Search the web
Welcome, Guest
[Sign Out, My Account]
EDGAR_Online

Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol(s):
e.g. YHOO, ^DJI
Symbol Lookup | Financial Search
FIS > SEC Filings for FIS > Form 10-K on 28-Feb-2014All Recent SEC Filings

Show all filings for FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.

Form 10-K for FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.


28-Feb-2014

Annual Report


Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following section discusses management's view of the financial condition and results of operations of FIS and its consolidated subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 and for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011.

This section should be read in conjunction with the audited Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes of FIS included elsewhere in this Annual Report. This Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contains forward-looking statements. See "Forward-Looking Statements" and "Risk Factors" for a discussion of the uncertainties, risks and assumptions associated with these forward-looking statements that could cause future results to differ materially from those reflected in this section.

Overview

FIS is a leading global provider of banking and payments technologies, complemented by strategic consulting services, professional services and outsourcing services. With a long history deeply rooted in the financial services industry and banking and payment technology solutions, FIS delivers services to more than 14,000 institutions in over 100 countries. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, FIS employs more than 38,000 employees worldwide and holds leadership positions in payment processing solutions and integrated banking solutions, providing outsourced solutions, software and services for technologies and processes that drive a financial institution's operations. Through our Capco brand, we deliver globally a wide range of information technology consulting and transformational services to financial institutions. FIS has topped the annual FinTech 100 list, a ranking of financial services industry technology providers, for the last three years and is a member of the Fortune 500 U.S. and of Standard and Poor's (S&P) 500 Index.

Business Trends and Conditions

Our revenue is primarily derived from a combination of recurring technology and processing services, consulting and professional services and software license fees. The majority of our revenue has historically been recurring, provided under multi-year contracts that contribute relative stability to our revenue stream. These services, in general, are considered critical to our customers' operations. A significant portion of these recurring revenues is derived from transaction processing fees that fluctuate with the level of deposit accounts and card transactions associated with consumer and commercial activity. Consulting and professional services revenues are typically non-recurring, and sales of software licenses are less predictable, a portion of which can be regarded as discretionary spending by our customers.

One of the current trends in the financial services industry from which we are benefiting is the migration by our clients to an outsourced model to improve their profitability. We compete for both licensing and outsourcing business, and thus are affected by the decisions of financial institutions to use our services under an outsourced arrangement or to instead manage their technology operations internally under a software license and maintenance agreement with us. As a provider of outsourcing solutions, we benefit from multi-year recurring revenue streams, which help moderate the effects of year-to-year economic changes on our results of operations. We believe our integrated solutions and outsourced services are targeted and well positioned to address this outsourcing trend across the markets we serve.

We believe that current market pressures in the financial services industry create an opportunity for our consulting and professional services. Many financial institutions are at an inflection point that demands that they transform their businesses to significantly reduce their cost base while also responding to the competitive pressures of innovation and to increased regulatory oversight with regard to information technology and related processes. Capco provides strategic consulting service capabilities to respond to these market needs. Consulting services revenue grew at an increased pace in 2013 and we expect this trend to continue in 2014. However, if consulting and professional services revenue and gross margin grow as a percentage of our overall revenue and gross margin, our overall gross margin percentage would be reduced, as gross margin percentage realized for professional services is lower than that for most of our other services. In addition, as consulting and professional services revenue grow as a portion of our overall revenue, we will have a lower overall percentage of recurring revenue as generally these services are non-recurring. Although our consulting revenue grew in 2013, our gross margins also improved slightly, aided in part by non-recurring termination fees from a significant customer that deconverted from certain of our services following a merger with another bank. However, the greater volume of consulting-based earnings in 2013 also contributed to our decision to take a charge for contingent payments due in connection with our 2010 acquisition of Capco; this charge adversely affected our operating margin in 2013.

