Business description of Fifth-Third-Bancorp from last 10-k form

AVAILABILITY OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Fifth Third Bancorp (the “Bancorp”) files reports with the SEC. Those reports include the annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current event reports on Form 8-K and proxy statements, as well as any amendments to those reports. The public may read and copy any materials the Bancorp files with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. The Bancorp’s annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are accessible at no cost on the Bancorp’s web site at www.53.com on a same day basis after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC.

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

General Information

Fifth Third Bancorp, an Ohio corporation organized in 1975, is a bank holding company as defined by the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”), and is registered as such with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB). The Bancorp’s principal office is located in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Bancorp’s subsidiaries provide a wide range of financial products and services to the retail, commercial, financial, governmental, educational and medical sectors, including a wide variety of checking, savings and money market accounts, and credit products such as credit cards, installment loans, mortgage loans and leases. Fifth Third Bank has deposit insurance provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) through the Deposit Insurance Fund. Refer to Exhibit 21 filed as an attachment to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a list of all the subsidiaries of the Bancorp as of December 31, 2009.

Additional information regarding the Bancorp’s businesses is included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Competition

The Bancorp competes for deposits, loans and other banking services in its principal geographic markets as well as in selected national markets as opportunities arise. In addition to the challenge of attracting and retaining customers for traditional banking services, the Bancorp’s competitors include securities dealers, brokers, mortgage bankers, investment advisors and insurance companies. These competitors, with focused products targeted at highly profitable customer segments, compete across geographic boundaries and provide customers increasing access to meaningful alternatives to banking services in nearly all significant products. The increasingly competitive environment is a result primarily of changes in regulation, changes in technology, product delivery systems and the accelerating pace of consolidation among financial service providers. These competitive trends are likely to continue.

Acquisitions

The Bancorp’s strategy for growth includes strengthening its presence in core markets, expanding into contiguous markets and broadening its product offerings while taking into account

the integration and other risks of growth. The Bancorp evaluates strategic acquisition opportunities and conducts due diligence activities in connection with possible transactions. As a result, discussions, and in some cases, negotiations may take place and future acquisitions involving cash, debt or equity securities may occur. These typically involve the payment of a premium over book value and current market price, and therefore, some dilution of book value and net income per share may occur with any future transactions.

Additional information regarding acquisitions is included in the Regulation and Supervision section in addition to Note 3 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Regulation and Supervision

In addition to the generally applicable state and federal laws governing businesses and employers, the Bancorp and its subsidiary bank are subject to extensive regulation by federal and state laws and regulations applicable to financial institutions and their parent companies. Virtually all aspects of the business of the Bancorp and its subsidiary bank are subject to specific requirements or restrictions and general regulatory oversight. The principal objectives of state and federal banking laws are the maintenance of the safety and soundness of financial institutions and the federal deposit insurance system and the protection of consumers or classes of consumers, rather than the specific protection of shareholders of a bank or the parent company of a bank, such as the Bancorp. In addition, the supervision, regulation and examination of the Bancorp and its subsidiaries by the bank regulatory agencies is not intended for the protection of the Bancorp’s security holders. To the extent the following material describes statutory or regulatory provisions, it is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statute or regulation.

The Bancorp is subject to regulation and supervision by the FRB and the Ohio Division of Financial Institutions (the “Division). The Bancorp is required to file various reports with, and is subject to examination by, the FRB and the Division. The FRB has the authority to issue orders to bank holding companies to cease and desist from unsound banking practices and violations of conditions imposed by, or violations of agreements with, the FRB. The FRB is also empowered to assess civil money penalties against companies or individuals who violate the BHCA or orders or regulations thereunder, to order termination of non-banking activities of non-banking subsidiaries of bank holding companies, and to order termination of ownership and control of a non-banking subsidiary by a bank holding company.

The BHCA requires the prior approval of the FRB, for a bank holding company to acquire substantially all the assets of a bank or acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of any class of the voting shares of any bank, bank holding company or savings association, or increasing any such non-majority ownership or control of any bank, bank holding company or savings association, or merging or consolidating with any bank holding company.

    The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 generally authorizes bank holding companies to acquire banks located in any state, subject to certain state-imposed age and deposit concentration limits, and also generally authorizes interstate bank holding company and bank mergers and to a lesser extent, interstate branching.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA) permits a qualifying bank holding company to become a financial holding company (FHC) and thereby to engage directly or indirectly in a broader range of activities than had previously been permitted for a bank holding company under the BHCA. Permitted

activities include securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting and brokerage, merchant banking and other activities that are declared by the FRB, in cooperation with the Treasury Department, to be “financial in nature or incidental thereto” or are declared by the FRB unilaterally to be “complementary” to financial activities. In addition, a FHC is allowed to conduct permissible new financial activities or acquire permissible non-bank financial companies with after-the-fact notice to the FRB. A bank holding company may elect to become a FHC if each of its subsidiary banks is “well capitalized,” is “well managed” and has at least a “Satisfactory” rating under the Federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In 2000, the Bancorp elected and qualified for FHC status under the GLBA.

Unless a bank holding company becomes a FHC under GLBA, the BHCA also prohibits a bank holding company from acquiring a direct or indirect interest in or control of more than 5% of any class of the voting shares of a company that is not a bank or a bank holding company and from engaging directly or indirectly in activities other than those of banking, managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to its subsidiary banks, except that it may engage in and may own shares of companies engaged in certain activities the FRB has determined to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be proper incident thereto.

The FRB has authority to prohibit bank holding companies from paying dividends if such payment is deemed to be an unsafe or unsound practice. The FRB has indicated generally that it may be an unsafe or unsound practice for bank holding companies to pay dividends unless a bank holding company’s net income is sufficient to fund the dividends and the expected rate of earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. The Bancorp depends in part upon dividends received from its subsidiary bank to fund its activities, including the payment of dividends and its subsidiary bank is subject to regulatory limitations on the amount of dividends it may declare and pay.

Under FRB policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to each of its subsidiary banks and to commit resources to their support. This support may be required at times when the bank holding company may not have the resources to provide it. Similarly, under the cross-guarantee provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), the FDIC can hold any FDIC-insured depository institution liable for any loss suffered or anticipated by the FDIC in connection with (1) the “default” of a commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institution; or (2) any assistance provided by the FDIC to a commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institution “in danger of default.”

    Prior to September 30, 2009, the Bancorp owned two state banks, Fifth Third Bank and Fifth Third Bank (Michigan), chartered under the laws of Ohio and Michigan, respectively and one national bank, Fifth Third Bank, N.A. On September 30, 2009 Fifth Third Bank, N.A., and Fifth Third Bank (Michigan) merged with and into Fifth Third Bank, the Ohio chartered bank (the “consolidation”). These banks are subject to extensive state regulation and examination by the appropriate state banking agency in the particular state or states where each state bank is chartered, by the FRB, and by the FDIC, which insures the deposits of each of the state banks to the maximum extent permitted by law. The federal and state laws and regulations that are applicable to banks regulate, among other matters, the scope of their business, their investments, their reserves against deposits, the timing of the availability of

deposited funds, the amount of loans to individual and related borrowers and the nature, amount of and collateral for certain loans, and the amount of interest that may be charged on loans. Various state consumer laws and regulations also affect the operations of the state banks.

Prior to the consolidation, the Bancorp’s national subsidiary bank, Fifth Third Bank, N.A. was subject to regulation and examination primarily by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and secondarily by the FRB and the FDIC, which insures the deposits to the maximum extent permitted by law. The federal laws and regulations that are applicable to national banks regulate, among other matters, the scope of their business, their investments, their reserves against deposits, the timing of the availability of deposited funds, the amount of loans to individual and related borrowers and the nature, amount of and collateral for certain loans, and the amount of interest that may be charged on loans.

In 2006, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 was signed into law (FDIRA). Pursuant to the FDIRA, the Bank Insurance Fund and Savings Association Fund were merged to create the Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”). The FDIC was granted broader authority in adjusting deposit insurance premium rates and more flexibility in establishing the designated reserve ratio. FDIRA provided assessment credits to insured depository institutions that could be used to offset 100% of insurance premiums in 2007 and 90% of premiums in 2008-2010 or until they are fully exhausted. The Bancorp fully exhausted its assessment credits in the second quarter of 2008. Insured depository institutions are placed into one of four risk categories under FDIRA, with the vast majority qualifying for Risk Category I. Risk Category I institutions insurance premiums are based upon CAMELS ratings, long-term debt issuer ratings (if applicable) and various financial ratios derived from the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (Call Report). In December 2008, the FDIC issued a final rule that raised the then current assessment rates uniformly by 7 basis points for the first quarter of 2009 assessment, which resulted in annualized assessment rates for Risk Category I institutions ranging from 12 to 14 basis points. In February 2009, the FDIC issued final rules to amend the DIF restoration plan, change the risk-based assessment system and set assessment rates for Risk Category I institutions beginning in the second quarter of 2009. For Risk Category I institutions that have long-term debt issuer ratings, the FDIC determines the initial base assessment rate using a combination of weighted-average CAMELS component ratings, long-term debt issuer ratings (converted to numbers and averaged) and the financial ratios method assessment rate (as defined), each equally weighted. The initial base assessment rates for Risk Category I institutions range from 12 to 16 basis points, on an annualized basis. After the effect of potential base-rate adjustments, total base assessment rates range from 7 to 24 basis points. The potential adjustments to a Risk Category I institution’s initial base assessment rate, include (i) a potential decrease of up to 5 basis points for long-term unsecured debt, including senior and subordinated debt and (ii) a potential increase of up to 8 basis points for secured liabilities in excess of 25% of domestic deposits.

In May 2009, as part of its efforts to rebuild the DIF, the FDIC issued a final rule which levied a special assessment applicable to all insured depository institutions totaling 5 basis points of each institution’s total assets less Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009, not to exceed 10 basis points of domestic deposits. In lieu of further special assessments, in November 2009, the FDIC issued a rule that required all insured depository institutions, with limited exceptions, to prepay their estimated

quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012. The FDIC also adopted a uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates effective on January 1, 2011.

Federal law, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, restricts transactions between a bank and an affiliated company, including a parent bank holding company. The subsidiary banks are subject to certain restrictions on loans to affiliated companies, on investments in the stock or securities thereof, on the taking of such stock or securities as collateral for loans to any borrower, and on the issuance of a guarantee or letter of credit on their behalf. Among other things, these restrictions limit the amount of such transactions, require collateral in prescribed amounts for extensions of credit, prohibit the purchase of low quality assets and require that the terms of such transactions be substantially equivalent to terms of similar transactions with non-affiliates. One result of these restrictions is a limitation on the subsidiary banks to fund the Bancorp. Generally, each subsidiary bank is limited in its extensions of credit to any affiliate to 10% of the subsidiary bank’s capital and its extension of credit to all affiliates to 20% of the subsidiary bank’s capital.

The CRA generally requires insured depository institutions to identify the communities they serve and to make loans and investments and provide services that meet the credit needs of these communities. Furthermore, the CRA requires the FRB to evaluate the performance of each of the subsidiary banks in helping to meet the credit needs of their communities. As a part of the CRA program, the subsidiary banks are subject to periodic examinations by the FRB, and must maintain comprehensive records of their CRA activities for this purpose. During these examinations, the FRB rates such institutions’ compliance with CRA as “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs to Improve” or “Substantial Noncompliance.” Failure of an institution to receive at least a “Satisfactory” rating could inhibit such institution or its holding company from undertaking certain activities, including engaging in activities permitted as a financial holding company under the GLBA and acquisitions of other financial institutions, or, as discussed above, require divestitures. The FRB must take into account the record of performance of banks in meeting the credit needs of the entire community served, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Fifth Third Bank, Fifth Third Bank (Michigan) and Fifth Third Bank, N.A. all received a “Satisfactory” CRA rating. Because the Bancorp is an FHC, with limited exceptions, the Bancorp may not commence any new financial activities or acquire control of any companies engaged in financial activities in reliance on the GLBA if any of the subsidiary banks receives a CRA rating of less than “Satisfactory.”

The FRB has established capital guidelines for financial holding companies. The FRB and the OCC have also issued regulations establishing capital requirements for banks. Failure to meet capital requirements could subject the Bancorp and its subsidiary bank to a variety of restrictions and enforcement actions. In addition, as discussed previously, the Bancorp’s subsidiary bank must remain well capitalized for the Bancorp to retain its status as a financial holding company.

The minimum risk-based capital requirements adopted by the federal banking agencies follow the Capital Accord of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. In 2004, the Basel Committee published its new capital guidelines (Basel II) governing the capital adequacy of large, internationally active banking organizations (core” banking organizations with at least $250 billion in total assets or at least $10 billion in foreign exposure). The final rule to implement the advanced approaches

of Basel II for core banking organizations became effective on April 1, 2008. Under Basel II, after a transition period, core banking organizations are required to enhance the measurement and management of their risks, including credit risk and operational risk, through the use of advanced approaches for calculating risk-based capital requirements. Other U.S. banking organizations may elect to adopt the requirements of this rule (if they meet applicable qualification requirements), but they are not required to apply them.

In July 2008, the federal banking agencies issued a proposed rule that would give all non-core banking organizations, which are not required to adopt Basel II’s advance approaches, such as Bancorp, with the option to adopt a new risk-based framework. This framework would adopt the standardized approach of Basel II for credit risk, the basic indicator approach of Basel II for operational risk, and related disclosure requirements. The proposed rule, if adopted, will replace the earlier proposal to adopt the so-called Basel IA option. Until such time as the new rules for non-core banking organizations are adopted, Bancorp is unable to predict whether it will adopt a standardized approach under Basel II.

On September 3, 2009, the United States Treasury Department (“Treasury”) issued a policy statement (the “Treasury Policy Statement”) entitled “Principles for Reforming the U.S. and International Regulatory Capital Framework for Banking Firms.” The Treasury Policy Statement was developed in consultation with the U.S. bank regulatory agencies and contemplates changes to the existing regulatory capital regime that would involve substantial revisions to, if not replacement of, major parts of the Basel I and Basel II capital frameworks and affect all regulated banking organizations and other systemically important institutions. The Treasury Policy Statement calls for, among other things, stronger and higher capital requirements for all banking firms. The Treasury Policy Statement suggested that changes to the regulatory capital framework be phased in over a period of several years. Treasury seeks to reach a comprehensive international agreement on the framework by December 31, 2010, with the implementation of reforms by December 31, 2012. However, it remains possible that U.S. bank regulatory agencies could officially adopt, or informally implement, new capital standards at an earlier date.

On December 17, 2009, the Basel Committee issued a set of proposals (the “Capital Proposals”) that would significantly revise the definitions of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital, with the most significant changes being to Tier 1 capital. Most notably, the Capital Proposals would disqualify certain structured capital instruments, such as trust preferred securities, from Tier 1 capital status. The Capital Proposals would also re-emphasize that common equity is the predominant component of Tier 1 capital by adding a minimum common equity to risk-weighted assets ratio and requiring that goodwill, general intangibles and certain other items that currently must be deducted from Tier 1 capital instead be deducted from common equity as a component of Tier 1 capital. The Capital Proposals also leave open the possibility that the Basel Committee will recommend changes to the minimum Tier 1 capital and total capital ratios of 4.0% and 8.0%, respectively.

Concurrently with the release of the Capital Proposals, the Basel Committee also released a set of proposals related to liquidity risk exposure (the “Liquidity Proposals,” and together with the Capital Proposals, the “2009 Basel Committee Proposals”). The Liquidity Proposals include two measures of liquidity based on risk exposure, one based on a 30-day time horizon under an acute liquidity stress scenario and one

designed to promote more medium and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banks over a one-year time horizon.

Comments on the 2009 Basel Committee Proposals are due by April 16, 2010, with the expectation that the Basel Committee will release a comprehensive set of proposals by December 31, 2010 and that final provisions will be implemented by December 31, 2012. The U.S. bank regulators have urged comment on the 2009 Basel Committee Proposals. Ultimate implementation of such proposals in the U.S. will be subject to the discretion of the U.S. bank regulators and the regulations or guidelines adopted by such agencies may, of course, differ from the 2009 Basel Committee Proposals and other proposals that the Basel Committee may promulgate in the future.

The FRB, FDIC and other bank regulatory agencies have adopted final guidelines (the “Guidelines) for safeguarding confidential, personal customer information. The Guidelines require each financial institution, under the supervision and ongoing oversight of its Board of Directors or an appropriate committee thereof, to create, implement and maintain a comprehensive written information security program designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information, protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such information and protect against unauthorized access to or use of such information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. The Bancorp has adopted a customer information security program that has been approved by the Bancorp’s Board of Directors (the “Board).

The GLBA requires financial institutions to implement policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of nonpublic personal information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties. In general, the statute requires explanations to consumers on policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of such nonpublic personal information, and, except as otherwise required by law, prohibits disclosing such information except as provided in the subsidiary banks policies and procedures. The subsidiary banks have implemented a privacy policy effective since the GLBA became law, pursuant to which all of its existing and new customers are notified of the privacy policies.

    The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act), designed to deny terrorists and others the ability to obtain access to the United States financial system, has significant implications for depository institutions, brokers, dealers and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The Patriot Act, as implemented by various federal regulatory agencies, requires financial institutions, including the Bancorp and its subsidiaries, to implement new policies and procedures or amend existing policies and procedures with respect to, among other matters, anti-money laundering, compliance, suspicious activity and currency transaction reporting and due diligence on customers. The Patriot Act and its underlying regulations also permit information sharing for counter-terrorist purposes between federal law enforcement agencies and financial institutions, as well as among financial institutions, subject to certain conditions, and require the FRB (and other federal banking agencies) to evaluate the effectiveness of an applicant in combating money laundering activities when considering applications filed under Section 3 of the BHCA or the Bank Merger Act. The Bancorp’s Board has approved policies and procedures that are believed to be compliant with the Patriot Act.

Certain mutual fund and unit investment trust custody and administrative clients are regulated as “investment companies” as that term is defined under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “ICA), and are subject to various examination and reporting requirements. The provisions of the ICA and the regulations promulgated thereunder prescribe the type of institution that may act as a custodian of investment company assets, as well as the manner in which a custodian administers the assets in its custody. As a custodian for a number of investment company clients, these regulations require, among other things, that certain minimum aggregate capital, surplus and undivided profit levels are maintained by the subsidiary banks. Additionally, arrangements with clearing agencies or other securities depositories must meet ICA requirements for segregation of assets, identification of assets and client approval. Future legislative and regulatory changes in the existing laws and regulations governing custody of investment company assets, particularly with respect to custodian qualifications, may have a material and adverse impact on the Bancorp. Currently, management believes the Bancorp is in compliance with all minimum capital and securities depository requirements. Further, the Bancorp is not aware of any proposed or pending regulatory developments, which, if approved, would adversely affect its ability to act as custodian to an investment company.

Investment companies are also subject to extensive record keeping and reporting requirements. These requirements dictate the type, volume and duration of the record keeping the Bancorp undertakes, either in the role as custodian for an investment company or as a provider of administrative services to an investment company. Further, specific ICA guidelines must be followed when calculating the net asset value of a client mutual fund. Consequently, changes in the statutes or regulations governing recordkeeping and reporting or valuation calculations will affect the manner in which operations are conducted.

New legislation or regulatory requirements could have a significant impact on the information reporting requirements applicable to the Bancorp and may in the short term adversely affect the Bancorp’s ability to service clients at a reasonable cost. Any failure to provide such support could cause the loss of customers and have a material adverse effect on financial results. Additionally, legislation or regulations may be proposed or enacted to regulate the Bancorp in a manner that may adversely affect financial results. Furthermore, the mutual fund industry may be significantly affected by new laws and regulations.

