Item 1A. Risk Factors

Regulatory Risks

Additional regulation of interchange reimbursement rates may reduce our transaction volumes and harm our overall business.

We generally do not receive any revenue related to interchange reimbursement fees in a purchase transaction as those fees are paid by the acquirers to the issuers. They are, however, a factor on which we compete with other payments providers and are therefore an important determinant of the volume of transactions we process. Consequently, changes to these fees can substantially affect our revenues and overall payments volume.

We have historically set default interchange reimbursement rates in the U.S. and many other geographies. Interchange reimbursement rates, our operating rules and related practices have become subject to continued or increased government regulation globally, and regulatory authorities and central banks in a number of jurisdictions have reviewed or are reviewing these rates and practices.

When we cannot set default interchange reimbursement rates at optimal levels, issuers and acquirers may find our payments system less attractive. It may increase the attractiveness of other payments systems like competitors' closed-loop payments systems with direct connections to both merchants and consumers. In addition, as a result of such regulations, we believe some issuers are charging new or higher fees to consumers. In certain instances, some acquirers elect to charge higher discount rates to merchants, regardless of the Visa interchange reimbursement rate, causing merchants not to accept Visa-branded cards or payment products or to steer account holders to alternate payment systems or forms of payment. In addition, some issuers and acquirers have obtained, and may continue to obtain, incentives from us and reductions in the fees that we charge in an effort to reduce the expense of their card programs. For these reasons, additional regulation of interchange reimbursement rates may make Visa-branded cards and payment products less desirable, reduce our overall transaction volumes, and harm our overall business.

We are subject to regulations that prohibit us from contracting with clients or requiring them to use only our network, or that deny them the option of selecting only our network.

In order to provide account holders a consistent experience and transparency into VisaNet, we promote certain practices to ensure that Visa-branded cards are processed over our network. We have historically had agreements with some issuers under which they agree to issue certain payment cards that use only the Visa network or receive incentives if they do so. In addition, certain issuers of some products have historically chosen to include only our network. We refer to these various practices as network exclusivity.

In addition, certain network or issuer rules or practices may be viewed as limiting the routing options of merchants when multiple debit networks co-reside on Visa debit cards. For example, the Visa Rules require that all authorization, clearance and settlement of international transactions must be done through VisaNet. These are commonly referred to as routing rules.

The Dodd-Frank Act already limits our and issuers' ability to adopt network exclusivity and preferred routing in the debit area. Additional legislation or regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act in the U.S. and elsewhere could materially decrease the number of transactions we process. In order to retain transaction volume, we may reduce the fees we charge to issuers or acquirers or increase the payments and other incentives we provide to issuers, acquirers or merchants. Any of these outcomes could harm our overall business.

The Dodd-Frank Act and other regulations and developments arising from the Dodd-Frank Act may continue to harm our overall business.

As of October 1, 2011, in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve capped the maximum U.S. debit interchange reimbursement rate charged by large financial institutions at twenty-one cents plus five basis points, with a possible fraud adjustment up to an additional one cent. This amounted to a significant reduction in the average system-wide fees previously charged. The Federal Reserve also issued regulations requiring issuers to make at least two unaffiliated networks available for processing debit transactions on each debit card. The rules

also prohibit us and issuers from restricting a merchant's ability to direct the routing of electronic debit transactions over any of the networks that an issuer has enabled to process those transactions.

These regulations have adversely affected our U.S. debit business and associated revenues by creating negative pressure on our pricing, reduced the volume and number of U.S. debit payments we process, and diminished associated revenues. Although we believe we have absorbed the principal impact of the October 2011 regulations, our business could continue to be affected, including if the Federal Reserve issues new or revised regulations.

Negative pressures have arisen through various channels. Other debit networks may become more aggressive in offering merchant cost reductions to win routing preference, which in turn puts more pressure on the business terms offered by Visa. A number of our clients obtained fee reductions or increased incentives from us to offset their own lost revenue. Some clients elected to issue fewer cards enabled with Visa-affiliated networks or reduced the number of debit cards they issued and investments they made in marketing and rewards programs, while others imposed new or higher fees on debit cards or demand deposit account relationships. Many merchants have used the routing regulations to redirect transactions or steer account holders to other debit networks based on lower cost or other factors. Other clients and merchants are likely to take similar actions in the future.

Some elements of the Dodd-Frank Act lack definition and create the potential for networks to pursue different strategies subject to their interpretation of the rules. Our interpretation may result in a pursuit of strategies that may be less effective than those of our competitors. Overall, the regulations and developments arising from the Dodd-Frank Act could harm our overall business.

New laws or regulations in one jurisdiction or of one product offering may lead to new laws or regulations in other jurisdictions or of other product offerings.

Regulators around the world increasingly note each other's approaches to the regulation of the payments industry. Consequently, a development in one country, state or region may influence regulatory approaches in another. The Dodd-Frank Act and the European Union interchange regulation are developments with such potential. See Note 20—Legal Matters to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report. Similarly, new laws and regulations involving one product offering may cause lawmakers there to extend the regulations to other product offerings. For example, regulations affecting debit payments could eventually spread to credit payments.

The risks created by a new law or regulation have the potential to be replicated and to negatively affect our business in another region or in other product offerings. We may face differing rules and regulations in matters like interchange reimbursement rates, preferred routing, domestic processing requirements, currency conversion, point of sale transaction rules and practices, privacy, and data use or protection. As a result, the Visa Rules may differ from country to country or by product offering.

If widely varying regulations come into existence worldwide, we may have difficulty rapidly adjusting our product offerings, services and fees, and other important aspects of our business in the various regions. In addition, adverse developments, regulations and litigation with respect to our industry or another industry may also, by association, negatively impact our reputation and result in greater regulatory and legislative scrutiny or litigation against us. Any of these factors could harm our overall business.

Government actions may prevent us from competing effectively against providers of domestic payments services in certain countries.

Governments in some countries provide resources to or protection for their domestic payment card networks, brands and processors. These governments may impose regulatory requirements that favor domestic providers or that mandate domestic payments processing be done entirely in that country. In China, for example, UnionPay continues to enjoy advantages over international networks, remains the sole processor of domestic transactions and operates the sole domestic acceptance mark. Though the Chinese State Council has announced that international schemes, such as Visa, would be able to participate in the domestic market and be eligible to apply for a license to operate a Bank Card Clearing Institution (BCCI) in China, legislation and implementation guidelines for BCCI’s have yet to be published and finalized. Meanwhile in Russia, National Payment Legislation has effectively prevented Visa from processing in the domestic market and has mandated that Visa migrate its domestic processing business to the state owned NSPK, which is the only entity allowed to process domestically. National laws that mandate domestic processing may increase our costs and decrease the number of Visa-branded cards issued or processed in those regions. These actions could impede us from utilizing our global processing capabilities for our financial institution clients in those countries and substantially restrict our activities there and in

other countries that may adopt similar practices. These actions could also force us to leave countries where we presently have activity and keep us from entering new markets. Although we are trying to effect change in these countries, we may not succeed. This could adversely affect our ability to operate our business, maintain or increase our revenues globally and extend our global brands.

We are subject to regulation in the areas of consumer privacy and data use and security.

Privacy, data use and security continue to receive heightened legislative and regulatory focus in the U.S. and elsewhere. For example, in many jurisdictions consumers must be notified in the event of a data breach and those jurisdictions that have these laws are continuing to increase the circumstances and the breadth of these notices. These laws and regulations can impact the way we use and handle data, operate our products and services, and even impact our ability to offer a product or service. Our failure or the failure of our clients to comply with these laws and regulations could result in fines, sanctions, litigation and damage to our global reputation and our brands. These laws and regulations may increase Visa’s and our clients' costs, decrease the number of Visa-branded cards our clients issue and decrease our payments volume and revenue.

Evolving and increased global regulatory focus on the payments industry may result in costly new compliance burdens on our clients and on us.

Regulation of the payments industry has evolved and increased significantly. Examples include:

•

Data protection and information security. Aspects of our operations and business are subject to privacy and data protection regulation in the U.S. and elsewhere. Our financial institution clients around the globe are subject to similar requirements under privacy laws and bank regulatory regimes. For example, as of September 1, 2015, Russia amended its personal data law to require personal “data operators” to store personal information of Russian citizens in databases located in Russia. In addition, many U.S. states have enacted legislation requiring consumer notification in the event of a security breach.

•

Regulatory and sanctions compliance. We are subject to anti-money laundering laws and regulations, including the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act. In addition, we are subject to economic and trade sanctions programs administered by OFAC. An increase in the number of OFAC sanctions may affect the issuance, acceptance, reputation, and revenues associated with Visa-branded cards. Some of our clients located outside of the U.S. may not be subject to these same laws, regulations and sanctions, and, as a result, may initiate transactions that are permissible in their countries but that may not be permissible were the transaction to take place in the U.S.

•	Regulation of the price of credit. Many jurisdictions in which Visa-branded cards are used have regulations that could increase the costs of card issuance or decrease the flexibility of issuers to charge market-based interest rates and fees on credit card accounts. In the U.S., these include regulations issued under the Truth in Lending Act of 1968, as amended by the Credit CARD Act of 2009.

•

Increased U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau scrutiny. Regulatory changes by the CFPB that impose new requirements on or restrict the terms under which financial products can be offered could increase our clients’ costs and decrease the number of Visa-branded payment cards our clients issue. The CFPB also has supervisory and independent examination authority as well as enforcement authority over certain financial institutions, their service providers and other entities, which could include us due to our processing of credit, debit and prepaid transactions.

•

Increased central bank oversight. Several central banks and similar regulatory bodies around the world have increased, or are seeking to increase, their formal oversight of the electronic payments industry, and in some cases have already designated certain payment systems as "systemically important payment systems" or "critical infrastructure." For example, Visa Europe was recently designated as systematically important by the Bank of England. Any such oversight may lead to additional regulations by central banks and other government regulators. These could include new settlement procedures, cyber security requirements or other policies or operational rules to address settlement and operational risks. Increased central bank oversight could also include new criteria for financial institution client participation and merchant or other non-bank access to our payments system. For example, in China, draft cyber security legislation may prevent companies like Visa from bringing international best practice standards for fraud and risk management when the market is open.

•	Safety and soundness regulation. Banking regulations enacted in the U.S. and elsewhere may make some financial institutions less likely to become an issuer of Visa-branded cards because they may be subject to increased risk management or higher capital requirements.

•

Regulation of Internet and mobile transactions. Legislation in various jurisdictions may make it less desirable or more costly to complete Internet transactions using Visa-branded cards by affecting the legality of those transactions, the laws that govern the transactions, their taxation or the allocation of various intellectual property rights. In addition, new mobile regulatory requirements could impact our business practices, for instance in China where new regulation may prevent companies like Visa from introducing new technologies when the market opens to them.

•	Money transfer regulations. As we expand our product offerings, we may become subject to U.S. federal and state money transfer regulations, international payments laws and other existing, new or evolving regulations which could increase our regulatory oversight and compliance costs.

Complying with these and other regulations increases our costs and can reduce our revenue opportunities. Our programs and policies are designed to comply with anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism, anti-corruption and sanctions regulations and other laws, and we continue to enhance them. But, as regulations continue to evolve and regulatory oversight continues to increase, we cannot guarantee that our programs and policies will be deemed compliant by all applicable regulatory authorities. In the event our controls should fail or we are found to be out of compliance for other reasons, we could be subject to monetary damages, civil and criminal money penalties, litigation and damage to our global brand reputation. The impact of such regulations on our clients and on us may increase compliance costs and reduce the volume of payments we process. Moreover, such regulations can limit the types of products and services that we offer, the countries in which Visa-branded cards are used and the types of account holders and merchants who can obtain or accept Visa-branded cards, thereby harming our overall business.

Litigation Risks

Our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan may not adequately insulate us from the impact of settlements or final judgments.

Our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan addresses monetary liabilities from settlements of, or final judgments in, the U.S. covered litigation, which is described in Note 3—U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan and Potential Visa Europe Liabilities to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report. The U.S. retrospective responsibility plan consists of several related mechanisms to fund settlements or judgments in the U.S. covered litigation. These include an escrow account funded with a portion of the net proceeds of our IPO and any subsequent offerings of our shares of class A common stock (or deposits of cash into the escrow account in lieu of such offerings). They also include a loss sharing agreement, a judgment sharing agreement and an omnibus agreement, as amended. In addition, our U.S. financial institution clients are obligated to indemnify us pursuant to Visa U.S.A. Inc.'s certificate of incorporation and bylaws and in accordance with their membership agreements. These mechanisms are unique, complicated and tiered, and if we cannot use one or more of them, this could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and cash flows, or even cause us to become insolvent.

The principal remaining U.S. covered litigation involves interchange reimbursement rates. See Note 20—Legal Matters to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report. Beginning in 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of which were styled as class actions) were filed on behalf of merchants against us, MasterCard and/or other defendants, including certain Visa member financial institutions. We refer to this as the interchange multidistrict litigation or MDL 1720. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs alleged that Visa's setting of default interchange reimbursement rates violated federal antitrust laws and, in some cases, certain state unfair competition laws. The lawsuits were transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in MDL 1720 seek damages for alleged overcharges in merchant discount rates as well as injunctive and other relief. The consolidated class action complaint alleges that estimated damages will range in the tens of billions of dollars. Because these lawsuits were brought under the U.S. federal antitrust laws, any actual damages would be trebled.

The allocation of any monetary judgment or certain settlements among the defendants is governed by an omnibus agreement dated February 7, 2011, and amended August 26, 2014 and October 22, 2015. See Note 3—U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan and Potential Visa Europe Liabilities to our consolidated financial statements

included in Item 8 of this report. Visa's portion of a settlement or judgment covered by the omnibus agreement, as amended, would be allocated in accordance with specified provisions of our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan.

We signed settlement agreements in connection with MDL 1720, which included an agreement to pay approximately $4.0 billion to the class plaintiffs. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment order approving the settlement, from which a number of objectors have appealed. Until the appeals are finally adjudicated, no assurance can be provided that we will be able to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims as contemplated by the settlement agreement.

A number of merchants have filed opt-out cases in various federal district courts. All of the cases filed in federal court have been either assigned to the judge presiding over MDL 1720, or have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for inclusion in MDL 1720. The court has entered an order confirming that MDL 1720 includes: (i) all current and future actions transferred to MDL 1720 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation or other order of any court for inclusion in coordinated or pretrial proceedings; and (ii) all actions filed in the Eastern District of New York that arise out of operative facts as alleged in the cases subject to the transfer orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Cases that are transferred to or otherwise included in MDL 1720 or that are brought after October 22, 2015, by an opt out of the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class in MDL 1720 and arise out of facts or circumstances substantially similar to those alleged in MDL 1720 are U.S. covered litigation for purposes of the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan. See Note 3—U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan and Potential Visa Europe Liabilities.

Failure of our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan to insulate us adequately from the impact of such settlements or judgments could result in a material adverse effect on our financial condition and cash flows. Such a failure could even cause us to become insolvent. The U.S. retrospective responsibility plan addresses only the U.S. covered litigation. The plan generally does not cover other pending litigation or any litigation that we may face in the future, except for cases that include claims for damages relating to the period prior to our IPO that are transferred to or otherwise included in the interchange multidistrict litigation or that are brought by a Rule 23(b)(3) opt out and arise out of facts or circumstances substantially similar to those alleged in MDL 1720. In addition, non-monetary settlement terms and judgments in the U.S. covered litigation may require us to modify the way we do business. Therefore, even if our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan provides us with adequate funding to satisfy our obligations with respect to monetary liabilities from settlements of, and judgments in, the U.S. covered litigation, it will not insulate us from the monetary impact of pending or future litigation.

As described in Note 2—Visa Europe and Note 3—U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan and Potential Visa Europe Liabilities to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report, on November 2, 2015, the Company and Visa Europe entered into a transaction agreement pursuant to which the Company agreed to acquire Visa Europe. The closing is subject to various conditions including regulatory approvals and is expected to occur in the fiscal third quarter of 2016. Visa Inc., Visa Europe or their affiliates are, or may become, a party to certain existing and potential litigation relating to the setting of multilateral interchange fee rates in the Visa Europe territory. As part of the acquisition terms, the Company has obtained certain protection in respect of losses resulting from such existing and potential litigation through the preferred stock and the U.K. loss sharing agreement. If claims are not covered by these transactional protections, Visa Europe may have recourse under its membership documents against members under the terms of the existing indemnity arrangements (other than in respect of certain claims relating to U.K. domestic multilateral interchange fees). However, similar to the U.S. retrospective responsibility plan, failure of these protections to insulate us adequately from the impact of settlements or judgments in the existing and potential litigation against Visa Inc., Visa Europe or their affiliates could result in a material adverse effect on our financial condition and cash flows.

If we are found liable in other pending or future lawsuits, we may have to pay substantial damages.

Like many other large companies, we are a defendant in a number of civil actions and investigations alleging violations of competition or antitrust law, consumer protection law or intellectual property law, among others. Examples of such claims are described more fully in Note 20—Legal Matters to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report. Some lawsuits involve complex claims that are subject to substantial uncertainties and unspecified damages; therefore, we cannot ascertain the probability of loss or estimate our liability. Accordingly, we have not established allowances for such legal proceedings.

Particularly in cases involving merchants and consumers, private plaintiffs often seek class action certification in cases against us due to the size and scope of our business. If we are unsuccessful in our defense against a large class action lawsuit, such as the U.S. or Canadian merchant class action lawsuits, monetary damages could be

significant, which could harm our financial condition. See Note 20—Legal Matters to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report.

There may be limitations on our business or changes to our business practices resulting from our litigation.

Certain limitations have been placed on our business in recent years because of litigation. We may also have to change our business practices in response to pending or future litigation. For example, under the settlement agreement in the interchange multidistrict litigation, we have agreed, among other things, to permit merchants to add surcharges to credit transactions in certain circumstances. See Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 20—Legal Matters included elsewhere in this report. Additional surcharges to credit transactions could adversely impact consumers' usage of Visa-branded payment products.

Settlements of, or judgments in pending and future litigation could force us to limit the rates we set, revise our rules about rates charged to consumers who use Visa-branded payment products or make other modifications that could harm our overall business.

We may be subject to tax examinations or disputes, or changes in the tax laws.

We exercise significant judgment in calculating our worldwide provision for income taxes and other tax liabilities. Although we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, many factors may decrease their accuracy. We are currently under examination by, or in disputes with, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities, and we may be subject to additional examinations or disputes in the future. Relevant tax authorities may disagree with our tax treatment of certain material items and thereby increase our tax liability. Failure to sustain our position in these matters could result in a material, adverse effect on our cash flow and financial position. In addition, changes in existing laws, such as recent proposals for fundamental U.S. and international tax reform, may also increase our effective tax rate. A substantial increase in our tax payments could have a material, adverse effect on our financial results. See also Note 19—Income Taxes to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report.

We have limited rights to enforce our Framework Agreement with Visa Europe, which could expose us to significant liabilities.

While we have entered into an agreement to acquire Visa Europe, until the transaction closes or if it fails to close, our relationship is governed by the Framework Agreement. In the event Visa Europe fails to meet its obligations under the Framework Agreement, our remedies are limited. We are unable to terminate the Framework Agreement even upon Visa Europe's material, uncured breach. See Note 2—Visa Europe to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report.

Under the Framework Agreement, we may be required to indemnify Visa Europe for losses resulting from all claims outside its region arising from our or their actions relating to the payments business. This obligation applies even if neither we nor any of our related parties or agents engaged in the actions gives rise to such claims. The indemnity obligation could expose us to significant liabilities for activities over which we have little or no control. Our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan would not cover these liabilities.

In our view, pursuant to the Framework Agreement, Visa Europe is obligated to indemnify Visa Inc. and Visa International Service Association ("Visa International") in connection with the European Competition Proceedings (i.e., the pending European Commission investigation and the filed or unfiled claims in the U.K. Merchant Litigation), including payment of any fines or damages that may be imposed. However, Visa Europe has informed us of its view that it is not obligated to indemnify Visa Inc. or Visa International for these claims. If Visa Europe continues in its refusal to indemnify us and we cannot enforce the indemnity, we could be exposed to significant liabilities which would not be covered under our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan. See Note 20—Legal Matters to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report.

Business Risks

We face intense pressures on client pricing.

Pressure on client pricing poses challenges for our business. In order to stay competitive, we offer incentives to our clients to increase payments volume, enter new market segments and expand their Visa-branded card base. These include up-front cash payments, fee discounts, credits, performance-based incentives, marketing and other support payments. We have continued to increase the use of incentives such as up-front cash payments and fee discounts in many countries, including the U.S. In addition, we offer incentives to certain merchants or acquirers to

win routing preference in situations where our products co-reside with other networks and merchants have a choice of network routing options. The economic pressures on our clients arising from the Dodd-Frank Act have also increased our use of incentives. As a result, the provision of certain products and services may be less profitable or become unprofitable, which may materially and adversely affect our revenues and profits.

If we continue to increase incentives to our clients, we will need to find ways to offset the financial impact by increasing payments volume, increasing the amount of fee-based services we provide or both. We may not succeed in doing so, particularly in the current regulatory environment. In addition, we benefit from long-term contracts with certain clients, including those that are large contributors to our revenue. Continued pressure on our fees could prevent us from maintaining such agreements in the future on the same or favorable terms. We may also have to modify existing agreements in order to maintain relationships or comply with regulations. While we may implement cost containment and productivity initiatives in areas other than those surrounding client incentives, we may not be successful in our efforts or they may not offset the decreases in our revenues.

We face intense competition in our industry.

The global payments industry is intensely competitive and, as a result, our payment programs compete against all forms of payment. These include cash, checks, electronic, eCommerce, virtual currencies and mobile payments, as well as traditional general purpose card networks. In addition, our open-loop payments network competes against other alternate payment systems such as closed-loop payment systems. Traditional or nontraditional competitors may put us at a competitive disadvantage by leveraging services or products in areas in which we do not directly compete to win business in areas where we do compete.

Our clients can reassess their commitments to us at any time or develop their own competitive services. The Dodd-Frank Act increased this competitive pressure. The risk to maintaining or securing our clients' long-term commitments to our products increased with the Dodd-Frank Act's restrictions on network exclusivity in the debit sector. We do not have exclusivity with our largest clients such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. In certain circumstances, our clients may terminate these relationships on relatively short notice without significant early termination fees. Because a significant portion of our operating revenues is concentrated among our largest clients, the loss of business from any of these clients could have an adverse effect on the Company. See Note 13—Enterprise-wide Disclosures and Concentration of Business to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report.

Additionally, some of our competitors may develop substantially better technology or have greater financial resources. They may offer a wider range of programs, products and services than we do, including more innovative ones. They may use advertising and marketing strategies that are more effective than ours, achieving broader brand recognition and merchant acceptance. They may also develop better security solutions or more favorable pricing arrangements.

Certain of our competitors operate with different business models, have different cost structures or participate selectively in different market segments. They may ultimately prove more successful or more adaptable to new regulatory, technological and other developments. In many cases, these competitors have the support of government mandates that prohibit, limit or otherwise hinder our ability to compete for or otherwise secure transactions within those countries and regions.

We expect there to be changes in the competitive landscape in the future. For example:

•	competitors, clients and others may develop products that compete with, impair or replace the value-added services we provide to support our transaction processing;

•	parties that process our transactions in certain countries may try to eliminate our position in the payments value chain;

•	we may be asked to develop or customize certain aspects of our payment services for use by our customers, processors or other third parties;

•	participants in the payments industry may merge, form joint ventures or enter into other business combinations that strengthen their existing business propositions or create new, competing payment services;

•	competition may increase from alternate types of payment services, such as mobile payment services, eCommerce payment services and services that permit direct debit of consumer checking accounts or ACH payments;

•	new players and intermediaries in the payments value chain may redirect transactions or steer account holders away from our network; or

•	new services and technologies that we develop may be impacted by industry-wide solutions and standards set by organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization, American National Standards Institute, as well as EMVCo, related to EMV-chip payment technology, cloud-based payments, tokenization or other technologies.

Our failure to compete effectively in light of any such developments could harm our business and prospects for future growth.

Disintermediation from the payments value chain could harm our business.

Our position in the payments value chain is key to our business. Some of our competitors, including American Express, Discover, private-label card networks, virtual currencies and certain alternate payments systems, operate closed-loop payments systems, with direct connections to both merchants and consumers without any intermediaries. These competitors seek to derive competitive advantages from this business model. Regulatory actions or initiatives such as the Dodd-Frank Act or the Federal Reserve’s Faster Payments efforts may provide them with increased opportunity to do so. In addition, although other competitors are pursuing similar lines of business or adopting similar commercial models, they have not attracted the same level of legal or regulatory scrutiny of their pricing and business practices as operators of multi-party payments systems such as ours.

We also run the risk of disintermediation due to factors such as emerging technologies including mobile payments, and by virtue of increasing bilateral agreements between entities that prefer not to use our payments network for processing payments. For example, merchants could process transactions directly with issuers, or processors could process transactions directly with issuers and acquirers.

Additional consolidation in the financial services industry could impact our revenues and harm our overall business.

Additional consolidation in the financial services industry or the acquisition of one or more of our largest clients by an institution with a strong relationship with one of our competitors may reduce the overall number of our clients. This could result in the acquired financial institution's Visa business shifting to a competitor, resulting in a substantial loss of business to us.

Our existing clients may seek to obtain more favorable pricing agreements. We may also be adversely affected by price compression should one of our clients absorb another financial institution and qualify for higher volume-based discounts on the combined volumes of the merged businesses. Pressure on the fees we charge our clients caused by such consolidation could impact our revenues and harm our overall business.

Merchants' continued focus on the costs associated with payment card acceptance exposes us to additional risks.

We rely in part on merchants and their relationships with our clients to maintain and expand the acceptance of Visa-branded payment cards. Consolidation in the retail industry is producing a group of larger merchants that is having a significant impact on all participants in the global payments industry. Some merchants have sought to reduce their costs associated with payment card acceptance by lobbying for new legislation and regulatory enforcement and by filing lawsuits. If they continue, we may face increased compliance and litigation expenses.