We see in particular a market opportunity in large global financial institutions, where we believe we can couple our strategic consulting and transformation services with outsourced technology, services and solutions to help them achieve their business goals. These large institutions are subject to the pressures described above that are generating revenue for our


Table of Contents

consulting services, and moreover appear poised to increase technology spending to meet competitive pressures after a slowdown during the recent financial crisis years. We are investing in management, sales and account management resources to pursue this market opportunity. Our current target is to invest an incremental $30 million in this initiative in 2014.

Mobile banking is growing in popularity as consumers embrace the convenience and younger digital-savvy consumers grow in proportion to the banked population. We expect this trend to continue and grow. We continue to focus and invest in adapting and developing new mobile solutions to assist our customers with this transition.

We expect to see more demand for innovative solutions in the payments market that will deliver faster more convenient payment solutions in mobile channels, internet applications and cards. We believe mobile payments will grow and partially replace existing payment tender volumes over time. This presents both a growth opportunity and a risk to us as the market develops. Mobile payment volume does not yet represent a significant amount of the payments market and it is unclear which technology or service will be the dominant solution. Additionally, new non-traditional payments competitors are investing in and innovating mobile payment technologies to address the emerging market opportunity. Although we cannot predict which mobile payment technology or solution will be the most successful, we cautiously believe our customer relationships, payments infrastructure and experience, adapted solutions and emerging solutions are well positioned to maintain or grow our customers' existing payment volumes. The growing risk of identity theft and fraud has also led to an increased demand for risk management solutions and we are focused on solutions to address this trend.

Card transactions continue to grow as a percentage of overall payment volumes as consumers shift payments to cards from checks and cash. We have invested in our card management solutions and card manufacturing and processing capabilities to accommodate EMV integrated circuit cards, often referred to as smart cards or chip cards, so we can guide our customers through this anticipated technology transition, sustain and grow our card driven businesses. We continue to monitor the impacts of regulation on the payment card industry and the Durbin amendment in particular (see Business-Government Regulation section for more information). To date, the impact of the Durbin amendment on our card payment volumes is insignificant. We continuously monitor the marketplace as it adapts to the Durbin amendment and its ongoing regulatory developments, but are unable to determine at this time whether there will be a significant favorable or unfavorable impact on our payment card businesses in the future.

The Durbin amendment has affected the marketplace for our EFT network business, as its rules and regulations allow merchants more discretion to determine their transaction network routing and to consider multiple alternative networks. To date, the impact of the Durbin amendment has been modestly favorable to our EFT network business as we have competed effectively. At this time, we are unable to determine whether there will be a significant favorable or unfavorable impact on our EFT network business in the future.

The use of checks continues to decline as a percentage of total payments, which negatively impacts our check warranty and item-processing businesses and we expect this trend to continue. To date, we have been able to successfully mitigate the majority of the impacts of this decline through cost and fraud efficiency actions and new market solutions, which remain our continued focus.

While we are cautious regarding broader economic improvement, we expect banks to continue investing in new technology and believe we are well positioned to capitalize as the overall market continues to recover. We anticipate consolidation within the banking industry will continue, primarily in the form of merger and acquisition activity. As a whole, consolidation activity is detrimental to our business. However, consolidation resulting from specific merger and acquisition transactions may be beneficial or detrimental to our business. When consolidations occur, merger partners often operate disparate systems licensed from competing service providers. The newly formed entity generally makes a determination to migrate its core and payments systems to a single platform. When a financial institution processing client is involved in a consolidation, we may benefit by expanding the use of our services if such services are chosen to survive the consolidation and support the newly combined entity. Conversely, we may lose market share if we are providing services to both entities, or we are not the merging parties' provider of core or payment processing, or if a customer of ours is involved in a consolidation and our services are not chosen to survive the consolidation and support the newly combined entity. It is also possible that larger financial institutions resulting from consolidation may have greater leverage in negotiating terms or could decide to perform in-house some or all of the services that we currently provide or could provide. We seek to mitigate the risks of consolidations by offering other competitive services to take advantage of specific opportunities at the surviving company.

Notwithstanding challenging global economic conditions, our international business continued to experience growth across all major regions on a constant currency basis during the year ended December 31, 2013, including Latin America, Europe and Asia. We expect this growth trend to continue as the result of the addition of new, large-scale outsourcing clients in all of these regions in 2013 and the demand opportunities we see for similar arrangements. Demand for our solutions will also be driven in


Table of Contents

developing countries by government led financial inclusion policies aimed to reduce the unbanked population and by growth in the middle classes in these markets driving the need for more sophisticated banking solutions. The majority of our European revenue is generated by clients in Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

Information Security

Globally, attacks on information technology systems continue to grow in frequency, complexity and sophistication. This is a trend we expect will continue. Such attacks have become a point of focus for individuals, businesses and governmental entities. The objectives of these attacks include, among other things, gaining unauthorized access to systems to facilitate financial fraud, disrupt operations, cause denial of service events, corrupt data, and steal non-public information. FIS is not immune to such attacks. As part of our business, we electronically receive, process, store and transmit a wide range of confidential information, including sensitive customer information and personal consumer data. We also operate payment, cash access and prepaid card systems. FIS, like any large financial technology service provider, is subject to attempted cyber-attacks on a regular basis. A successful cyber-attack on an FIS system that resulted in sensitive information being compromised, fraud losses or other adverse consequences could have a material adverse effect on the company.

As a Multi-Regional Data Processing Servicer (MDPS), FIS continues to be examined by and have regular interaction with the federal agencies that regulate financial institutions. These regulators have the authority to take actions they deem necessary to protect the safety and soundness of the financial institutions they regulate. Such actions, if taken, could have a material adverse impact on our business. FIS regularly reports to its regulators and to its clients regarding the Company's continual efforts to enhance its information security and risk management technology, programs and procedures. In mid-May 2013, the federal agencies that provide regulatory oversight for FIS issued a confidential report related to their examination of our information security, risk management and internal audit functions between October 2011 and October 2012. We responded to the report and described the actions that we have taken, as well as ongoing efforts underway to address specific findings. The regulatory agencies distributed the report, and a cover letter, to a subset of our regulated clients beginning in late May 2013. This prompted inquiries from clients, which, to the extent permitted by federal regulation, FIS has addressed on an individual basis. While individual clients and prospects have expressed concern over the report, we do not believe that it has had a material effect on the overall sales closures in 2013 or our sales pipeline; however, we continue to monitor sales activity and any potential impact on future periods. We are unable to predict with certainty what, if any, communications or actions our regulators will have or take with our regulated financial institution clients with respect to our risk management and information security. We are also unable to predict the effect that any such communications or actions may have on our business.

FIS remains focused on providing strategic investments in information security to protect its clients and its information systems. This includes both capital expenditures and operating expense on hardware, software, personnel and consulting services.

Critical Accounting Policies

The accounting policies described below are those we consider critical in preparing our Consolidated Financial Statements. These policies require management to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures with respect to contingent liabilities and assets at the date of the Consolidated Financial Statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual amounts could differ from those estimates. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a more detailed description of the significant accounting policies that have been followed in preparing our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Revenue Recognition

The Company generates revenues from the delivery of bank processing, credit and debit card processing services, other payment processing services, professional services, software licensing and software related services. Revenues are recognized when evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, fees are fixed or determinable and collection is considered probable. We are frequently a party to multiple concurrent contracts with the same customer. These situations require judgment to determine whether the individual contracts should be aggregated or evaluated separately for purposes of revenue recognition. In making this determination, we consider the timing of negotiating and executing the contracts, whether the different elements of the contracts are interdependent and whether any of the payment terms of the contracts are interrelated. Our individual contracts also frequently include multiple elements. We must apply judgment in these circumstances in determining whether individual elements can be considered separate units of accounting or should instead be accounted for in combination with other deliverables. Judgment is also required in ascribing fair value to each deliverable for purposes of allocating consideration. Due to the large number, broad nature and average size of individual contracts we are party to, the impact of judgments and assumptions that we apply in recognizing revenue for any single contract is not likely to have a material effect