    The GLBA amended the federal securities laws to eliminate the blanket exceptions that banks traditionally have had from the definition of “broker” and “dealer.” The GLBA also required that there be certain transactional activities that would not be “brokerage” activities, which banks could effect without having to register as a broker. In September 2007, the FRB and SEC approved Regulation R to govern bank securities activities. Various exemptions permit banks to conduct activities that would otherwise constitute brokerage activities under the securities laws. Those exemptions include conducting brokerage activities related to trust, fiduciary and similar services, certain services and also conducting a de minimis number of riskless principal transactions, certain asset-backed transactions and certain securities lending transactions. The Bancorp only conducts non-exempt brokerage activities through its affiliated registered broker-dealer.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (Sarbanes-Oxley) implements a broad range of corporate governance and

accounting measures for public companies (including publicly-held bank holding companies such as the Bancorp) designed to promote honesty and transparency in corporate America. Sarbanes-Oxley’s principal provisions, many of which have been interpreted through regulations, provide for and include, among other things: (i) the creation of an independent accounting oversight board; (ii) auditor independence provisions that restrict non-audit services that accountants may provide to their audit clients; (iii) additional corporate governance and responsibility measures, including the requirement that the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of a public company certify financial statements; (iv) the forfeiture of bonuses or other incentive-based compensation and profits from the sale of an issuer’s securities by directors and senior officers in the twelve month period following initial publication of any financial statements that later require restatement; (v) an increase in the oversight of, and enhancement of certain requirements relating to, audit committees of public companies and how they interact with the Bancorp’s independent auditors; (vi) requirements that audit committee members must be independent and are barred from accepting consulting, advisory or other compensatory fees from the issuer; (vii) requirements that companies disclose whether at least one member of the audit committee is a ‘financial expert’ (as such term is defined by the SEC) and if not discussed, why the audit committee does not have a financial expert; (viii) expanded disclosure requirements for corporate insiders, including accelerated reporting of stock transactions by insiders and a prohibition on insider trading during pension blackout periods; (ix) a prohibition on personal loans to directors and officers, except certain loans made by insured financial institutions on nonpreferential terms and in compliance with other bank regulatory requirements; (x) disclosure of a code of ethics and filing a Form 8-K for a change or waiver of such code; (xi) requirements that management assess the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the Bancorp’s Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm attest to the assessment; and (xii) a range of enhanced penalties for fraud and other violations.

Additional information regarding regulatory matters is included in Note 28 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

On October 3, 2008, in response to the stresses experienced in the financial markets, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) was enacted. EESA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion in troubled assets from financial institutions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP. Troubled assets include residential or commercial mortgages and related instruments originated prior to March 14, 2008 and any other financial instrument that the Secretary determines, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial stability. In December 2009, Treasury extended TARP, scheduled to expire on December 31, 2009, to October 3, 2010.

Capital Purchase Program

Pursuant to its authority under EESA, Treasury created the TARP Capital Purchase Program (CPP) under which the Treasury Department will invest up to $250 billion in senior preferred stock of U.S. banks and savings associations or their holding companies. Qualifying financial institutions may issue senior preferred stock with a value equal to not less than 1% of

risk-weighted assets and not more than the lesser of $25 billion or 3% of risk-weighted assets. The senior preferred stock will pay dividends at the rate of 5% per annum until the fifth anniversary of the investment and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum. Under the original terms of the CPP purchase agreement, CPP recipients were prohibited from redeeming the senior preferred stock for three years, unless they earlier completed a qualified equity offering of Tier 1 capital qualifying securities in an amount equal to the liquidation preference of the CPP investment. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Secretary of Treasury shall permit any recipient of funds under the TARP to repay such funds without regard to the source of the funds or any waiting period, subject to consultation with the appropriate federal banking agency. Until the third anniversary of the issuance of the senior preferred, the consent of the U.S. Treasury will be required for any increase in the dividends on the common stock or for any stock repurchases unless the senior preferred has been redeemed in its entirety or the Treasury has transferred the senior preferred to third parties. The senior preferred will not have voting rights other than the right to vote as a class on the issuance of any preferred stock ranking senior, any change in its terms or any merger, exchange or similar transaction that would adversely affect its rights. The senior preferred will also have the right to elect two directors if dividends have not been paid for six periods. The senior preferred will be freely transferable and participating institutions will be required to file a shelf registration statement covering the senior preferred. The issuing institution must grant the Treasury piggyback registration rights. Prior to issuance, the financial institution and its senior executive officers must modify or terminate all benefit plans and arrangements to comply with EESA. Senior executives must also waive any claims against the Department of Treasury.

