher charitable contributions. Brokerage, clearing and exchange fees increased, reflecting higher transaction volumes in certain of our businesses, and market development expenses were higher, primarily reflecting $62 million in connection with our establishment of Goldman Sachs Gao Hua Securities Company Limited in China, as well as higher levels of business activity. In addition, professional fees were higher, primarily due to higher legal and consulting fees. These increases were partially offset by decreased amortization of identifiable intangible assets (2003 included impairment charges of $188 million, primarily in respect of option specialist rights) as well as lower occupancy and depreciation and amortization expenses. Total exit costs associated with reductions in our global office space, which were included in occupancy and depreciation and amortization expenses, were $41 million for 2004 compared with $153 million for 2003. See “—Critical Accounting Policies — Goodwill and Identifiable Intangible Assets” included above for a discussion of our impairment charges in respect of option specialist rights and “— Capital and Funding — Contractual Obligations and Contingent Commitments,” included below, for a discussion of our excess office space.

2003 versus 2002. Operating expenses were $11.57 billion for 2003, 8% above 2002. Compensation and benefits expenses of $7.39 billion increased 10% compared with 2002, with higher discretionary compensation more than offsetting lower levels of employment. The ratio of compensation and benefits to net revenues for 2003 was 46.2%, down from 48.2% for 2002, in part reflecting lower employment levels in 2003, which decreased 1% compared with November 2002. Excluding employees associated with our combination with Ayco, employment levels were down 7% from November 2002. Effective for fiscal 2003, we began to account for stock-based compensation in accordance with the fair-value method prescribed by SFAS No. 123, using the prospective adoption method. The adoption of the recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 did not have a material effect on our results of operations because substantially all of the employee equity-based compensation granted for 2003 was in the form of restricted stock units. See Note 2 and Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information regarding our stock-based compensation.

Non-compensation-related expenses of $4.05 billion for 2003 increased 10% compared with 2002. This increase was primarily due to (i) higher other expenses, which included net provisions of $159 million for a number of litigation and regulatory proceedings; (ii) increased amortization of identifiable intangible assets, reflecting impairment charges of $188 million, primarily in respect of option specialist rights; and (iii) exit costs of $153 million associated with reductions in our global office space. These exit costs were primarily reflected in occupancy expenses, with the balance in depreciation and amortization expenses. Excluding the aggregate charges of $500 million described above, our 2003 non-compensation expenses declined slightly compared with 2002, reflecting lower depreciation and amortization, communications and technology, and market development expenses, and brokerage, clearing and exchange fees, partially offset by higher professional fees, primarily reflecting increased legal fees. The expense declines were primarily due to the impact of reduced employment levels, lower levels of business activity and continued cost-containment discipline.

59

Provision for Taxes

The effective income tax rate for 2004 was 31.8%, down from 32.4% for 2003. The change in the effective income tax rate for 2004 compared with 2003 reflected a decrease in state and local taxes and the effect of audit settlements. The effective income tax rate for 2003 of 32.4% was down from 35.0% in 2002. The decline in the effective income tax rate for 2003 compared with 2002 was primarily due to an increase in tax credits and a decrease in state and local taxes.

Our effective income tax rate can vary from period to period depending on, among other factors, the geographic and business mix of our earnings, the level of our tax credits and the effect of tax audits. Certain of these and other factors, including our history of pre-tax earnings, are taken into account in assessing our ability to realize our net deferred tax assets. See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information regarding our provision for taxes.

Segment Operating Results

The following table sets forth the net revenues, operating expenses and pre-tax earnings of our segments:

Segment Operating Results
(in millions)

Net revenues in our segments include allocations of interest income and interest expense to specific securities, commodities and other positions in relation to the cash generated by, or funding requirements of, such underlying positions. See Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for further information regarding our segments.

60

The cost drivers of Goldman Sachs taken as a whole — compensation, headcount and levels of business activity — are broadly similar in each of our business segments. Compensation expenses within our segments reflect, among other factors, the overall performance of Goldman Sachs as well as the performance of individual business units. Consequently, pre-tax margins in one segment of our business may be significantly affected by the performance of our other business segments. A discussion of segment operating results follows.

Investment Banking

Our Investment Banking segment is divided into two components:

The following table sets forth the operating results of our Investment Banking segment:

Investment Banking Operating Results
(in millions)

The following table sets forth our financial advisory and underwriting transaction volumes:

Goldman Sachs Global Investment Banking Volumes ⁽¹⁾
(in billions)

61

2004 versus 2003. Net revenues in Investment Banking of $3.37 billion for 2004 increased 24% compared with 2003. Net revenues in Financial Advisory of $1.74 billion increased 45% compared with 2003, primarily reflecting a significant increase in industry-wide completed mergers and acquisitions. Net revenues in our Underwriting business of $1.64 billion increased 8% compared with 2003, reflecting a significant increase in industry-wide public common stock offerings and industry-wide initial public offerings. The increase in Investment Banking net revenues primarily reflects higher levels of activity in the industrial and consumer sectors. Our investment banking backlog at the end of 2004 was higher than the end of 2003. ⁽¹⁾

Operating expenses were $2.97 billion in 2004, 19% higher than 2003, primarily due to increased compensation and benefits expenses resulting from higher discretionary compensation and increased levels of employment. These increases were partially offset by lower occupancy expenses, primarily reflecting lower exit costs associated with reductions in our global office space, and reduced amortization of identifiable intangible assets, as 2003 included impairment charges in respect of certain distribution rights. Depreciation and amortization expenses were also lower. Pre-tax earnings of $401 million in 2004 increased 94% compared with 2003.

2003 versus 2002. Net revenues in Investment Banking of $2.71 billion for 2003 decreased 4% compared with 2002. Net revenues in Financial Advisory of $1.20 billion decreased 20% compared with 2002, primarily reflecting a decline in industry-wide completed mergers and acquisitions. Net revenues in our Underwriting business of $1.51 billion increased 13% compared with 2002, primarily reflecting an increase in industry-wide debt new issuance activity. Equity Underwriting net revenues decreased compared with 2002, primarily reflecting a decline in industry-wide total equity underwriting volume, including initial public offerings, partially offset by higher net revenues from convertible issuances. The reduction in Investment Banking net revenues reflects lower levels of activity in the industrial and financial institutions sectors, partially offset by increased activity in the healthcare and natural resources sectors. Our investment banking backlog at the end of 2003 was slightly higher than at the end of 2002. ⁽¹⁾

Operating expenses were $2.50 billion in 2003, 2% higher than 2002, primarily due to increased compensation and benefits expenses, with higher discretionary compensation more than offsetting the impact of lower levels of employment. The increase in discretionary compensation in Investment Banking reflected, among other factors, the overall performance of Goldman Sachs, continued strong relative performance in the business (as evidenced by our high rankings and market share), as well as the somewhat improved business environment at the end of 2003. Operating expenses also increased due to intangible asset impairment charges in respect of certain distribution rights, higher professional fees, reflecting increased legal fees, and increased occupancy expenses, primarily related to exit costs associated with reductions in our global office space. These expense increases were partially offset by lower other expenses, market development expenses and communications and technology expenses, reflecting the impact of reduced employment levels, lower levels of business activity and continued cost-containment discipline. Pre-tax earnings of $207 million in 2003 decreased 45% compared with 2002.

     Trading and Principal Investments

Our Trading and Principal Investments segment is divided into three components: