MASTERCARD INC, 10-K filed on 2/18/2010
Annual Report
Statement Of Financial Position Classified (USD $)
In Thousands
Dec. 31, 2009
Dec. 31, 2008
ASSETS
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
$ 2,055,439 
$ 1,505,160 
Investment securities, at fair value:
 
 
Available-for-sale
824,345 
588,095 
Municipal bonds held-to-maturity
154,000 
Accounts receivable
536,472 
639,482 
Income taxes receivable
198,308 
Settlement due from customers
459,173 
513,191 
Restricted security deposits held for customers
445,989 
183,245 
Prepaid expenses
313,253 
213,612 
Deferred income taxes
243,561 
283,795 
Other current assets
124,915 
32,619 
Total Current Assets
5,003,147 
4,311,507 
Property, plant and equipment, at cost (less accumulated depreciation of $303,759 and $278,269)
448,994 
306,798 
Deferred income taxes
264,237 
567,567 
Goodwill
309,228 
297,993 
Other intangible assets (less accumulated amortization of $422,338 and $377,570)
414,704 
394,282 
Auction rate securities available-for-sale, at fair value
179,987 
191,760 
Investment securities held-to-maturity
337,797 
37,450 
Prepaid expenses
327,884 
302,095 
Other assets
184,301 
66,397 
Total Assets
7,470,279 
6,475,849 
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
 
 
Accounts payable
290,414 
253,276 
Settlement due to customers
477,576 
541,303 
Restricted security deposits held for customers
445,989 
183,245 
Obligations under litigation settlements (Note 19)
606,485 
713,035 
Accrued expenses
1,224,991 
1,032,061 
Short-term debt
149,380 
Other current liabilities
121,676 
118,151 
Total Current Liabilities
3,167,131 
2,990,451 
Deferred income taxes
79,728 
74,518 
Obligations under litigation settlements (Note 19)
263,236 
1,023,263 
Long-term debt
21,598 
19,387 
Other liabilities
426,719 
436,255 
Total Liabilities
3,958,412 
4,543,874 
Commitments (Notes 18, 19 and 21)
 
 
Stockholders' Equity
 
 
Additional paid-in-capital
3,412,354 
3,304,604 
Class A treasury stock, at cost, 6,740,590 shares, respectively
(1,250,000)
(1,250,000)
Retained earnings (accumulated deficit)
1,147,714 
(236,100)
Accumulated other comprehensive income:
 
 
Cumulative foreign currency translation adjustments
211,860 
175,040 
Defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans, net of tax
(14,740)
(43,207)
Investment securities available-for-sale, net of tax
(3,442)
(22,996)
Total accumulated other comprehensive income
193,678 
108,837 
Total Stockholders' Equity
3,503,760 
1,927,355 
Non-controlling interests
8,107 
4,620 
Total Equity
3,511,867 
1,931,975 
Total Liabilities and Equity
7,470,279 
6,475,849 
Class A common stock
 
 
Stockholders' Equity
 
 
Common stock
11 
10 
Class B common stock
 
 
Stockholders' Equity
 
 
Common stock
Class M common stock
 
 
Stockholders' Equity
 
 
Common stock
$ 0 
$ 0 
Statement Of Financial Position Classified (Parenthetical) (USD $)
In Thousands, except Share and Per Share data
Dec. 31, 2009
Dec. 31, 2008
Property, plant and equipment, accumulated depreciation
$ 303,759 
$ 278,269 
Other intangible assets, accumulated amortization
422,338 
377,570 
Class A treasury stock, shares
6,740,590 
6,740,590 
Class A common stock
 
 
Common stock, par value
0.0001 
0.0001 
Common stock, authorized
3,000,000,000 
3,000,000,000 
Common stock, issued
116,534,029 
105,126,588 
Common stock, outstanding
109,793,439 
98,385,998 
Class B common stock
 
 
Common stock, par value
0.0001 
0.0001 
Common stock, authorized
1,200,000,000 
1,200,000,000 
Common stock, issued
19,977,657 
30,848,778 
Common stock, outstanding
19,977,657 
30,848,778 
Class M common stock
 
 
Common stock, par value
0.0001 
0.0001 
Common stock, authorized
1,000,000 
1,000,000 
Common stock, issued
1,812 
1,728 
Common stock, outstanding
1,812 
1,728 
Statement Of Income Alternative (USD $)
In Thousands, except Per Share data
Year Ended
Dec. 31,
2009
2008
2007
Revenues, net
$ 5,098,684 
$ 4,991,600 
$ 4,067,599 
Operating Expenses
 
 
 
General and administrative
1,934,974 
1,996,512 
1,856,920 
Advertising and marketing
755,480 
934,742 
1,001,525 
Litigation settlements
6,745 
2,482,845 
3,400 
Depreciation and amortization
141,377 
112,006 
97,642 
Total operating expenses
2,838,576 
5,526,105 
2,959,487 
Operating income (loss)
2,260,108 
(534,505)
1,108,112 
Other Income (Expense)
 
 
 
Investment income, net
57,698 
182,907 
530,400 
Interest expense
(115,109)
(103,600)
(57,277)
Other income (expense), net
15,354 
71,985 
90,197 
Total other income (expense)
(42,057)
151,292 
563,320 
Income (loss) before income taxes
2,218,051 
(383,213)
1,671,432 
Income tax expense (benefit)
755,427 
(129,298)
585,546 
Net income (loss)
1,462,624 
(253,915)
1,085,886 
Income attributable to non-controlling interests
(92)
Net Income (Loss) Attributable to MasterCard
1,462,532 
(253,915)
1,085,886 
Basic Earnings (Loss) per Share (Note 2)
11.19 
(1.94)
7.98 
Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding (Note 2)
129,838 
130,148 
134,887 
Diluted Earnings (Loss) per Share (Note 2)
11.16 
(1.94)
7.96 
Diluted Weighted Average Shares Outstanding (Note 2)
130,232 
130,148 
135,153 
Statement Of Cash Flows Indirect (USD $)
In Thousands
Year Ended
Dec. 31,
2009
2008
2007
Operating Activities
 
 
 
Net income (loss)
$ 1,462,624 
$ (253,915)
$ 1,085,886 
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
 
 
 
Depreciation and amortization
141,377 
112,006 
97,642 
Gain on sale of Redecard S.A. available-for-sale securities
(85,903)
(390,968)
Share based payments (Note 17)
88,430 
60,970 
58,213 
Stock units withheld for taxes
(28,458)
(67,111)
(11,334)
Tax benefit for share based compensation
(39,025)
(47,803)
(15,430)
Impairment of assets
16,430 
12,515 
8,719 
Accretion of imputed interest on litigation settlements
86,342 
77,202 
38,046 
Deferred income taxes
336,704 
(483,952)
(5,492)
Other
(12,121)
14,645 
15,121 
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
 
 
 
Trading securities
2,561 
9,700 
Accounts receivable
122,445 
(115,687)
(60,984)
Income taxes receivable
190,000 
(198,308)
Settlement due from customers
54,473 
183,008 
(356,305)
Prepaid expenses
(112,655)
(100,853)
(48,257)
Obligations under litigation settlement
(938,685)
1,254,660 
(110,525)
Accounts payable
34,231 
8,425 
(30,650)
Settlement due to customers
(65,628)
(52,852)
276,144 
Accrued expenses
82,076 
51,345 
183,699 
Net change in other assets and liabilities
(40,398)
42,275 
26,636 
Net cash provided by operating activities
1,378,162 
413,228 
769,861 
Investing Activities
 
 
 
Purchases of property, plant and equipment
(56,563)
(75,626)
(81,587)
Capitalized software
(82,797)
(94,647)
(74,835)
Purchases of investment securities available-for-sale
(332,571)
(519,514)
(3,578,357)
Purchases of investment securities held-to-maturity
(300,000)
Proceeds from sales and maturities of investment securities available-for-sale
134,177 
976,743 
4,042,011 
Acquisition of business, net of cash acquired
(2,913)
(81,731)
Investment in affiliates
(17,709)
Other investing activities
(5,804)
(3,574)
7,909 
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
(664,180)
201,651 
315,141 
Financing Activities
 
 
 
Purchase of treasury stock
(649,468)
(600,532)
Payment of debt
(149,380)
(80,000)
Dividends paid
(78,685)
(79,259)
(74,002)
Exercise of stock options
8,720 
9,546 
1,597 
Tax benefit for share based compensation
39,025 
47,803 
15,430 
Redemption of non-controlling interest
(4,620)
Net cash used in financing activities
(184,940)
(751,378)
(657,507)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
21,237 
(17,636)
46,720 
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
550,279 
(154,135)
474,215 
Cash and cash equivalents - beginning of period
1,505,160 
1,659,295 
1,185,080 
Cash and cash equivalents - end of period
$ 2,055,439 
$ 1,505,160 
$ 1,659,295 
Statement Of Shareholders Equity And Other Comprehensive Income (USD $)
In Thousands
Retained Earnings (Accumulated Deficit) [Member]
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, net of tax
Common Shares Class A
Common Shares Class B
Additional Paid-In Capital
Treasury Stock
Non- Controlling Interests
Total
1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Beginning Balance
$ (1,029,196)
$ 103,662 
$ 8 
$ 6 
$ 3,289,879 
$ 0 
$ 4,620 
$ 2,368,979 
Redemption of non-controlling interest
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Investment in majority owned entity
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)
1,085,886 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,085,886 
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
 