    In connection with the issuance of the senior preferred, participating institutions must issue to Treasury immediately exercisable 10-year warrants to purchase common stock with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the amount of senior preferred. The exercise price of the warrants will equal the average closing price of the common stock for the 20 trading days prior to the date of the Treasury’s approval. Treasury may only exercise or transfer one-half of the warrants prior to the earlier of December 31, 2009 or the date the issuing financial institution has received proceeds equal to the senior preferred investment from one or more offerings of common or preferred stock qualifying as Tier 1 capital. Treasury will not exercise voting rights with respect to any shares of common stock acquired through exercise of the warrants. The financial institution must file a shelf registration statement covering the warrants and underlying common stock as soon as practicable after issuance and grant piggyback registration rights. The number of warrants will be reduced by one-half if the financial institution raises capital equal to the amount of the senior preferred through one or more offerings of common stock or preferred stock qualifying as Tier 1 capital. If the financial institution does not have sufficient authorized shares of common stock available to satisfy the warrants or their issuance otherwise requires shareholder approval, the financial institution must call a meeting of shareholders for that purpose as soon as practicable after the date of investment. The exercise price of the warrants will be reduced by 15% for each six months that lapse before shareholder approval subject to a maximum reduction of 45%.

On December 31, 2008, Bancorp entered into a Letter Agreement (including the Securities Purchase Agreement—

Standard Terms incorporated by reference therein, the “Purchase Agreement) with Treasury pursuant to which the Company issued and sold to Treasury for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $3.4 billion in cash: (i) 136,320 shares of the Company’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series F, having a liquidation preference of $25,000 per share (the “Series F Preferred Stock), and (ii) a ten-year warrant to purchase up to 43,617,747 shares of the Company’s common stock, no par value per share, at an initial exercise price of $11.72 per share.

In the Purchase Agreement, the Bancorp agreed that, until such time as Treasury ceases to own any debt or equity securities of the Bancorp acquired pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Bancorp will take all necessary action to ensure that its benefit plans with respect to its senior executive officers comply with Section 111(b) of EESA as implemented by any guidance or regulation under the EESA that has been issued and is in effect as of the date of issuance of the Series F Preferred Stock and the Warrant, and has agreed to not adopt any benefit plans with respect to, or which covers, its senior executive officers that do not comply with the EESA.

Importantly, the CPP may be unilaterally amended by the Treasury. Accordingly, the Company may be subject to further restrictions or obligations as a result of its participation in the CPP or redemption of CPP.

TLG Program

Pursuant to EESA, on November 21, 2008, the FDIC adopted a final rule relating to the Temporary Liquidity Guaranty Program (TLGP). Included within the TLGP was the Transaction Account Guarantee Program in which the FDIC will provide full FDIC deposit insurance coverage for all non-interest-bearing transaction accounts through June 30, 2010 (extended from December 31, 2009 subject to an opt-out provision, by subsequent amendment). Coverage under the Transaction Account Guarantee Program was available for the first 30 days without charge. Thereafter, the fee assessment for deposit insurance coverage is assessed on a quarterly basis at an annualized 10 basis points per quarter on amounts in covered accounts exceeding $250,000 for 2008. During the six month extension period in 2010, the fee assessment increases to 15 basis points per quarter for institutions in Risk Category I of the risk based premium system. The Company elected to participate in the Transaction Account Guarantee Program and not opt out of the six month extension.

Capital Assistance Program

On February 25, 2009, under its Financial Stability Plan, Treasury announced the Capital Assistance Program (“CAP”). The CAP did not replace the CPP and was open to qualifying institutions regardless of whether they participated in the CPP. The deadline to apply for the CAP was November 9, 2009. Bancorp did not participate in the CAP.

Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility

Under the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (“TALF”), the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is authorized to lend up to $200 billion to eligible owners of certain AAA-rated asset backed securities backed by newly and recently originated auto loans, credit card loans, student loans, and SBA-guaranteed small business loans, and commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”). Any U.S. company that owns eligible collateral may borrow from the TALF, provided the company maintains an account relationship with a primary dealer. The facility will cease making loans collateralized by newly issued CMBS on June 30, 2010, and loans collateralized

by all other types of TALF-eligible newly issued and legacy CMBS on March 31, 2010, unless the FRB extends the facility.

Supervisory Capital Assessment Program

On February 10, 2009, Treasury announced a new financial stability plan (the “Financial Stability Plan”), which builds upon existing programs and earmarks the second $350 billion of unused funds originally authorized under EESA. Pursuant to the CAP, the Bancorp, along with the other domestic bank holding companies with assets of more than $100 billion at December 31, 2008, was subject to a forward-looking stress test called the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (the “SCAP”). The SCAP exam evaluated the projected level and quality of each institution’s capital during specified economic scenarios through the end of 2010, which included a baseline scenario, reflecting a consensus estimate of private-sector forecasters, and a more adverse scenario, reflecting an economic situation more severe than is generally anticipated.