Additionally, some merchants have pushed for changes to the Visa Rules which govern Visa acceptance at the point of sale, including the ability to accept only certain types of Visa-branded cards (e.g., credit or debit) and impose account holder surcharges. If successful, where applicable, these efforts could adversely impact consumers' usage of Visa-branded payment products.

We also face competitive pressures on pricing. We and our clients negotiate pricing discounts and other incentive arrangements with certain large merchants to increase acceptance and usage of Visa-branded payment cards. If merchants continue to consolidate, we and our clients may have to increase the incentives provided to certain large merchants. Some merchants also continue to invest in their own payment solutions, using both

traditional and new technology platforms. Examples include closed-loop payment systems that are specific to a single merchant or multi-merchant solutions like the Merchant Customer Exchange, which is designed for a mobile platform utilizing alternative payment systems and has many merchant participants. Such programs may offer unique or specialized benefits to consumers, including discounts or customized offers. If merchants are able to drive broad consumer adoption and usage, it could harm our business.

We may not be able to grow or maintain our business due to certain financial institutions or merchants' exclusive, or nearly exclusive, relationships with our competitors.

Certain financial institutions or merchants have longstanding exclusive, or nearly exclusive, relationships with our competitors to issue or accept payment cards. These relationships may make it difficult or cost-prohibitive for us to conduct material amounts of business with them. In addition, these financial institutions or merchants may be more successful and may grow more quickly than our existing clients or merchants, which could put us at a competitive disadvantage and prevent us from growing our business.

Our success depends on our relationships with our financial institution clients, acquirers, merchants, account holders and other third parties.

We depend and will continue to depend significantly on relationships with our financial institution clients and on their relationships with account holders and merchants to support and to compete effectively for our programs and services. We do not issue cards, extend credit to account holders or determine the interest rates or other fees charged to account holders using cards that carry our brands. Each issuer determines these competitive card features for their customers. Account holders, however, may associate these features with our brands and if they are dissatisfied, our business may be harmed.

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act's network exclusivity regulations, we have engaged and will continue to engage in significantly more discussions with merchants, acquirers and processors to provide incentives to promote routing preference and acceptance growth. We already engage in many co-branding efforts, in which we contract with merchants, who directly receive incentives from us. As these and other relationships become more prevalent and take on a greater importance to our business, our success will increasingly depend on our ability to sustain and grow these relationships.

Outside the U.S., some governments only permit local providers to complete domestic processing, which prohibits us from overseeing the end-to-end processing of the transactions. Therefore, we depend on our close working relationships with our clients or other third party processors in these regions to effectively manage the processing of transactions involving Visa-branded cards. Our inability to oversee the end-to-end processing for cards carrying our brands in these countries may put us at a competitive disadvantage by limiting our ability to ensure the quality of the services supporting our brands.

In addition, we depend on third parties and our financial institution clients to provide various services associated with our payments network on our behalf, and to the extent that such third-party vendors or our financial institution clients fail to perform or deliver adequate services, our business and reputation could be impaired.

Negative perception of our company in the marketplace may affect our brands and reputation.

Our brands and reputation are key assets of our business. The ability to attract and retain account holders and financial institution clients to Visa-branded products depends highly upon the external perceptions of our company and our industry's quality of service, use and protection of account holder data, regulatory compliance, financial condition, corporate responsibility and other factors. Negative perception or publicity, particularly in light of the rapid, widespread use of social media channels, could cause damage to our brands and reputation. Our business may also be affected by actions taken by our clients or other third parties, or by circumstances that are outside of our control:

•	Our clients and other third parties may take actions that we do not believe to be in the best interests of our brands or that are inconsistent with our own business practices.

•

Until we are able to complete the proposed acquisition of Visa Europe, our limited control over the quality of service and promotion of our brands in Europe could affect our brands and reputation globally. While Visa Europe has very broad latitude to use our brands and technology within its region, Visa Europe is not required to spend any minimum amount of money conducting research on brand performance, promoting or maintaining the strength of our brands.

•	Any negative perception of the U.S. arising from its political, economic, social or other positions could harm the perception of our company and our brands globally by associating Visa with those positions.

Any of these factors could turn clients and consumers away from our brand and products, require us to take on additional liabilities and costs, result in greater regulatory or legislative scrutiny, and harm our overall business.

We may continue to be affected by economic events in financial markets around the world.

The current threats to global economic growth include geopolitical instability in Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine, the Middle East and other oil producing countries, which could affect oil prices, economic fragility in the Eurozone and in the U.S., higher interest rates hurting the housing market, sluggish job creation, political discord, spending cuts and debt defaults. While there continues to be some improvements in advanced economies, emerging economies continue to suffer with slower growth. Consumer spending continues to be impacted from consumer debt levels, elevated housing inventory, deflation, changes in savings rates, continued equity market volatility, decreased export activity, lowered government spending and additional government intervention. Furthermore, continued challenges in the credit environment, bank instability, downgrades of sovereign, bank and commercial debt, political issues affecting the handling of national debt, and the uncertainty arising from new government policies could also impact our clients, merchants and account holders.

The fragility of the current situation would be exacerbated if additional negative economic developments or crises were to arise around the world. These include defaults on government debt, exhaustion of national economic stimulus packages, significant increases in oil prices, tax increases, a significant decline in the commercial real estate market and policy missteps. Most recently, the economic situations in various countries in Europe have been particularly unstable, arising from the real prospect of debt defaults. If such defaults occur, or if the measures taken to avert such defaults create their own instability, economic turmoil is likely to result, and the impact is likely to be global and highly significant.

The volatility of the current economic environment in advanced and emerging economies and the responses by financial institutions and governments may create new risks or increase the impact of existing ones. These include the following:

•	Depressed consumer and business confidence may continue to decrease account holder spending.

•	Uncertainty and volatility in the performance of our clients' businesses may reduce the accuracy of our estimates of our revenues, rebates, incentives and realization of prepaid assets.

•	Our clients may implement cost-reduction initiatives that reduce or eliminate payment card marketing budgets or increase requests for greater incentives or reduced fees from us.

•	Our clients may decrease spending for optional or enhanced services, which could reduce account holders' desire to use these products.

•	Our clients may increase account holder fees as a cost-recovery initiative, or as a result of regulatory action, decreasing their value proposition to consumers and reducing consumers' desire to use our products.

•	Government intervention or investments in our clients may negatively affect our business in those regions with our financial institution clients.

•	Tightening of credit availability could affect the ability of participating financial institutions to lend to us under the terms of our credit facility.

•	The U.S. government's inability to meet its obligations or a possible further downgrade in the U.S. debt rating could adversely affect the liquidity of our investments, a substantial portion of which are in U.S. treasury and government securities.

•	Our clients may default on their settlement obligations, including for reasons unrelated to payment card activity, such as mortgage loan commitments.