174,084 
 
 
 
 
 
174,084 
Adoption of new tax accounting standard
21,175 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21,175 
Cash dividends declared on Class A and Class B common stock, $0.60 per share
(40,166)
 
 
 
(41,405)
 
 
(81,571)
Share based payments
 
 
 
 
58,213 
 
 
58,213 
Stock units withheld for taxes
 
 
 
 
(11,334)
 
 
(11,334)
Tax benefit for share based compensation
 
 
 
 
15,430 
 
 
15,430 
Purchases of treasury stock
 
 
 
 
 
(600,532)
 
(600,532)
Conversion of Class B to Class A common stock
 
 
(1)
 
 
 
Exercise of stock options
 
 
 
 
1,597 
 
 
1,597 
Ending Balance
37,699 
277,746 
3,312,380 
(600,532)
4,620 
3,031,927 
1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Beginning Balance
37,699 
277,746 
3,312,380 
(600,532)
4,620 
3,031,927 
Redemption of non-controlling interest
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Investment in majority owned entity
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss)
(253,915)
 
 
 
 
 
 
(253,915)
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
 
(168,909)
 
 
 
 
 
(168,909)
Adoption of new tax accounting standard
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash dividends declared on Class A and Class B common stock, $0.60 per share
(19,884)
 
 
 
(58,984)
 
 
(78,868)
Share based payments
 
 
 
 
60,970 
 
 
60,970 
Stock units withheld for taxes
 
 
 
 
(67,111)
 
 
(67,111)
Tax benefit for share based compensation
 
 
 
 
47,803 
 
 
47,803 
Purchases of treasury stock
 
 
 
 
 
(649,468)
 
(649,468)
Conversion of Class B to Class A common stock
 
 
(1)
 
 
 
Exercise of stock options
 
 
 
 
9,546 
 
 
9,546 
Ending Balance
(236,100)
108,837 
10 
3,304,604 
(1,250,000)
4,620 
1,931,975 
1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Beginning Balance
(236,100)
108,837 
10 
3,304,604 
(1,250,000)
4,620 
1,931,975 
Redemption of non-controlling interest
 
 
 
 
 
 
(4,620)
(4,620)
Investment in majority owned entity
 
 
 
 
 
 
8,015 
8,015 
Net income (loss)
1,462,532 
 
 
 
 
 
92 
1,462,624 
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
 
84,841 
 
 
 
 
 
84,841 
Adoption of new tax accounting standard
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash dividends declared on Class A and Class B common stock, $0.60 per share
(78,718)
 
 
 
33 
 
 
(78,685)
Share based payments
 
 
 
 
88,430 
 
 
88,430 
Stock units withheld for taxes
 
 
 
 
(28,458)
 
 
(28,458)
Tax benefit for share based compensation
 
 
 
 
39,025 
 
 
39,025 
Purchases of treasury stock
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conversion of Class B to Class A common stock
 
 
(1)
 
 
 
Exercise of stock options
 
 
 
 
8,720 
 
 
8,720 
Ending Balance
$ 1,147,714 
$ 193,678 
$ 11 
$ 3 
$ 3,412,354 
$ (1,250,000)
$ 8,107 
$ 3,511,867 
Statement Of Shareholders Equity And Other Comprehensive Income (Parenthetical) (USD $)
Year Ended
Dec. 31,
2009
2008
2007
Cash dividends declared on Class A and Class B common stock, per share
$ 0.60 
$ 0.60 
$ 0.60 
Statement Of Other Comprehensive Income (USD $)
In Thousands
Year Ended
Dec. 31,
2009
2008
2007
Net income (loss)
$ 1,462,624 
$ (253,915)
$ 1,085,886 
Other comprehensive income (loss):
 
 
 
Foreign currency translation adjustments
36,820 
(41,611)
96,996 
Defined benefit pension and postretirement plans
45,244 
(62,681)
12,429 
Income tax effect
(16,777)
23,029 
(4,582)
Other Comprehensive Income, Defined Benefit Plans Adjustment, Net of Tax, Total
28,467 
(39,652)
7,847 
Investment securities available-for-sale
32,762 
(51,895)
478,716 
Income tax effect
(12,060)
18,450 
(167,885)
Other Comprehensive Income, Unrealized Holding Gain (Loss) on Securities Arising During Period, Net of Tax, Total
20,702 
(33,445)
310,831 
Reclassification adjustment for investment securities available-for-sale
(1,782)
(84,060)
(374,427)
Income tax effect
634 
29,859 
131,311 
Other Comprehensive Income, Reclassification Adjustment for Sale of Securities Included in Net Income, Net of Tax
(1,148)
(54,201)
(243,116)
Derivatives accounted for as hedges
(6,472)
Income tax effect
2,200 
Other Comprehensive Income, Derivatives Qualifying as Hedges, Net of Tax, Total
(4,272)
Reclassification adjustment for derivatives accounted for as hedges
8,784 
Income tax effect
(2,986)
Other Comprehensive Income, Reclassification Adjustment on Derivatives Included in Net Income, Net of Tax
5,798 
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
84,841 
(168,909)
174,084 
Comprehensive Income (Loss)
1,547,465 
(422,824)
1,259,970 
Income attributable to non-controlling interests
(92)
Comprehensive Income (Loss) Attributable to MasterCard
$ 1,547,373 
$ (422,824)
$ 1,259,970 
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Organization—MasterCard Incorporated and its consolidated subsidiaries, including MasterCard International Incorporated (“MasterCard International”) and MasterCard Europe sprl (“MasterCard Europe”) (together, “MasterCard” or the “Company”), provide payment solutions, including transaction processing and related services to customers principally in support of their credit, deposit access (debit), electronic cash and Automated Teller Machine (“ATM”) payment card programs, and travelers cheque programs. Our financial institution customers are generally either principal members (“principal members”) of MasterCard International, which participate directly in MasterCard International’s business, or affiliate members (“affiliate members”) of MasterCard International, which participate indirectly in MasterCard International’s business through a principal member.

Codification of accounting pronouncements—On July 1, 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) implemented the FASB accounting standards codification and hierarchy of generally accepted accounting principles as the sole source of authoritative accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Pursuant to these provisions, the Company has eliminated its references to the former GAAP authoritative pronouncements in its consolidated financial statements issued as of, for the period ended, and for periods subsequent to September 30, 2009. As the FASB’s codification was not intended to change existing authoritative guidance, this referencing methodology has not had and will not have any impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Consolidation and basis of presentation—The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of MasterCard and its majority-owned and controlled entities, including any consolidated variable interest entities. See Note 15 (Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity) for further discussion. Intercompany transactions and balances are eliminated in consolidation. The Company follows GAAP.

Effective January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the new accounting standard for business combinations. The new standard establishes principles and requirements for how an acquirer of a business recognizes and measures in its financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed and any non-controlling interest in the acquiree; how the acquirer recognizes and measures the goodwill acquired in a business combination; and how the acquirer determines what information to disclose to enable users of the financial statements to evaluate the nature and financial effects of the business combination. The adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations as of or for the year ended December 31, 2009.

Non-controlling interest, previously referred to as minority interest, represents the equity interest not owned by the Company and is recorded for consolidated entities in which the Company owns less than 100% of the interests. In December 2007, an accounting and reporting standard was established that requires non-controlling interests to be reported as a component of equity. In addition, changes in a parent’s ownership interest while the parent retains its controlling interest are accounted for as equity transactions, and upon a gain or loss of control, retained ownership interests are remeasured at fair value, with any gain or loss recognized in earnings. Effective January 1, 2009, the Company applied the provisions of the new standard retrospectively in the consolidated financial statements. The adoption of the new standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations for any periods presented.

The Company accounts for investments in affiliates under the equity method of accounting when it holds between 20% and 50% of the common stock in the entity and when it exercises significant influence. MasterCard’s share of net earnings or losses of entities accounted for under the equity method of accounting is included in other income (expense) on the consolidated statements of operations.

 

The Company accounts for investments in affiliates under the historical cost method of accounting when it holds less than 20% ownership in the common stock of the entity and when it does not exercise significant influence.

Investments in affiliates for which the equity method or historical cost method of accounting are used are recorded in other assets on the consolidated balance sheets.

Reclassification of prior period amounts—Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2009 presentation. The amounts reclassified primarily relate to the adoption of certain accounting standards and the reclassification of certain cardholder-related enhancement expenses, which were previously classified as advertising and marketing expenses, to general and administrative expenses. These cardholder benefit program expenses, such as insurance and card replacements, were previously deemed promotional features of the cards and over time have become standard product offerings in certain card categories. Approximately $83,000 and $79,000 of these expenses have been reclassified for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, to conform to the 2009 presentation.

Use of estimates—The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. Management has established detailed policies and control procedures to ensure the methods used to make estimates are well controlled and applied consistently from period to period. Actual results may differ from these estimates.

Subsequent events—The Company has evaluated subsequent events through February 18, 2010 which is the date that the consolidated financial statements were issued.

Fair value—The Company measures certain of its assets and liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis by estimating the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. When valuing liabilities, the Company also considers the Company’s creditworthiness. The Company classifies these recurring fair value measurements into a three-level hierarchy (“Valuation Hierarchy”) and discloses the significant assumptions utilized in measuring all of its assets and liabilities at fair value.

The Valuation Hierarchy is based upon the transparency of inputs to the valuation of an asset or liability as of the measurement date. A financial instrument’s categorization within the Valuation Hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The three levels of the Valuation Hierarchy are as follows:

 

   

Level 1—inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active markets.

 

   

Level 2—inputs to the valuation methodology include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical assets and liabilities in inactive markets and inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the financial instrument.

 

   

Level 3—inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.

 

Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis. The Company’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis include property, plant and equipment, goodwill and other intangible assets. These assets are not measured at fair value on an ongoing basis; however, they are subject to fair value adjustments in certain circumstances, such as when there is evidence of impairment.

The valuation methods for goodwill and other intangible assets involve assumptions concerning discount rates, growth projections and other assumptions of future business conditions. As all of the assumptions employed to measure these assets and liabilities on a nonrecurring basis are based on management’s judgment using internal and external data, these fair value determinations are classified in Level 3 of the Valuation Hierarchy. See Note 4 (Fair Value) for information about methods and assumptions. The Company has not elected to apply the fair value option to its eligible financial assets and liabilities.

Cash and cash equivalents—Cash and cash equivalents include certain liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less from the date of purchase. Cash equivalents are recorded at cost, which approximates fair value.

Investment securities—The Company classifies debt securities as held-to-maturity or available-for-sale and classifies equity securities as available-for-sale or trading. Available-for-sale securities that are available to meet the Company’s current operational needs are classified as current assets. Available-for-sale securities that are not available to meet the Company’s current operational needs are classified as non-current assets.

Debt securities are classified as held-to-maturity when the Company has the intent and ability to hold the debt securities to maturity and are stated at amortized cost. Debt securities not classified as held-to-maturity are classified as available-for-sale and are carried at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses, net of applicable taxes, recorded as a separate component of other comprehensive income (loss) on the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss). Net realized gains and losses on debt securities are recognized in investment income on the consolidated statements of operations.

The fair values of the Company’s short-term bond funds are based on quoted prices and are therefore included in Level 1 of the Valuation Hierarchy. The fair values of the Company’s available-for-sale municipal bonds are based on quoted prices for similar assets in active markets and are therefore included in Level 2 of the Valuation Hierarchy. The fair value determination for the Company’s Auction Rate Securities (“ARS”) is based primarily on an income approach and is therefore included in Level 3 of the Valuation Hierarchy. See Note 4 (Fair Value) and Note 5 (Investment Securities) for additional disclosures related to the fair value standard.

The Company has incorporated the considerations of guidance pertaining to determining the fair value of financial assets in inactive markets in its assessment of the fair value of its ARS as of December 31, 2009 and 2008. The guidance provides consideration of how management’s internal cash flow and discount rate assumptions should be considered when measuring fair value when relevant observable data does not exist, how observable market information in a market that is not active should be considered when measuring fair value and how the use of market quotes should be considered when assessing the relevance of observable and unobservable data available to measure fair value.

During 2009, accounting standards changed for the method for determining whether an other-than-temporary impairment exists for debt securities and the amount of an impairment charge to be recorded in earnings. Enhanced disclosures must include the Company’s methodology and key inputs used for determining the amount of credit losses recorded in earnings. The Company adopted these changes during the second quarter of 2009 and the adoption had no impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. See Note 5 (Investment Securities) for further detail.

 

Additionally, accounting guidance was issued to highlight and expand on the factors that should be considered in estimating fair value when there has been a significant decrease in market activity for a financial asset. The new disclosures relate to fair value measurement inputs and valuation techniques (including changes in inputs and valuation techniques). The Company adopted the changes, as required, during the second quarter of 2009 and the adoption had no impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. See Note 4 (Fair Value) for further detail.

Equity securities bought and held primarily for sale in the near term are classified as trading and are carried at fair value. Net realized and unrealized gains and losses on trading securities are recognized in investment income on the consolidated statements of operations. Equity securities not classified as trading are classified as available-for-sale and are carried at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses, net of applicable taxes, recorded as a separate component of other comprehensive income (loss) on the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss). Net realized gains and losses on available-for-sale equity securities are recognized in investment income on the consolidated statements of operations. The specific identification method is used to determine realized gains and losses.

Available-for-sale equity securities are evaluated for other than temporary impairment on an ongoing basis. If an investment is determined to be other than temporarily impaired, realized losses are recognized in investment income on the consolidated statements of operations.

Settlement due from/due to customers—The Company operates systems for clearing and settling payment transactions among MasterCard International members. Net settlements are generally cleared daily among members through settlement cash accounts by wire transfer or other bank clearing means. However, some transactions may not settle until subsequent business days, resulting in amounts due from and due to MasterCard International members.

Restricted security deposits held for MasterCard International members—MasterCard requires and holds cash deposits and certificates of deposit from certain members of MasterCard International as collateral for settlement of their transactions. These assets are fully offset by corresponding liabilities included on the consolidated balance sheets. However, the majority of collateral for settlement is typically in the form of standby letters of credit and bank guarantees which are not recorded on the balance sheet.

Property, plant and equipment—Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Depreciation of equipment and furniture and fixtures is computed using the straight-line method over the related estimated useful lives of the assets, generally ranging from two to five years. Amortization of leasehold improvements is generally computed using the straight-line method over the lesser of the estimated useful lives of the improvements or the terms of the related leases. Capital leases are amortized using the straight-line method over the lives of the leases. Depreciation on buildings is calculated using the straight-line method over an estimated useful life of 30 years. Amortization of leasehold improvements and capital leases is included in depreciation expense.

The Company evaluates the recoverability of all long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amount may not be recoverable. If the carrying value of the asset cannot be recovered from estimated future cash flows, undiscounted and without interest, the fair value of the asset is calculated using the present value of estimated net future cash flows. If the carrying amount of the asset exceeds its fair value, an impairment is recorded.

Leases—The Company enters into operating and capital leases for the use of premises, software and equipment. Rent expense related to lease agreements which contain lease incentives is recorded on a straight-line basis.

 

Goodwill—Goodwill represents the excess of cost over net assets acquired in connection with the acquisition of certain businesses. The Company tests its goodwill for impairment annually as of October 1, or sooner if indicators of impairment exist. The impairment evaluation utilizes a two step approach. The first step is to determine if the carrying value of the goodwill exceeds the fair value of its reporting unit. If so, the second step measures the amount of the impairment loss. Impairment charges, if any, are recorded in general and administrative expense on the consolidated statements of operations. See Note 9 (Goodwill) for additional information on the Company’s goodwill.

Intangible assets—Intangible assets consist of capitalized software costs, trademarks, tradenames, customer relationships and other intangible assets, which have finite lives, and customer relationships related to the acquisition of Europay International S.A. in 2002, which have indefinite lives. Intangible assets with finite useful lives, other than customer relationships, are amortized over their estimated useful lives, which range from 3 to 5 years, under the straight-line method. Customer relationships with finite lives are amortized on a straight line basis over their estimated useful lives. MasterCard capitalizes average internal costs incurred for payroll and payroll related expenses by department for the employees who directly devote time to the design, development and testing phases of each capitalized software project.

The Company reviews intangible assets with finite lives for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amount may not be recoverable. Impairment charges are recorded in general and administrative expense on the consolidated statements of operations. Intangible assets with indefinite lives are tested for impairment annually as of October 1. See Note 10 (Other Intangible Assets) for further detail on impairment charges and other information regarding intangible assets.

Litigation—The Company is a party to certain legal and regulatory proceedings with respect to a variety of matters. Except as described in Note 19 (Obligations Under Litigation Settlements) and Note 21 (Legal and Regulatory Proceedings), MasterCard does not believe that any legal or regulatory proceedings to which it is a party would have a material adverse impact on its business or prospects. The Company evaluates the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of all legal or regulatory proceedings to which it is a party. These judgments are subjective based on the status of the legal or regulatory proceedings, the merits of its defenses and consultation with in-house and external legal counsel. The actual outcomes of these proceedings may materially differ from the Company’s judgments. Legal costs are accrued as incurred and recorded in general and administrative expenses.

Settlement, travelers cheque and other risk management—MasterCard has global risk management policies and procedures, which include risk standards to provide a framework for managing the Company’s settlement exposure. Settlement risk is the legal exposure due to the difference in timing between the payment transaction date and subsequent settlement. MasterCard International’s rules generally guarantee the payment between principal members of MasterCard transactions and certain Cirrus and Maestro transactions. In the event that MasterCard International effects a payment on behalf of a failed member, MasterCard International may seek an assignment of the underlying receivables. Subject to approval by the Company’s Board of Directors, members may be charged for the amount of any settlement losses incurred during the ordinary activities of the Company. MasterCard has also guaranteed the payment of MasterCard-branded travelers cheques in the event of issuer default. The term and amount of these guarantees are unlimited. The Company accounts for each of its guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002, the adoption date of the relevant accounting standard, by recording the guarantee at its fair value at the inception or modification of the guarantee through earnings. To the extent that a guarantee is modified subsequent to the inception of the guarantee, the Company remeasures the fair value of the guarantee at the date of modification through earnings.

 

The Company enters into business agreements in the ordinary course of business under which the Company agrees to indemnify third parties against damages, losses and expenses incurred in connection with legal and other proceedings arising from relationships or transactions with the Company. As the extent of the Company’s obligations under these agreements depends entirely upon the occurrence of future events, the Company’s potential future liability under these agreements is not determinable. See Note 4 (Fair Value) and Note 22 (Settlement and Travelers Cheque Risk Management).

Derivative financial instruments—The Company accounts for all derivatives, whether designated in hedging relationships or not, by recording them on the balance sheet at fair value in other assets and other liabilities, regardless of the purpose or intent for holding them. The Company’s foreign exchange forward contracts are included in level 2 of the Valuation Hierarchy as the fair value of these contracts are based on broker quotes for the same or similar instruments. Changes in the fair value of derivative instruments are reported in current-period earnings. The Company did not have any derivative contracts accounted for under hedge accounting as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.

Disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging were amended, effective for the Company on January 1, 2009. The new requirements apply to all entities and provide for qualitative disclosures about objectives and strategies for using derivatives, quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of and gains and losses on derivative instruments, and disclosures about credit-risk related contingent features in derivative agreements. The Company applied these requirements on a prospective basis. Accordingly, disclosures related to periods prior to the date of adoption have not been presented. Since this revision relates to disclosures only, it had no impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. See Note 23 (Foreign Exchange Risk Management) for further detail.

Income taxes—The Company follows an asset and liability based approach in accounting for income taxes. Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are recorded to reflect the tax consequences on future years of temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts and income tax bases of assets and liabilities. Valuation allowances are provided against assets which are not likely to be realized. The Company recognizes all material tax positions, including all significant uncertain tax positions in which it is more likely than not that the position will be sustained based on its technical merits and if challenged by the relevant taxing authorities. At each balance sheet date, unresolved uncertain tax positions are reassessed to determine whether subsequent developments require a change in the amount of recognized tax benefit.

The Company records interest expense related to income tax matters as interest expense in its statement of operations. The company includes penalties related to income tax matters in the income tax provision.

Revenue recognition—Revenues are recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the price is fixed or determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. Revenues are generally based upon transactional information accumulated by our systems or reported by our customers. The Company’s revenues are based on the volume of activity on cards that carry the Company’s brands, the number of transactions processed or the nature of other payment-related services.

Volume-based revenues (domestic assessments and cross-border volume fees) are recorded as revenue in the period they are earned, which is when the related volume is generated on the cards. Certain quarterly revenues are estimated based upon aggregate transaction information and historical and projected customer quarterly volumes. Actual results may differ from these estimates. Transaction-based revenues (transaction processing fees) are calculated by multiplying the number and type of transactions by the specific price for each service. Transaction-based fees are recognized as revenue in the same period as the related transactions occur. Other payment-related services are dependent on the nature of the products or services provided to our customers and are recognized as revenue in the same period as the related transactions occur or services are rendered.

MasterCard has business agreements with certain customers that provide for fee rebates when the customers meet certain volume hurdles as well as other support incentives such as marketing, which are tied to performance. Rebates and incentives are recorded as a reduction of revenue in the same period as the revenue is earned or performance has occurred. Rebates and incentives are calculated on a monthly basis based upon estimated performance and the terms of the related business agreements. In addition, MasterCard may incur costs directly related to the acquisition of the contract, which are deferred and amortized over the life of the contract.

Pension and other postretirement plans—Compensation cost of an employee’s pension benefit is recognized in general and administrative expenses on the projected unit credit method over the employee’s approximate service period. The unit credit cost method is utilized for funding purposes.

The Company recognizes the overfunded or underfunded status of its single-employer defined benefit plan or postretirement plan as an asset or liability in its balance sheet and recognizes changes in the funded status in the year in which the changes occur through comprehensive income. The Company also measures the funded status of a plan as of the date of its year-end balance sheet.

The accounting disclosure standards for employers’ disclosures about postretirement benefit plan assets were amended and became effective for the Company in 2009. These new standards provide guidance on an employer’s disclosures about plan assets of a defined benefit pension plan or other postretirement plan, including disclosure of how investment allocation decisions are made, major categories of plan assets, inputs and valuation techniques used to measure the fair value of plan assets and concentrations of credit risk. The Company adopted the guidance in 2009, as required, and the adoption had no impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. See Note 12 (Pension, Savings Plan and Other Benefits) for further detail.

Share based payments—The Company recognizes the fair value of all share-based payments to employees in its financial statements. The Company recognizes a realized tax benefit associated with dividends on certain equity shares and options as an increase to additional paid-in capital. The benefit is included in the pool of excess tax benefits available to absorb potential future tax liabilities on share based payment awards.

Advertising expense—Cost of media advertising is expensed when the advertising takes place. Production costs are expensed as costs are incurred. Promotional items are expensed at the time the promotional event occurs. Sponsorship costs are recognized over the period of benefit based on the estimated value of certain events.

Foreign currency translation—The U.S. dollar is the functional currency for the majority of the Company’s businesses except for MasterCard Europe’s operations, for which the functional currency is the euro, and MasterCard’s operations in Brazil, for which the functional currency is the real. Where the U.S. dollar is considered the functional currency, monetary assets and liabilities are re-measured to U.S. dollars using current exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date; non-monetary assets and liabilities are re-measured at historical exchange rates; and revenue and expense accounts are re-measured at a weighted average exchange rate for the period. Resulting exchange gains and losses and transactional foreign exchange gains and losses are included in general and administrative expenses in the statement of operations. Where local currency is the functional currency, translation from the local currency to U.S. dollars is performed for balance sheet accounts using current exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date and for revenue and expense accounts using a weighted average exchange rate for the period. Resulting translation adjustments are reported as a component of other comprehensive income (loss).

 

Earnings (loss) per share—A new accounting standard related to instruments granted in share-based payment transactions became effective for the Company on January 1, 2009, resulting in the retrospective adjustment of earnings per share (“EPS”) for prior periods. See Note 2 (Earnings (Loss) Per Share) for further detail.

Recent accounting pronouncements

Transfers of financial assets—In June 2009, the accounting standard for transfers and servicing of financial assets and extinguishments of liabilities was amended. The change eliminates the qualifying special purpose entity concept, establishes a new unit of account definition that must be met for the transfer of portions of financial assets to be eligible for sale accounting, clarifies and changes the derecognition criteria for a transfer to be accounted for as a sale, changes the amount of gain or loss on a transfer of financial assets accounted for as a sale when beneficial interests are received by the transferor, and requires additional new disclosures. The Company will adopt the new standard upon its effective date of January 1, 2010 and does not expect the impact of the adoption to be material to the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Variable interest entities—In June 2009, there was a revision to the accounting standard for the consolidation of variable interest entities. The revision eliminates the exemption for qualifying special purpose entities, requires a new qualitative approach for determining whether a reporting entity should consolidate a variable interest entity, and changes the requirement of when to reassess whether a reporting entity should consolidate a variable interest entity. During February 2010, the scope of the revised standard was modified to indefinitely exclude certain entities from the requirement to be assessed for consolidation. The standard is effective beginning on January 1, 2010 and the Company does not expect the impact of the adoption to be material to the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables—In September 2009, the accounting standard for the allocation of revenue in arrangements involving multiple deliverables was amended. Current accounting standards require companies to allocate revenue based on the fair value of each deliverable, even though such deliverables may not be sold separately either by the company itself or other vendors. The new accounting standard eliminates (i) the residual method of revenue allocation and (ii) the requirement that all undelivered elements must have objective and reliable evidence of fair value before a company can recognize the portion of the overall arrangement fee that is attributable to items that already have been delivered. The Company will adopt the revised accounting standard effective January 1, 2011 via prospective adoption. The Company is currently evaluating the requirements of the standard to determine the impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Improving fair value disclosures—In January 2010, fair value disclosure requirements were amended such that MasterCard will be required to present detailed disclosures about transfers to and from Level 1 and 2 of the Valuation Hierarchy effective January 1, 2010 and MasterCard will also be required to present purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a “gross” basis within the Level 3 (of the Valuation Hierarchy) reconciliation effective January 1, 2011. The Company will adopt the guidance during 2010 and 2011, as required, and the adoption will have no impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Earnings (Loss) Per Share ("EPS")
Earnings (Loss) Per Share ("EPS")

Note 2. Earnings (Loss) Per Share (“EPS”)

On January 1, 2009, a new accounting standard related to the EPS effects of instruments granted in share-based payment transactions became effective for the Company resulting in the retrospective adjustment of EPS for prior periods. In accordance with this new accounting standard, unvested share-based payment awards which receive non-forfeitable dividend rights, or dividend equivalents, are considered participating securities and are required to be included in computing EPS under the two-class method. The Company declared non-forfeitable dividends on unvested restricted stock units and contingently issuable performance stock units (“Unvested Units”) which were granted prior to 2009. The Company has therefore calculated EPS under the two-class method pursuant to this new accounting standard.

The components of basic and diluted EPS for common shares under the two-class method for each of the years ended December 31:

 

     2009    2008     2007

Numerator:

       

Net income (loss) attributable to MasterCard

   $ 1,462,532    $ (253,915   $ 1,085,886

Less: Net income (loss) allocated to Unvested Units

     9,083      (1,304     9,892
                     

Net income (loss) attributable to MasterCard allocated to common shares

   $ 1,453,449    $ (252,611   $ 1,075,994
                     

Denominator:

       

Basic EPS weighted average shares outstanding

     129,838      130,148        134,887

Dilutive stock options and restricted stock units

     394      —          266
                     

Diluted EPS weighted-average shares outstanding

     130,232      130,148        135,153
                     

Earnings (Loss) per Share:

       

Basic

   $ 11.19    $ (1.94   $ 7.98
                     

Diluted

   $ 11.16    $ (1.94   $ 7.96
                     

The calculation of diluted earnings per share for the year ended December 31, 2009 excluded approximately 251 stock options because the effect would be antidilutive. The calculation of diluted loss per share for the year ended December 31, 2008 excluded approximately 705 stock options because the effect would be antidilutive. The calculation of diluted earnings per share for the year ended December 31, 2007 excluded approximately 10 stock options because the effect would be antidilutive.

The following table compares EPS as originally reported and EPS under the two-class method, to quantify the impact of the new standard on EPS for each of the years ended December 31:

 

     2008     2007  

Earnings (Loss) per Share:

    

Basic—as originally reported

   $ (1.95   $ 8.05   

Basic—pursuant to the two-class method

     (1.94     7.98   
                

Impact of new accounting standard on basic EPS

   $ 0.01      $ (0.07
                

Diluted—as originally reported

   $ (1.95   $ 8.00   

Diluted—pursuant to the two-class method

     (1.94     7.96   
                

Impact of new accounting standard on diluted EPS

   $ 0.01      $ (0.04
                
Supplemental Cash Flows
Supplemental Cash Flows

Note 3. Supplemental Cash Flows

The following table includes supplemental cash flow disclosures for each of the years ended December 31:

 

     2009     2008     2007

Cash paid for income taxes1

   $ 457,285      $ 493,199 1    $  561,860

Cash paid for interest

     10,569        14,058        17,094

Cash paid for legal settlements (Notes 19 and 21)

     945,530        1,263,185        113,925

Non-cash investing and financing activities:

      

Dividend declared but not yet paid

     19,712        19,690        19,969

Municipal bonds cancelled

     154,000 2      —          —  

Revenue bonds received

     (154,000 )3      —          —  

Building and land assets recorded pursuant to capital lease

     (154,000 )3      —          —  

Capital lease obligation

     154,000 3      —          —  

Fair value of assets acquired, net of original investment, cash paid and cash acquired

     16,970        124,275        —  

Fair value of liabilities assumed related to investments in affiliates

     14,792 4      43,234 5      —  

Fair value of non-controlling interest acquired

     8,015        —          —  

 

1

$198,308 of these payments were recorded as an income tax receivable as of December 31, 2008.

2

See Note 15 (Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity) for further details.

3

See Note 8 (Property, Plant, and Equipment) for further details.

4

Includes $8,750 to be extinguished in 2013 and 2016 for future benefits to be provided by MasterCard in the establishment of a joint venture.

5

Includes $20,432 due in 2011 relating to the MasterCard France acquisition.

Fair Value
Fair Value

Note 4. Fair Value

Financial Instruments—Recurring Measurements

In accordance with accounting requirements for financial instruments, the Company is disclosing the estimated fair values as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 of the financial instruments that are within the scope of the accounting guidance, as well as the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value of those financial instruments. Furthermore, the Company classifies its fair value measurements in the Valuation Hierarchy.

The distribution of the fair values of the Company’s financial instruments which are measured at fair value on a recurring basis within the Valuation Hierarchy is as follows:

 

     Quoted Prices
in Active
Markets

(Level 1)
   Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs

(Level 2)
    Significant
Unobservable
Inputs

(Level 3)
   Fair Value at
December 31,

2009
 
          

Municipal bonds1

   $ —      $ 514,330      $ —      $ 514,330   

Taxable short-term bond funds

     309,972      —          —        309,972   

Auction rate securities

     —        —          179,987      179,987   

Foreign currency forward contracts

     —        (1,274     —        (1,274

Other

     43      —          —        43   
                              

Total

   $ 310,015    $ 513,056      $ 179,987    $ 1,003,058   
                              

 

     Quoted Prices
in Active
Markets
(Level 1)
   Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
   Significant
Unobservable
Inputs

(Level 3)
   Fair Value at
December 31,
2008

Municipal bonds1

   $ —      $ 485,490    $ —      $ 485,490

Taxable short-term bond funds

     102,588      —        —        102,588

Auction rate securities

     —        —        191,760      191,760

Foreign currency forward contracts

     —        33,731      —        33,731

Other

     17      —        —        17
                           

Total

   $ 102,605    $ 519,221    $ 191,760    $ 813,586
                           

 

1

Available-for-sale municipal bonds are carried at fair value and are included in the above tables. However, held-to-maturity municipal bonds are carried at amortized cost and excluded from the above tables.

The fair value of the Company’s available-for-sale municipal bonds are based on quoted prices for similar assets in active markets and are therefore included in Level 2 of the Valuation Hierarchy.

The fair value of the Company’s short-term bond funds are based on quoted prices and are therefore included in Level 1 of the Valuation Hierarchy.

The Company’s auction rate securities (“ARS”) investments have been classified within Level 3 of the Valuation Hierarchy as their valuation requires substantial judgment and estimation of factors that are not currently observable in the market due to the lack of trading in the securities. This valuation may be revised in future periods as market conditions evolve. The Company has considered the lack of liquidity in the ARS market and the lack of comparable, orderly transactions when estimating the fair value of its ARS portfolio. Therefore, the Company uses the income approach, which includes a discounted cash flow analysis of the estimated future cash flows adjusted by a risk premium, to estimate the fair value of its ARS portfolio. When a determination is made to classify a financial instrument within Level 3, the determination is based upon the significance of the unobservable parameters to the overall fair value measurement. However, the fair value determination for Level 3 financial instruments may include observable components.

The Company’s foreign currency forward contracts have been classified within Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy, as the fair value is based on broker quotes for the same or similar derivative instruments. See Note 23 (Foreign Exchange Risk Management) for further details.

Financial Instruments—Non-Recurring Measurements

Certain financial instruments are carried on the consolidated balance sheets at cost, which approximates fair value due to their short-term, highly liquid nature. These instruments include cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, settlement due from customers, restricted security deposits held for customers, prepaid expenses, accounts payable, settlement due to customers and accrued expenses.

Investment Securities Held-to-Maturity

The Company utilizes quoted prices for identical and similar securities from active markets to estimate the fair value of its held-to-maturity securities. See Note 5 (Investment Securities) for fair value disclosure.

 

Short-term and Long-term Debt

The Company estimates the fair value of its debt by applying a current discount rate to the remaining cash flows under the terms of the debt. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the carrying values on the consolidated balance sheets totaled $21,598 and $168,767, respectively. The fair values totaled $22,315 and $172,292 for the Company’s debt as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. During 2009, the Company repaid $149,380 of notes payable classified as short-term debt at December 31, 2008 related to its variable interest entity. See Note 15 (Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity) for further discussion.

Obligations Under Litigation Settlements

The Company estimates the fair values of its obligations under litigation settlements by applying a current discount rate to the remaining cash flows under the terms of the litigation settlements. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the carrying values on the consolidated balance sheet totaled $869,721 and $1,736,298, respectively, and the fair values totaled $894,628 and $1,824,630, respectively, for these obligations. For additional information regarding the Company’s obligations under litigation settlements, see Note 19 (Obligations Under Litigation Settlements).

Settlement Guarantee Liabilities

The Company estimates the fair values of its settlement guarantees by applying market assumptions for relevant though not directly comparable undertakings, as the latter are not observable in the market given the proprietary nature of such guarantees. Additionally, loss probability and severity profiles against the Company’s gross and net settlement exposures are considered. The carrying value and estimated fair value of settlement guarantee liabilities were de minimis as of December 31, 2009 and 2008. For additional information regarding the Company’s settlement guarantee liabilities, see Note 22 (Settlement and Travelers Cheque Risk Management).

Refunding Revenue Bonds

The Company holds refunding revenue bonds with the same payment terms as, and which contain the right of set-off with, a capital lease obligation related to the Company’s global technology and operations center located in O’Fallon, Missouri, called Winghaven. The Company has netted the refunding revenue bonds and the corresponding capital lease obligation in the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2009 and estimates that the carrying value approximates the fair value for these bonds. See Note 8 (Property, Plant and Equipment) for further details.

Non-Financial Instruments

Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis. The Company’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis include property, plant and equipment, goodwill and other intangible assets. These assets are not measured at fair value on an ongoing basis; however, they are subject to fair value adjustments in certain circumstances, such as when there is evidence of impairment.

The valuation methods used in the impairment testing of goodwill and other intangible assets involve assumptions concerning comparable company multiples, discount rates, growth projections and other assumptions of future business conditions. As the assumptions employed to measure these assets on a nonrecurring basis are based on management’s judgment using internal and external data, these fair value determinations are classified in Level 3 of the Valuation Hierarchy.

 

Investment Securities
Investment Securities

Note 5. Investment Securities

Amortized Costs and Fair Values—Available-for-Sale Investment Securities:

The major categories of the Company’s available-for-sale investment securities, for which unrealized gains and losses are recorded as a separate component of other comprehensive income (loss) on the consolidated statements of comprehensive income (loss), and their respective cost bases and fair values are as follows:

 

     Amortized
Cost
   Gross
Unrealized
Gain
   Gross
Unrealized
Loss1
    Fair Value at
December 31,
2009

Municipal bonds

   $ 492,245    $ 22,281    $ (196   $ 514,330

Taxable short-term bond funds

     305,574      4,474      (76     309,972

Auction rate securities

     211,750      —        (31,763     179,987

Other

     89      —        (46     43
                            

Total

   $ 1,009,658    $ 26,755    $ (32,081   $ 1,004,332
                            
     Amortized
Cost
   Gross
Unrealized
Gain
   Gross
Unrealized
Loss1
    Fair Value at
December 31,
2008

Municipal bonds

   $ 473,746    $ 12,771    $ (1,027   $ 485,490

Taxable short-term bond funds

     102,588      —        —          102,588

Auction rate securities

     239,700      —        (47,940     191,760

Other

     127      —        (110     17
                            

Total

   $ 816,161    $ 12,771    $ (49,077   $ 779,855
                            

 

1

The majority of the unrealized losses relate to ARS, which have been in an unrealized loss position longer than 12 months, but have not been deemed other-than-temporarily impaired.

The municipal bond portfolio is comprised of tax exempt bonds and is diversified across states and sectors. The portfolio has an average credit quality of double-A. Municipal bonds in a gross unrealized loss position are not considered other-than temporarily impaired, considering factors including their high credit quality.

The short-term bond funds invest in fixed income securities, including corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and asset-backed securities.

The Company holds investments in ARS. Interest on these securities is exempt from U.S. federal income tax and the interest rate on the securities typically resets every 35 days. The securities are fully collateralized by student loans with guarantees, ranging from approximately 95% to 98% of principal and interest, by the U.S. government via the Department of Education.

Beginning on February 11, 2008, the auction mechanism that normally provided liquidity to the ARS investments began to fail. Since mid-February 2008, all 38 investment positions in the Company’s ARS investment portfolio have experienced failed auctions. The securities for which auctions have failed have continued to pay interest in accordance with the contractual terms of such instruments and will continue to accrue interest and be auctioned at each respective reset date until the auction succeeds, the issuer redeems the securities or they mature. During 2008, ARS were reclassified as Level 3 from Level 2. As of December 31, 2009, the ARS market remained illiquid, but issuer call and redemption activity in the ARS student loan sector has occurred periodically since the auctions began to fail. During 2009, the Company did not sell any ARS in the auction market, but there were some calls at par.

 

The table below includes a roll-forward of the Company’s ARS investments from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009.

 

     Significant Other
Inputs (Level 2)
    Significant Unobservable
Inputs (Level 3)
 

Fair value, January 1, 2008

   $ 348,000      $ —     

Purchases, January 1—March 31, 2008

     321,550        —     

Sales, January 1—March 31, 2008

     (420,400     —     

Transfers in (out)

     (249,150     249,150   

Sales, April 1—December 31, 2008

     —          (50

Calls, July 1—December 31, 2008

     —          (9,400

Unrealized losses

     —          (47,940
                

Fair value, December 31, 2008

     —          191,760   

Calls, at par

     —          (27,950

Recovery of unrealized losses due to issuer calls

     —          4,627   

Increase in fair value

     —          11,550   
                

Fair value, December 31, 2009

   $ —        $ 179,987   
                

The Company evaluated the estimated impairment of its ARS portfolio to determine if it was other-than-temporary. The Company considered several factors including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the reasons for the decline in value (changes in interest rates, credit event, or market fluctuations); (2) assessments as to whether it is more likely than not that it will hold and not be required to sell the investments for a sufficient period of time to allow for recovery of the cost basis; (3) whether the decline is substantial; and (4) the historical and anticipated duration of the events causing the decline in value. The evaluation for other-than-temporary impairments is a quantitative and qualitative process, which is subject to various risks and uncertainties. The risks and uncertainties include changes in credit quality, market liquidity, timing and amounts of issuer calls, and interest rates. As of December 31, 2009, the Company believes that the unrealized losses on the ARS were not related to credit quality but rather due to the lack of liquidity in the market. The Company believes that it is more likely than not that the Company will hold and not be required to sell its ARS investments until recovery of their cost bases which may be at maturity or earlier if called. Therefore MasterCard does not consider the unrealized losses to be other-than-temporary. The Company estimated 15% and 20% discounts to the par value of the ARS portfolio at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The pre-tax impairment included in accumulated other comprehensive income related to the Company’s ARS was $31,762 and $47,940 as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. A hypothetical increase of 100 basis points in the discount rate used in the discounted cash flow analysis would have increased the impairment by $23,293 and $24,000 as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Carrying and Fair Values—Held-to-Maturity Investment Securities:

As of December 31, 2009, the Company also owned held-to-maturity investment securities, which consisted of U.S. Treasury notes and a municipal bond yielding interest at 5.0% per annum. The municipal bond relates to the Company’s back-up processing center in Kansas City, Missouri. The Company cancelled $154,000 of short-term municipal bonds related to its global technology and operations center located in O’Fallon, Missouri, called Winghaven, on March 1, 2009, as further discussed in Note 15 (Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity). The carrying value, gross unrecorded gains and fair value of these held-to-maturity investment securities were as follows at December 31:

 

     2009    2008

Carrying value

   $ 337,797    $ 191,450

Gross unrecorded gains

     1,892      1,913
             

Fair value

   $ 339,689    $ 193,363
             

 

Investment Maturities:

The maturity distribution based on the contractual terms of the Company’s investment securities at December 31, 2009 was as follows:

 

     Available-For-Sale    Held-To-Maturity
     Amortized
Cost
   Fair Value    Carrying
Value
   Fair Value

Due within 1 year

   $ 27,420    $ 27,905    $ 19    $ 19

Due after 1 year through 5 years

     374,519      393,114      337,778      339,670

Due after 5 years through 10 years

     94,306      96,711      —        —  

Due after 10 years

     207,750      176,587      —        —  

No contractual maturity

     305,663      310,015      —        —  
                           

Total

   $ 1,009,658    $ 1,004,332    $ 337,797    $ 339,689
                           

The majority of securities due after ten years are ARS. Taxable short-term bond funds and foreign equity securities have been included in the table above in the no contractual maturity category, as these investments do not have a stated maturity date.