Table of Contents

on our consolidated operations or financial position. However, the broader accounting policy assumptions that we apply across similar arrangements or classes of customers could significantly influence the timing and amount of revenue recognized in our historical and future results of operations or financial position. Additional information about our revenue recognition policies is included in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

The Company analyzes trade accounts receivable by considering historical bad debts, customer creditworthiness, current economic trends, changes in customer payment terms and collection trends when evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts. Any change in the assumptions used may result in an additional allowance for doubtful accounts being recognized in the period in which the change occurs.

Provision for Check Guarantee Losses

In our check guarantee business, if a guaranteed check presented to a merchant customer is dishonored by the check writer's bank, we reimburse our merchant customer for the check's face value and pursue collection of the amount from the delinquent check writer. Loss provisions and anticipated recoveries are primarily determined by performing a historical analysis of our check loss and recovery experience and considering other factors that could affect that experience in the future. Such factors include the general economy, the overall industry mix of our customer volumes, statistical analysis of check fraud trends within our customer volumes and the quality of returned checks. The estimated check returns and recovery amounts are subject to the risk that actual amounts returned and recovered may be different than our estimates.

Historically, our estimation processes have proved to be materially accurate; however, our projections of probable check guarantee losses and anticipated recoveries are inherently uncertain and as a result, we cannot predict with certainty the amount of such items. Changes in economic conditions, the risk characteristics and composition of our customers, and other factors could impact our actual and projected amounts. We recorded check guarantee losses, net of anticipated recoveries excluding service fees, of $57.3 million, $54.7 million and $68.0 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. A ten percent difference in our estimated check guarantee loss provisions net of estimated recoveries as of December 31, 2013, would have impacted 2013 net earnings by less than $2.0 million, after-tax.

Computer Software

Computer software includes the fair value of software acquired in business combinations, purchased software and capitalized software development costs. Purchased software is recorded at cost and amortized using the straight-line method over its estimated useful life and software acquired in business combinations is recorded at its fair value and amortized using straight-line or accelerated methods over its estimated useful life.

The capitalization of software development costs is governed by FASB ASC Subtopic 985-20 if the software is to be sold, leased or otherwise marketed, or by FASB ASC Subtopic 350-40 if the software is for internal use. After the technological feasibility of the software has been established (for software to be marketed), or at the beginning of application development (for internal-use software), software development costs, which include primarily salaries and related payroll costs and costs of independent contractors incurred during development, are capitalized. Research and development costs incurred prior to the establishment of technological feasibility (for software to be marketed), or prior to application development (for internal-use software), are expensed as incurred. Software development costs are amortized on a product-by-product basis commencing on the date of general release of the products (for software to be marketed) or the date placed in service (for internal-use software). Software development costs for software to be marketed are amortized using the greater of
(1) the straight-line method over its estimated useful life, which ranges from three to 10 years, or (2) the ratio of current revenues to total anticipated revenues over its useful life.

In determining useful lives, management considers historical results and technological trends that may influence the estimate. Useful lives for all computer software range from three to 10 years. We also assess the recorded value of computer software for impairment on a regular basis by comparing the carrying value to the estimated future cash flows to be generated by the underlying software asset (for software to be marketed). There are inherent uncertainties in determining the expected useful life or cash flows to be generated from computer software. While we have not historically experienced significant changes in these estimates, our results of operations could be subject to such changes in the future.


Table of Contents

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

We are required to allocate the purchase price of acquired businesses to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the transaction at their estimated fair values. The estimates used to determine the fair value of long-lived assets, such as intangible assets, are complex and require a significant amount of management judgment. We generally engage independent valuation specialists to assist us in making fair value determinations. We are also required to estimate the useful lives of intangible assets to determine the amount of acquisition-related intangible asset amortization expense to record in future periods. We periodically review the estimated useful lives assigned to our definite-lived intangible assets to determine whether such estimated useful lives continue to be appropriate. Additionally, we review our indefinite-lived intangible assets to determine if there is any change in circumstances that may indicate the asset's useful life is no longer indefinite.