•	Adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates could negatively affect the dollar value of our revenues and payments in foreign currencies.

•	The current economic environment could lead some clients to curtail or postpone near-term investments in growing their card portfolios, limit credit lines, modify fees and loyalty programs, or take other actions that adversely affect the growth of our volume and revenue streams from these clients.

•	Declines in stock prices or significant instability in the securities markets worldwide could cause consumer spending to decline materially.

Any of these developments could harm our overall business.

A decline in non-U.S. and cross-border activity and in multi-currency transactions could adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

•

We generate a significant amount of our revenues from cross-border transactions, and our clients pay us fees in connection with them. Cross-border transactions arise when the country of origin of the issuer is different from that of the merchant. Some of these cross-border transaction fees vary depending on the transaction currency and whether the transaction currency is different than the account holder's billing currency as provided to Visa by his or her issuer. Additionally, adverse changes in exchange rates could reduce the number of cross-border transactions which may harm our revenues.

•

In addition, Visa derives revenue from foreign currency exchange activities that result when our clients settle transactions in different currencies. A reduction in multi-currency transactions may reduce the need for foreign currency exchange activities and adversely affect our revenues. Limitations or changes in our ability to set foreign currency exchange rates for multi-currency transactions as a result of regulation, changes to tax policy, litigation, competitive pressures, reduced volatility in currency markets or other reasons may also adversely affect our revenues.

•	Cross-border travel may be adversely affected by global geopolitical, economic, social and other conditions. These include the threat of terrorism, social or political instability, natural disasters, effects of climate change and outbreaks of flu, viruses and other diseases. The need for conversion of currencies declines as cross-border travel is impacted.

•	Moreover, if our financial institution clients decide to change practices (e.g., prohibit certain transactions or increase account holder fees associated with cross-border transactions), there could be a decline in account holder spending because the value proposition to the consumer could be reduced.

Transactions outside the U.S. represent an increasingly important part of our strategy, which we hope will continue to grow. However, a decline in non-U.S. and cross-border activity and multi-currency transactions would decrease the number of cross-border transactions we process and our revenues and profitability may be materially and adversely affected as a consequence.

We risk loss or insolvency if our clients fail to fund settlement obligations for which we have provided indemnifications.

We indemnify issuers and acquirers for any settlement loss they suffer due to the failure of another issuer or acquirer to fund its settlement obligations in accordance with the Visa Rules. In certain instances, we may indemnify issuers or acquirers even in situations in which a transaction is not processed by our system. This indemnification creates settlement risk for us due to the difference in timing between the date of a payment transaction and the date of subsequent settlement. While the amount of our indemnification obligations has no limit, our exposure under the indemnification is restricted to the amount of unsettled Visa payment transactions at any point in time.

Concurrent settlement failures involving more than one of our largest clients, several of our smaller clients or systemic operational failures lasting more than a single day could cause us to exceed our available financial resources and impact our liquidity. Even if we have sufficient liquidity to cover a settlement failure, we may be unable to recover the amount of such payment. This could expose us to significant losses, and harm our business. See Note 11—Settlement Guarantee Management to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this report.

Some of our clients are considered group members under the Visa Rules. As a result, some of these group members have elected to limit their responsibility for settlement losses arising from the failure of their constituent

financial institutions in exchange for managing their constituent financial institutions in accordance with our credit risk policy. To the extent that any settlement failure resulting from a constituent financial institution exceeds the limits established by our credit risk policy, we would have to absorb the cost of such settlement failure, which could impact our liquidity.

The use of our products and our revenues could decline if we cannot keep pace with rapid technological developments to provide new and innovative payment programs and services or comply with new laws and regulations.

Rapid, significant technological changes continue to confront the payments industry. These include developments in mobile and other proximity payment and acceptance, eCommerce, tokenization, crypto-currency and blockchain technologies. We cannot predict the effect of technological changes on our business. In addition to our own initiatives and innovations, we work closely with third parties, including some potential competitors, for the development of and access to new technologies. We expect that new services and technologies applicable to the payments industry will continue to emerge. These new services and technologies may be superior to, or render obsolete, the technologies we currently use in our products and services. In addition, our ability to adopt new services and technologies that we develop may be inhibited by industry-wide standards, new laws and regulations, resistance to change from clients or merchants, or third parties' intellectual property rights. If we are unable to develop new technologies and adapt to technological changes and evolving industry standards, it could reduce the use of our products and harm our business.

The perception of our brands and our business could be harmed if our transaction processing systems are disrupted or compromised.

Processing or other technology malfunctions, fires, natural disasters, power losses, disruptions in long-distance or local telecommunications access, fraud, military or political conflicts, terrorism, effects of climate change or other catastrophic events may disrupt or compromise our transaction processing systems. In addition, we may be susceptible to physical or computer-based attacks by terrorists or hackers due to our role in the global payments industry. These concerns about security are increased when information is transmitted over the Internet and new technologies are used to conduct financial transactions. Threats include cyberattacks such as computer viruses, worms or other destructive or disruptive software, process breakdowns, denial-of-service attacks, malicious social engineering or other malicious activities, or any combination of the foregoing. Any of these incidents could result in a degradation or disruption of our services or damage to our properties, equipment and data. They could also compromise data security. If such attacks are not detected immediately, their effect could be compounded. Finally, potential and actual attacks could also result in increased costs, both for recovery and for prevention against future attacks.

Additionally, we rely on service providers for the timely transmission of information across our global data network. If a service provider fails to provide the communications capacity or services we require for similar reasons, the failure could interrupt our services. Because of the centrality of our processing systems to our business, any interruption or degradation could adversely affect the perception of our brands' reliability and harm our business.

We may encounter account data breaches, cyberattacks or system failures involving card or other data processed, stored or transmitted by third parties or by us.

We, our clients, merchants, and other service providers process, store or transmit account holder and other information in connection with Visa-branded cards and payment products. In addition, our clients may use third-party processors to process transactions generated by cards carrying our brands. The security measures and procedures we, our clients, merchants and other service providers have in place to protect sensitive account holder data and other information may not be successful or sufficient to counter all data breaches, cyberattacks or system failures. Defending against even unsuccessful attempts to access our systems could materially increase our costs.

A failure or breach of the systems processing, storing or transmitting sensitive account holder data and other information could lead to fraudulent activity involving Visa-branded cards, reputational damage, claims against us, and loss of clients. If we are sued in any lawsuit in connection with any data security breach, we could be involved in protracted litigation. If unsuccessful in defending such lawsuits, we may have to pay damages or change our business practices or pricing structure, any of which could harm our business. In addition, any reputational damage resulting from an account data breach, cyberattacks or system failure at one or more of our clients, merchants or other third parties could decrease the use and acceptance of Visa-branded cards, which could harm our payments volume, revenues and future growth prospects. Finally, a breach may also subject Visa to additional regulations or

governmental or regulatory investigations, which could result in significant compliance costs, fines or enforcement actions against the Company or potential restrictions imposed by regulators on our ability to process transactions.