The table below summarizes the contractual maturity ranges of the ARS portfolio, based on relative par value, as of December 31, 2009:

 

     Par
Amount
   % of
Total
 

Due within 10 years

   $ 4,000    2

Due year 11 through year 20

     34,300    16

Due year 21 through year 30

     135,850    64

Due after year 30

     37,600    18
             

Total

   $ 211,750    100
             

Investment Income:

Components of net investment income were as follows:

 

     2009     2008     2007  

Interest income

   $ 55,911      $ 108,757      $ 140,851   

Dividend income

     5        1,222        15,386   

Investment securities available-for-sale:

      

Gross realized gains

     1,921        87,579        391,444   

Gross realized losses

     (139     (3,519     (8,298

Other than temporary impairment on short-term bond fund

     —          (11,115     (8,719

Trading securities:

      

Unrealized gains (losses), net

     —          —          (2,116

Realized gains, net

     —          (17     1,852   
                        

Total investment income, net

   $ 57,698      $ 182,907      $ 530,400   
                        

 

Interest income is generated from cash and cash equivalents, available-for-sale investment securities and held-to-maturity investment securities. Dividend income primarily consists of dividends received on the Company’s cost method investments.

At December 31, 2008, the Company held investments in short-term bond funds, with underlying holdings in structured products such as mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities. During 2008, certain of these investments were deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired and an impairment loss of $11,115 was recorded. During 2007, one of the Company’s short-term bond funds, with underlying holdings in mortgage-backed securities, was deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired and an impairment loss of $8,719 was recorded. Due to the high credit quality of the Company’s other investment securities, no other investment securities were considered to be other-than-temporarily impaired in 2008 or 2007.

During 2008, MasterCard sold all of its remaining 6,141 shares of Redecard S.A. and realized a pre-tax gain, net of commissions, of approximately $86,000. In 2007, MasterCard had sold 21,274 shares, or 78% of its investment in Redecard S.A. and realized pre-tax gains, net of commissions, of approximately $391,000. These gains are included in investment income within the consolidated statements of operations. Unrealized holding gains, net of tax, of $62,366, were included in other comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2007 relating to the remaining ownership of this investment

Prepaid Expenses
Prepaid Expenses

Note 6. Prepaid Expenses

Prepaid expenses consisted of the following at December 31:

 

     2009     2008  

Customer and merchant incentives

   $ 444,692      $ 397,563   

Advertising

     56,324        45,608   

Income taxes

     93,140        30,080   

Data processing

     28,896        24,455   

Other

     18,085        18,001   
                

Total prepaid expenses

     641,137        515,707   

Prepaid expenses, current

     (313,253     (213,612
                

Prepaid expenses, long-term

   $ 327,884      $ 302,095   
                

Prepaid customer and merchant incentives represent payments made to customers and merchants under business agreements.

Other Assets
Other Assets

Note 7. Other Assets

Other assets consisted of the following at December 31:

 

     2009     2008  

Customer and merchant incentives

   $ 215,542      $ 46,608   

Cash surrender value of keyman life insurance

     22,790        18,552   

Cost and equity method investments

     34,977        12,500   

Other

     35,907        21,356   
                

Total other assets

     309,216        99,016   

Other assets, current

     (124,915     (32,619
                

Other assets, long-term

   $ 184,301      $ 66,397   
                

 

Certain customer and merchant business agreements provide incentives upon entering into the agreement. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, other assets included amounts to be paid for these incentives and the related liability was included in accrued expenses and other liabilities. Once the payment is made, the liability is relieved and the other asset is reclassified to a prepaid expense.

Property, Plant and Equipment
Property, Plant and Equipment

Note 8. Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment consist of the following at December 31:

 

     2009     2008  

Building and land

   $ 391,946      $ 216,670   

Equipment

     254,830        250,395   

Furniture and fixtures

     52,101        51,124   

Leasehold improvements

     53,876        66,878   
                
     752,753        585,067   

Less accumulated depreciation and amortization

     (303,759     (278,269
                
   $ 448,994      $ 306,798   
                

Effective March 1, 2009, MasterCard executed a new ten-year lease between MasterCard, as tenant, and the Missouri Development Finance Board (“MDFB”), as landlord, for MasterCard’s global technology and operations center located in O’Fallon, Missouri, called Winghaven (see Note 15 (Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity)). The lease includes a bargain purchase option and is thus classified as a capital lease. The building and land assets and capital lease obligation have been recorded at $154,000, which represents the lesser of the present value of the minimum lease payments and the fair value of the building and land assets. The Company received refunding revenue bonds issued by MDFB in the exact amount, $154,000, and with the same payment terms as the capital lease and which contain the legal right of setoff with the capital lease. The Company has netted its investment in the MDFB refunding revenue bonds and the corresponding capital lease obligation in the consolidated balance sheet. The related leasehold improvements for Winghaven will continue to be amortized over the economic life of the improvements.

As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, capital leases of $13,565 and $46,794, respectively, were included in equipment. Accumulated amortization of capital leases was $6,181 and $36,180 as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Depreciation expense for the above property, plant and equipment, including amortization for capital leases was $76,121, $59,097 and $49,311 for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

Goodwill
Goodwill

Note 9. Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 are as follows:

 

     2009     2008  

Beginning balance

   $ 297,993      $ 239,626   

Goodwill acquired during the year

     13,518        67,066   

Foreign currency translation

     9,020        (8,699

Impairment losses

     (11,303     —     
                

Ending balance

   $ 309,228      $ 297,993   
                

 

The Company had no accumulated impairment losses for goodwill at December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.

Other Intangible Assets
Other Intangible Assets

Note 10. Other Intangible Assets

The following table sets forth net intangible assets, other than goodwill, at December 31:

 

     2009    2008
     Gross
Carrying
Amount
   Accumulated
Amortization
    Net
Carrying
Amount
   Gross
Carrying
Amount
   Accumulated
Amortization
    Net
Carrying
Amount

Amortized intangible assets:

               

Capitalized software

   $ 581,874    $ (397,284   $ 184,590    $ 513,587    $ (348,022   $ 165,565

Trademarks and tradenames

     22,311      (22,263     48      24,761      (23,314     1,447

Customer relationships

     22,125      (1,988     20,137      20,910      (620     20,290

Other

     1,803      (803     1,000      6,304      (5,614     690
                                           

Total

     628,113      (422,338     205,775      565,562      (377,570     187,992

Unamortized intangible assets:

               

Customer relationships

     208,929      —          208,929      206,290      —          206,290
                                           

Total

   $ 837,042    $ (422,338   $ 414,704    $ 771,852    $ (377,570   $ 394,282
                                           

Additions to capitalized software primarily relate to projects associated with system enhancements or infrastructure improvements. Amortizable customer relationships were added in 2009 and 2008 due to the acquisition of businesses. Certain intangible assets, including amortizable and unamortizable customer relationships and trademarks and tradenames, are denominated in foreign currencies. As such, the change in intangible assets includes a component attributable to foreign currency translation.

Amortization and impairment expense on the assets above amounted to the following for the years ended December 31:

 

     2009    2008    2007

Amortization

   $ 65,256    $ 52,909    $ 48,331

Capitalized software impairments

   $ 3,183    $ 1,011    $ 298

Intangible asset impairments (other than capitalized software)

   $ 1,944    $ —      $ —  

The following table sets forth the estimated future amortization expense on amortizable intangible assets for the years ending December 31:

 

2010

   $ 68,763

2011

     52,251

2012

     36,436

2013

     13,554

2014 and thereafter

     34,771
      
   $ 205,775
      
Accrued Expenses
Accrued Expenses

Note 11. Accrued Expenses

Accrued expenses consisted of the following at December 31:

 

     2009    2008

Customer and merchant incentives

   $ 597,742    $ 526,722

Personnel costs

     367,321      296,497

Advertising

     130,582      89,567

Income taxes

     31,597      20,685

Other

     97,749      98,590
             

Total accrued expenses

   $ 1,224,991    $ 1,032,061
             
Pension, Savings Plan and Other Benefits
Pension, Savings Plan and Other Benefits

Note 12. Pension, Savings Plan and Other Benefits

The Company maintains a non-contributory, qualified, defined benefit pension plan (the “Qualified Plan”) with a cash balance feature covering substantially all of its U.S. employees hired before July 1, 2007.

In 2008, the Qualified Plan experienced a steep decline in the fair value of plan assets which resulted in significant increases in the Company’s pension liability and contributed to other comprehensive loss as of December 31, 2008 and increased net periodic pension cost in 2009. During 2009, Company contributions and favorable investment returns increased the Qualified Plan’s fair value of assets and resulted in significant decreases in the Company’s pension liability and contributed to other comprehensive income as of December 31, 2009.