On May 7, 2009, the Bancorp announced its SCAP results. The results of the SCAP assessment indicated that the Bancorp’s Tier 1 Capital and Total Risk-Based Capital ratios were expected to continue to exceed the levels required to maintain a “well-capitalized” status under the more adverse scenario as defined by the assessment. As a result, the Bancorp was not required to raise additional overall capital. The SCAP results did indicate that the Bancorp’s Tier 1 common equity would be required to be augmented to maintain a capital buffer above the newly required four percent threshold of the Tier 1 common equity ratio under the more adverse scenario of the assessment. The total amount required, prior to considering activities by the Bancorp since the end of the fourth quarter of 2008, was $2.6 billion. After considering such activities, including the sale of the Bancorp’s processing business, the indicated additional net Tier 1 common equity required was $1.1 billion. During the second quarter of 2009, in order to raise additional capital to augment Tier 1 common equity, the Bancorp completed a $1 billion common stock offering and an exchange of a portion of its Series G preferred stock. As a result of the common stock offering, the exchange of the preferred stock, and the sale of its processing business, the Bancorp exceeded its Tier 1 common equity requirement under the SCAP assessment by approximately $650 million. Additionally, in July of 2009, the Bancorp sold its Visa, Inc. Class B common shares resulting in an additional net $206 million benefit to equity.

Regulatory Reform

Incentive Compensation Proposals. On October 22, 2009, the FRB proposed guidance on incentive compensation intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking.

    The guidance would apply to all banking organizations supervised by the FRB and covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group. The proposed guidance would apply to incentive compensation arrangements for: (i) senior executives and others who are responsible for oversight of the organization’s firm-wide activities or material business lines; (ii) individual employees, including non-executives, whose activities may expose the organization to material amounts of risk; and (iii) groups of employees who are subject to the same or similar incentive compensation arrangements and who, in the aggregate, may expose the organization to material amounts of risk.

In connection with the proposed guidance, the Federal Reserve also announced that it will conduct a special horizontal review of incentive compensation practices at 28 large complex banking organizations to ensure the organizations do not encourage excessive risk taking and otherwise comply with the principles set forth in the proposed guidance. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In addition, on January 12, 2010, the FDIC announced that it would seek public comment on whether banks with compensation plans that encourage risky behavior should be charged at higher deposit assessment rates than such banks would otherwise be charged.

The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future. It cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect the Corporation’s ability to hire, retain and motivate its key employees.

The Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee

On January 14, 2010, the current administration announced a proposal to impose a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on those financial institutions with over $50 billion in consolidated assets. Such Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee would be collected by the Internal Revenue Service and would be approximately fifteen basis points, or 0.15%, of an amount calculated by subtracting a covered institution’s Tier I capital and FDIC-assessed deposits (and/or an adjustment for insurance liabilities covered by state guarantee funds) from such institution’s total assets.

The Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, if implemented as proposed, would go into effect on June 30, 2010 and remain in place for at least ten years. Treasury would be asked to report after five years on the effectiveness of the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee as well as its progress in repaying projected losses to the U.S. government as a result of TARP. If losses to the U.S. government as a result of TARP have not been recouped after ten years, the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee would remain in place until such losses have been recovered.

Legislative Reform.

In 2009, the U.S. President’s administration proposed a wide range of regulatory reforms that, if enacted, may have significant effects on the financial services industry in the United States. Significant aspects of the administration’s proposals that may affect the Bancorp included, among other things, proposals: (i) to reassess and increase capital requirements for banks and bank holding companies and examine the types of instruments that qualify as regulatory capital; (ii) to create a federal consumer financial protection agency to be the primary federal consumer protection supervisor with broad examination, supervision and enforcement authority with respect to consumer financial products and services; (iii) to further limit the ability of banks to engage in transactions with affiliates; and (iv) to subject all “over-the-counter” derivatives markets to comprehensive regulation.

The U.S. Congress, state lawmaking bodies and federal and state regulatory agencies continue to consider a number of wide-ranging and comprehensive proposals for altering the structure, regulation and competitive relationships of the

nation’s financial institutions, including rules and regulations related to the administration’s proposals. Separate comprehensive financial reform bills intended to address the proposals set forth by the administration were introduced in both houses of Congress in the second half of 2009 and remain under review by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Bancorp cannot predict whether or in what form further legislation or regulations may be adopted or the extent to which the Bancorp and its subsidiaries may be affected thereby.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

The Bancorp’s executive offices and the main office of Fifth Third Bank are located on Fountain Square Plaza in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio in a 32-story office tower, a five-story office building with an attached parking garage and a separate ten-story office building known as the Fifth Third Center, the William S. Rowe Building and the 530 Building, respectively. The Bancorp’s main operations center is located in Cincinnati, Ohio, in a three-story building with an attached parking garage known as the Madisonville Operations Center. A subsidiary of the Bancorp owns 100% of these buildings.

At December 31, 2009, the Bancorp, through its banking and non-banking subsidiaries, operated 1,309 banking centers, of which 896 were owned, 278 were leased and 135 for which the buildings are owned but the land is leased. The banking centers are located in the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Georgia. The Bancorp’s significant owned properties are owned free from mortgages and major encumbrances.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE BANCORP

Officers are appointed annually by the Board of Directors at the meeting of Directors immediately following the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The names, ages and positions of the Executive Officers of the Bancorp as of February 26, 2010 are listed below along with their business experience during the past 5 years:

Kevin T. Kabat, 53. Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Bancorp since June 2008, June 2006 and April 2007, respectively. Previously, Mr. Kabat was Executive Vice President of the Bancorp since December 2003.