Fraudulent or other illegal activity involving Visa-branded cards or payment products could harm our business.

Criminals are using increasingly sophisticated methods to capture account holder and other information. They use this information to conduct fraudulent transactions involving our payment products. Outsourcing and specialization of functions within the payments system are increasing. As a result, more third parties are involved in processing transactions using Visa-branded cards or payment products. A rise in fraud levels and other illegal activities involving Visa-branded cards or payment products could lead to reputational damage to our brands. This could reduce the use and acceptance of Visa-branded cards and payment products, or lead to greater regulation, which could increase our compliance costs, lower our payments volume and harm our overall business.

Failure to maintain interoperability with Visa Europe's systems could damage the business and global perception of the Visa brands.

Until our proposed acquisition of Visa Europe closes and for a period of time afterwards while Visa Europe's systems are being integrated with Visa's systems, Visa and Visa Europe will continue to maintain mostly separate authorization, clearing and settlement systems. As a result, we have to ensure that the two systems can process every transaction involving both of our territories, regardless of where it originates. Visa Europe's independent system operations could present challenges to our business due to increasing costs and difficulty in maintaining the interoperability of our respective systems. Any inconsistency in the payment processing services and products between Visa Europe and us could negatively affect account holders from Visa Europe using payment products in the countries we serve or our account holders using payment products in Visa Europe's region. Failure to authorize, clear and settle inter-territory transactions quickly and accurately could harm our business and impair the global perception of our brands.

Structural and Organizational Risks

We may experience added costs and challenges in operating our business in certain territories due to our relationship with Visa Europe.

Until our proposed acquisition of Visa Europe closes, Visa Europe's exclusive license of our trademarks and technologies under the Framework Agreement gives us little ability to control and oversee Visa Europe's operations in its region. If we want to change a global rule or to implement certain changes that may be viewed as unfavorable to Visa Europe and its members, Visa Europe is not required to implement the changes unless we agree to pay for the associated implementation costs. This may result in added costs and expenses to our business. Furthermore, the licenses granted under the Framework Agreement may raise licensing, payment and associated tax treatment concerns.

Until our proposed acquisition of Visa Europe closes, Visa Europe may hinder our ability to acquire new businesses or to operate them effectively in its region. If the acquired business has operations in Visa Europe's region, Visa Europe may play a significant part in influencing our ongoing operational decisions and costs there. Finally, Visa Europe may undertake operational and litigation strategies, including, but not limited to, our ongoing litigation in the U.K. and our ongoing case with the European Commission, that may adversely impact our business and reputation globally.

We may be unable to address the opportunities and challenges presented by our strategy and the increasingly global, dynamic, competitive, economic and regulatory environment.

For us to remain organizationally effective, we must effectively empower and deploy our management and operational resources, and incorporate both global and local perspectives into our decisions and processes. If we fail to do so, we may be unable to expand quickly, and the results of our expansion may be unsatisfactory.

In addition, if we are unable to make decisions quickly, assess our opportunities and risks, execute our strategy and implement new governance, managerial and organizational processes, as needed, we may not be successful in this increasingly global, dynamic, competitive, economic and regulatory environment.

We may be unable to attract and retain key management and other key employees.

Our employees, particularly our key management, are vital to our success. Our senior management team has significant industry experience and would be difficult to replace. We may be unable to retain them or to attract other highly qualified employees, particularly if we do not offer employment terms that are competitive with the rest of the market. Failure to attract, motivate and retain highly qualified employees, or failure to develop and implement a viable succession plan, could adversely affect our business and our future success.

Future sales of our class A common stock, or the end of transfer restrictions on our class B common stock, could result in dilution to holders of our existing class A common stock.

The market price of our class A common stock could fall as a result of many factors. Under our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan, upon final resolution of our U.S. covered litigation, all class B common stock will become convertible into class A common stock. Future offerings of our class A common stock or the end of the transfer restrictions on our class B common stock would increase the number of class A common stock outstanding, which could adversely affect the market price and dilute the voting power of our existing class A common stock. Likewise, if we complete the proposed acquisition of Visa Europe and issue the preferred shares, similar impacts on market price and dilution to our existing Class A common stock could occur upon conversion of the preferred shares into Class A common shares. The market price of our class A common stock may also suffer from the perception that such an increase in the number of class A common stock outstanding could occur in the future.

If funds are released from escrow after the resolution of the litigation covered by our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan, the value of our class A common stock will be diluted.

Under our U.S. retrospective responsibility plan, funds still in the escrow account after the resolution of all U.S. covered litigation will be released back to us. At that time, each share of class B common stock will become convertible into shares of class A common stock, benefiting the holders of class B common stock. This in turn will result in dilution of the interest of holders of class A common stock. The amount of funds released and the market price of our class A common stock will determine the extent of the dilution.

Holders of our class B and C common stock may have different interests than our holders of our class A common stock concerning certain significant transactions.

Although their voting rights are limited, holders of our class B and C common stock can vote on certain significant transactions. These include a proposed consolidation or merger, a decision to exit our core payments business and any other vote required under Delaware law. The holders of these shares may not have the same incentive to approve a corporate action that may be favorable to the holders of class A common stock, and their interests may otherwise conflict with holders of class A common stock. Likewise, if we complete the proposed acquisition of Visa Europe and issue the preferred shares, a similar dynamic may occur with the holders of the preferred shares.

Anti-takeover provisions in our governing documents and under Delaware law could delay or prevent a takeover attempt or a change in control.

Provisions contained in our current certificate of incorporation, in our current bylaws and under Delaware law could delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that our stockholders may consider favorable. For instance, except for limited exceptions, no person may beneficially own more than 15% of our class A common stock (or 15% of our total outstanding common stock on an as-converted basis), unless our board of directors approves the acquisition of such shares in advance. In addition, except for common stock previously issued in connection with our reorganization to Visa Members, as defined in our current certificate of incorporation, no competitor or an affiliate of a competitor may hold more than 5% of our total outstanding common stock on an as-converted basis.

We may not be able to pay regular dividends to holders of our common stock in the future.

Since August 2008, we have paid cash dividends quarterly on our class A, B and C common stock. The payment of dividends, if any, is subject to the discretion of our board of directors after taking into account various factors, including, but not limited to, our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements, covenants in our debt instruments and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. If, as a result of these factors, we cannot generate sufficient earnings and cash flows from our business, we may not be able to pay dividends to all of our stockholders. Specifically, if a dividend is declared or paid, an equivalent amount must be paid on each class or series of our common stock (and on the preferred shares we are obligated to issue if we complete our proposed acquisition of Visa Europe).