Goodwill represents the excess of cost over the fair value of identifiable net assets acquired and liabilities assumed in business combinations. Goodwill and other intangible assets with indefinite useful lives should not be amortized, but shall be tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if circumstances indicate potential impairment. In 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-08 ("ASU 2011-08"), Testing Goodwill for Impairment. The revised standard allows an entity first to assess qualitatively whether it is more likely than not that a reporting unit's carrying amount exceeds its fair value, referred to in the guidance as "step zero." If an entity concludes that it is more likely than not that a reporting unit's fair value is less than its carrying amount (that is, a likelihood of more than 50 percent), the "step one" quantitative assessment must be performed for that reporting unit. ASU 2011-08 provided examples of events and circumstances that should be considered in performing the "step zero" qualitative assessment, including macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, overall financial performance, events affecting a reporting unit or the entity as a whole and a sustained decrease in share price.

We assess goodwill for impairment on an annual basis during the fourth quarter using a September 30th measurement date unless circumstances require a more frequent measurement. For 2013 and 2011, we began our assessment with the step zero qualitative analysis because there was a substantial excess of fair value over carrying value for each of our reporting units in the 2012 and 2010 step one analyses. In performing the step zero qualitative analysis for each of 2013 and 2011, examining those factors most likely to affect our valuations, we concluded that it remained more likely than not that the fair value of each of our reporting units continued to exceed their carrying amounts. Consequently, we did not perform a step one analysis in 2013 or 2011.

For 2012, primarily for the purpose of validating our valuation assumptions, we elected to proceed directly to the step one quantitative analysis rather than perform the step zero qualitative assessment. In applying the quantitative analysis, we determine the fair value of our reporting units based on a weighted average of multiple valuation techniques, principally a combination of an income approach and a market approach. The income approach calculates a value based upon the present value of estimated future cash flows, while the market approach uses earnings multiples of similarly situated guideline public companies. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds the carrying value of the reporting unit's net assets, goodwill is not impaired and further testing is not required. Based upon the results of this test, there were no indications of impairment for any of our reporting units for 2012.

We also estimate the fair value of acquired intangible assets with indefinite lives and compare this amount to the underlying carrying value annually. FASB Accounting Standards Update No. 2012-02 ("ASU 2012-02") modified the former requirement to perform an annual quantitative impairment test for indefinite-lived intangible assets. Similar to the ASU 2011-08 guidance for goodwill, it allows an organization to first perform a qualitative assessment of whether it is more likely than not that an asset has been impaired.

For 2013, we began our assessment with the step zero qualitative analysis because there was a substantial excess of fair value over carrying value for each of our indefinite-lived intangible assets in 2012. Based upon the results of this test, there were no indications of impairment, except for one trademark with nominal value. For 2012, we proceeded directly with a quantitative analysis, using a form of income approach valuation known as the relief-from-royalty method. Our tests did not result in the impairment of any of our intangible assets for 2012, while the same tests performed in 2011 did result in an impairment charge of $9.1 million related to the Capco trademark in North America.

Determining the fair value of a reporting unit or acquired intangible assets with indefinite lives involves judgment and the use of significant estimates and assumptions, which include assumptions regarding the revenue growth rates and operating margins used to calculate estimated future cash flows, risk-adjusted discount rates and future economic and market conditions and other assumptions.


. . .
  Add FIS to Portfolio     Set Alert         Email to a Friend  
Get SEC Filings for Another Symbol: Symbol Lookup
Quotes & Info for FIS - All Recent SEC Filings
Copyright © 2014 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service
SEC Filing data and information provided by EDGAR Online, Inc. (1-800-416-6651). All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.