Greg D. Carmichael, 48. Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Bancorp since June 2006. Prior to that he was the Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer of the Bancorp since June 2003

Mark D. Hazel, 44. Senior Vice President and Controller of the Bancorp since February 2010. Prior to that he was the Assistant Controller of the Bancorp since 2006 and was the Controller of Nonbank entities since 2003.

Gregory L. Kosch, 50. Executive Vice President of the Bancorp since June 2005. Previously, Mr. Kosch was Senior Vice President and head of the Bancorp’s Commercial Division in the Chicago affiliate since June 2002.

Bruce K. Lee, 49. Executive Vice President of the Bancorp since June 2005. Previously, Mr. Lee was President and CEO of Fifth Third Bank (Northwestern Ohio) since July 2002.

Daniel T. Poston, 51. Executive Vice President of the Bancorp since June 2003, and Chief Financial Officer of the Bancorp since September 2009. Previously, Mr. Poston was the Controller of the Bancorp from July 2007 to May 2008 and from November 2008 to September 2009. Previously, Mr. Poston was the Chief Financial Officer of the Bancorp from May 2008 to November 2008. Formerly, Mr. Poston was the Auditor of the Bancorp since October 2001 and was Senior Vice President of the Bancorp and Fifth Third Bank since January 2002.

Paul L. Reynolds, 48. Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of the Bancorp since September 1999, January 2002 and January 2002, respectively.

Mahesh Sankaran, 47. Senior Vice President and Treasurer of the Bancorp since June 2006. Previously, Mr. Sankaran was Treasurer for Huntington Bancshares Incorporated since February 2005. Prior to that Mr. Sankaran was Treasurer for Compass Bankshares, Inc.

Robert A. Sullivan, 54. Senior Executive Vice President of the Bancorp since December 2002.

Mary E. Tuuk, 45. Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of the Bancorp since June 2007. Previously, Ms. Tuuk was Senior Vice President of Fifth Third Bancorp since 2003.

Terry E. Zink, 58. Executive Vice President of the Bancorp since March 2007 and President and CEO of Fifth Third Bank (Chicago) since January 2005.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

The information required by this item is included in the Corporate Information found on the inside of the back cover and in the discussion of dividend limitations that the subsidiaries can pay to the Bancorp discussed in Note 28 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Additionally, as of December 31, 2009, the Bancorp had approximately 59,426 shareholders of record.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

PART III

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The information required by this item relating to the Executive Officers of the Registrant is included in PART I under “EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE BANCORP.”

The information required by this item concerning Directors and the nomination process is incorporated herein by reference under the caption “ELECTION OF DIRECTORS” of the Bancorp’s Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

The information required by this item concerning the Audit Committee and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is incorporated herein by reference under the captions “CORPORATE GOVERNANCE” and “BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ITS COMMITTEES, MEETINGS AND FUNCTIONS” of the Bancorp’s Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

The information required by this item concerning Section 16 (a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance is incorporated herein by reference under the caption “SECTION 16 (a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE” of the Bancorp’s Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference under the captions “COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS,” “COMPENSATION OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS,” “COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT” and “COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION” of the Bancorp’s Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

Security ownership information of certain beneficial owners and management is incorporated herein by reference under the captions “CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS,” “ELECTION OF DIRECTORS,” “COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS” and “COMPENSATION OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS” of the Bancorp’s Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

The information required by this item concerning Equity Compensation Plan information is included in Note 24 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference under the captions “CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS”, “ELECTION OF DIRECTORS”, “CORPORATE GOVERNANCE” and “BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ITS COMMITTEES, MEETINGS AND FUNCTIONS” of the Bancorp’s Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES

The information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference under the caption “PRINCIPAL INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FEES” of the Bancorp’s Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

PART IV

ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

The schedules for the Bancorp and its subsidiaries are omitted because of the absence of conditions under which they are required, or because the information is set forth in the Consolidated Financial Statements or the notes thereto.

The following lists the Exhibits to the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

FIFTH THIRD BANCORP

Registrant

Kevin T. Kabat

Chairman, President and CEO

Principal Executive Officer

February 26, 2010

Pursuant to requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed on February 26, 2010 by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities indicated.

OFFICERS:

Kevin T. Kabat

Chairman, President and CEO

Principal Executive Officer

Daniel T. Poston

Executive Vice President and CFO

Principal Financial Officer

Mark D. Hazel

Senior Vice President and Controller

Principal Accounting Officer

DIRECTORS:

Darryl F. Allen

Ulysses L. Bridgeman, Jr.

Emerson L. Brumback

James P. Hackett

Gary R. Heminger

Jewell D. Hoover

Kevin T. Kabat

Mitchel D. Livingston, Ph.D.

Hendrik G. Meijer

John J. Schiff, Jr.

Dudley S. Taft

Thomas W. Traylor

Marsha C. Williams