Acquisitions, strategic investments and entries into new businesses could disrupt our business.

Although we may continue to make strategic acquisitions or investments in complementary businesses, products or technologies, we may be unable to successfully finance, partner with or integrate them. Such transactions, including our anticipated acquisition of Visa Europe, would present significant challenges and risks. In cases where strategic acquisitions or investments are not successfully implemented or completed, our financial condition or results of operations could be negatively impacted. We may incur substantial debt for strategic acquisitions or investments, which could adversely impact our credit ratings. Achieving the benefits of an acquisition is also dependent upon efficiently integrating the acquired business and systems into our existing operations, successfully managing new risks associated with the acquired business and achieving expected synergies, any of which we may be unable to achieve on a timely basis or at all.

Until our acquisition of Visa Europe is completed, we are subject to the terms of the exclusive license granted to Visa Europe in most acquisitions and major investments that involve countries in Visa Europe's territory, which impacts our ability to expand or conduct business in those regions. Regulatory constraints, particularly competition regulations, may also affect the extent to which we can maximize the value of our acquisitions or investments. Acquisitions outside the U.S. may present unique challenges or increase our exposure to risks associated with foreign operations, including foreign currency risks and the risks of complying with foreign regulations.

Furthermore, the integration of any acquisition or investment will take time and resources from our core business and may disrupt our operations. We may spend time and money on acquisitions or investments that do not increase our revenues. Although we periodically evaluate potential acquisitions of and investments in businesses, products and technologies and anticipate continuing to make these evaluations, we cannot guarantee that they will be successful.

With the evolution of technology and the opening of new market segments, we may choose to participate in areas in which we have not engaged in the past, either through acquisitions or through organic development. These include digital, eCommerce, loyalty services and mobile payments. Our recent entry into these businesses requires additional resources and presents an additional degree of risk, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Relating to our Proposed Acquisition of Visa Europe

We may not be able to complete the acquisition of Visa Europe on the terms currently contemplated or at all.

On November 2, 2015, we announced a definitive agreement to acquire Visa Europe Ltd. We and Visa Europe have agreed to use all reasonable efforts to take all actions reasonably necessary to complete the acquisition. There is no assurance, however, that the acquisition will ultimately be completed, as the obligations of the parties to complete the acquisition are subject to various conditions. These conditions include, among others:

•	receipt of necessary regulatory approvals;

•	absence of any material adverse effect (as determined under the definitive transaction documentation) on Visa Europe or the Company since September 30, 2014;

•	absence of legal restraints that prohibit the closing of the acquisition;

•	the U.K. loss sharing agreement remaining in full force and effect and the litigation management deed having been fully executed and remaining in full force and effect;

•	compliance by each party in all material respects with its obligations under the acquisition agreement; and

•	Visa Europe holding the full power and authority to effect the transaction.

The acquisition agreement may be terminated by us or Visa Europe, subject to specified exceptions, if the acquisition is not completed by August 2, 2016, or if legal restraints that prohibit the closing have become final and non-appealable.

If we fail to complete the acquisition, Visa Europe would continue to have the right to require us to purchase all outstanding capital stock from Visa Europe’s members under the terms of the put option (as it existed prior to its amendment in connection with the proposed acquisition). Given current economic conditions, the purchase price under the terms of the put option would likely be in excess of $15 billion. We may not have the resources to fund the purchase price, particularly if the reason we failed to complete the acquisition was due to our inability to raise debt financing.

Financing the acquisition of Visa Europe exposes us to risk.

To finance the Visa Europe acquisition, we expect to issue senior unsecured debt in an amount ranging between $15 and $16 billion in the first half of fiscal 2016, with maturities ranging between two and 30 years depending on market conditions. We cannot predict whether we will be able to issue this debt on favorable terms, in this timeframe, or at all. If we are unable to issue this debt on favorable terms, the cost to us of financing the acquisition may be higher than we currently expect.

Moreover, although we currently anticipate that the issuance of this debt will not adversely impact our credit ratings, there can be no assurance that one or more credit rating agencies will not lower our credit ratings, particularly if there is a perceived deterioration in our business or financial prospects. Any lowering of our credit ratings before or in connection with the issuance of this debt would be expected to increase the cost of financing the acquisition.

If we are unable to issue this debt and are not able to obtain alternative financing on terms that are acceptable to us, we may be unable to complete the acquisition, which could expose us to liability to Visa Europe and its shareholders.

If we issue this debt but then fail to complete the acquisition, we will nevertheless incur interest expense, which may be higher than any returns we are able to achieve through investing the proceeds, in our business or otherwise. In addition, we may be obliged to redeem this debt at a redemption price that exceeds the net proceeds to us from its initial issuance.

We may not achieve the anticipated benefits of the Visa Europe acquisition.

Even if we complete the Visa Europe acquisition, a variety of factors may adversely affect any anticipated benefits to us from the acquisition. For example:

•	the process of integrating Visa Europe’s operations into ours may be more difficult and/or may require more resources than we anticipate;

•	we may assume unexpected liabilities;

•	we may face an increased risk of customer loss, for example if our European bank customers that were previously members of Visa Europe choose to expand business relationships with our competitors or otherwise support or engage in competing card or other payment solutions;

•	there may be unexpected regulatory and operating difficulties, commercial issues or conditions, and expenditures;

•	we would become subject to EU and other regulations that govern the operations of Visa Europe, including new regulations governing the separation of scheme and processing that have not yet been fully defined, as well as any ongoing or future litigation involving Visa Europe;

•	we may fail to retain key personnel of Visa Europe;

•	the transaction may divert the time and resources of our senior management and disrupt our current operations to a greater degree than we currently contemplate;

•	we may not be able to repurchase shares of our Class A common stock in amounts sufficient to offset the dilution resulting from the preferred stock that we intend to issue as part of the acquisition consideration; and

•	we may incur higher costs to finance the transaction than we currently contemplate.

If we do not successfully implement the Visa Europe acquisition or the acquisition is not completed on the terms we currently contemplate, our financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be negatively impacted. In particular, although we currently expect the Visa Europe acquisition to be mildly accretive to adjusted earnings per share in fiscal year 2017 (before one-time integration costs), if the expenses associated with integrating Visa Europe into our operations and financing the acquisition are higher than we currently contemplate, if we fail to achieve our revenue expectations due to unexpected customer losses or otherwise, or if we do not achieve the benefits we anticipate from revenue synergies, cost savings, and increased repurchases of Class A common stock, we may not achieve this goal.