The Company also has an unfunded non-qualified supplemental executive retirement plan (the “Non-qualified Plan”) that provides certain key employees with supplemental retirement benefits in excess of limits imposed on qualified plans by U.S. tax laws. The Non-qualified Plan had settlement gains in 2009 and 2008 resulting from payments to participants. The term “Pension Plans” includes both the Qualified Plan and the Non-qualified Plan.

 

The Company uses a December 31 measurement date for its Pension Plans. The following table sets forth the Pension Plans’ funded status, key assumptions and amounts recognized in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31.

 

     2009     2008  

Change in benefit obligation

    

Benefit obligation at beginning of year

   $ 217,035      $ 214,805   

Service cost

     17,570        19,980   

Interest cost

     13,525        13,638   

Voluntary plan participants’ contributions

     331        989   

Actuarial (gain)/loss

     (704     (18,990

Benefits paid

     (13,044     (13,387

Plan amendments

     367        —     
                

Projected benefit obligation at end of year

   $ 235,080      $ 217,035   
                

Change in plan assets

    

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year

   $ 148,846      $ 195,966   

Actual return on plan assets

     44,084        (59,347

Employer contribution

     33,396        24,625   

Voluntary plan participants’ contributions

     331        989   

Benefits paid

     (13,044     (13,387
                

Fair value of plan assets at end of year

   $ 213,613      $ 148,846   
                

Funded status

    

Fair value of plan assets at end of year

   $ 213,613      $ 148,846   

Projected benefit obligation at end of year

     235,080        217,035   
                

Funded status at end of year

   $ (21,467   $ (68,189
                

Amounts recognized on the consolidated balance sheets consist of:

    

Accrued expenses

   $ —        $ (2,332

Other liabilities, long term

     (21,467     (65,857
                
   $ (21,467   $ (68,189
                

Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income consist of:

    

Net actuarial loss

   $ 48,060      $ 88,108   

Prior service credit

     (12,285     (14,938
                
   $ 35,775      $ 73,170   
                

Weighted-average assumptions used to determine end of year benefit obligations

    

Discount rate

     5.50     6.00

Rate of compensation increase—Qualified Plan/Non-Qualified Plan

     5.37%/5.00     5.37%/5.00

The accumulated benefit obligation of the Pension Plans was $215,847 and $196,536 at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Both the Qualified Plan and Non-qualified Plan had a projected benefit obligation in excess of plan assets at December 31, 2009 and 2008.

 

Components of net periodic pension costs were as follows for each of the years ended December 31:

 

     2009     2008     2007  

Service cost

   $ 17,570      $ 19,980      $ 18,866   

Interest cost

     13,525        13,638        12,191   

Expected return on plan assets

     (12,486     (16,030     (16,366

Settlement gain

     (890     (773     —     

Amortization:

      

Actuarial loss

     8,637        1,675        —     

Prior service credit

     (2,286     (2,329     (229
                        

Net periodic pension cost

   $ 24,070      $ 16,161      $ 14,462   
                        

Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized in other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31 were as follows:

 

     2009     2008     2007  

Settlement gain

   $ 890      $ 773      $ —     

Current year actuarial (gain) loss

     (32,302     56,386        17,705   

Amortization of actuarial loss

     (8,637     (1,675     —     

Current year prior service cost (credit)

     367        —          (16,793

Amortization of prior service credit

     2,286        2,329        229   
                        

Total recognized in other comprehensive income (loss)

   $ (37,396   $ 57,813      $ 1,141   
                        

Total recognized in net periodic benefit cost and other comprehensive income (loss)

   $ (13,326   $ 73,974      $ 15,603   
                        

The estimated amounts that are expected to be amortized from accumulated other comprehensive income into net periodic benefit cost in 2010 are as follows:

 

Actuarial loss

   $ 3,364   

Prior service credit

     (2,107
        

Total

   $ 1,257   
        

Weighted-average assumptions used to determine net periodic pension cost were as follows for the years ended December 31:

 

       2009      2008      2007

Discount rate

     6.00%      6.00%      5.75%

Expected return on plan assets

     8.00%      8.00%      8.50%

Rate of compensation increase—Qualified Plan/
Non-Qualified Plan

     5.37%/5.00%      5.37%/5.00%      5.37%/5.00%

For the Qualified Plan, the Company utilized an actuarial standard practice referred to as a building block method to determine the assumption for the expected weighted average return on plan assets. This method includes the following components: (1) compiling historical return data for both the equity and fixed income markets over the past ten, twenty and thirty year periods; (2) weighting the assets within our portfolio at December 31, 2009 by class; and (3) identifying expected rate of return on assets utilizing both current and historical market experience.

Plan assets are managed with a long-term perspective intended to ensure that there is an adequate level of assets to support benefit payments to participants over the life of the Qualified Plan. The Company periodically conducts asset-liability studies to establish the preferred target asset allocation. Plan assets are managed within established asset allocation ranges, toward targets of 40% large/medium cap U.S. equity, 15% small cap U.S. equity, 15% non-U.S. equity and 30% fixed income, with periodic rebalancing to maintain plan assets within the target asset allocation ranges. Plan assets are managed by external investment managers. The majority of investment risk is primarily related to equity exposure, but this investment allocation is diversified across several external investment managers. Investment manager performance is measured against benchmarks for each asset class and peer group on quarterly, one-, three- and five-year periods. An independent consultant assists management with investment manager selections and performance evaluations. The balance in cash and cash equivalents is available to pay expected benefit payments and expenses.

The Valuation Hierarchy of the Qualified Plan’s assets is determined using a consistent application of the categorization measurements for the Company’s financial instruments. See Note 1 (Summary of Significant Accounting Policies).

Mutual funds (in small cap U.S. equity securities and non-U.S. equity securities) are public investment vehicles valued at quoted market prices, which represent the net asset value of the shares held by the Qualified Plan and are therefore included in Level 1. Commingled funds (in large/medium cap U.S. equity securities and fixed income securities) are valued at unit values provided by investment managers, which are based on the fair value of the underlying investments utilizing public information, independent external valuation from third-party services or third-party advisors.

The following table sets forth by level, within the Valuation Hierarchy, the Qualified Plan’s assets at fair value as of December 31, 2009:

 

     Quoted Prices
in Active
Markets
(Level 1)
   Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
   Significant
Unobservable
Inputs

(Level 3)
   Fair Value at
December 31,
2009

U.S. equity securities

           

Large/medium cap

   $ —      $ 86,279    $ —      $ 86,279

Small cap

     28,900      —        —        28,900

Non-U.S. equity

     31,927      —        —        31,927

Fixed income

     —        63,757      —        63,757

Cash and cash equivalents

     2,750      —        —        2,750
                           

Total

   $ 63,577    $ 150,036    $ —      $ 213,613
                           

Pursuant to the requirements of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, the Company did not have a mandatory contribution to the Qualified Plan in 2009, 2008 or 2007. However, the Company did make voluntary contributions of $31,000 and $21,500 to the Qualified Plan in 2009 and 2008, respectively. No contributions were made in 2007. Although not required, the Company may voluntarily elect to contribute to the Qualified Plan in 2010.

 

The following table summarizes expected benefit payments through 2019 for the Pension Plans, including those payments expected to be paid from the Company’s general assets. Since the majority of the benefit payments are made in the form of lump-sum distributions, actual benefit payments may differ from expected benefit payments.

 

2010

   $ 18,181

2011

     27,090

2012

     21,548

2013

     25,513

2014

     24,002

2015-2019

     128,494

Substantially all of the Company’s U.S. employees are eligible to participate in a defined contribution savings plan (the “Savings Plan”) sponsored by the Company. The Savings Plan allows employees to contribute a portion of their base compensation on a pre-tax and after-tax basis in accordance with specified guidelines. The Company matches a percentage of employees’ contributions up to certain limits. In 2007 and prior years, the Company could also contribute to the Savings Plan a discretionary profit sharing component linked to Company performance during the prior year. Beginning in 2008, the discretionary profit sharing amount related to prior year Company performance was paid directly to employees as a short-term cash incentive bonus rather than as a contribution to the Savings Plan. In addition, the Company has several defined contribution plans outside of the United States. The Company’s contribution expense related to all of its defined contribution plans was $40,627, $35,341 and $26,996 for 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

Postemployment and Postretirement Benefits
Postemployment and Postretirement Benefits

Note 13. Postemployment and Postretirement Benefits

The Company maintains a postretirement plan (the “Postretirement Plan”) providing health coverage and life insurance benefits for substantially all of its U.S. employees hired before July 1, 2007. The Company amended the life insurance benefits under the Postretirement Plan effective January 1, 2007. The impact, net of taxes, of this amendment was an increase of $1,715 to accumulated other comprehensive income in 2007.

In 2009, the Company recorded a $3,944 benefit expense as a result of enhanced postretirement medical benefits under the Postretirement Plan provided to employees that chose to participate in a voluntary transition program.

 

The Company uses a December 31 measurement date for its Postretirement Plan. The following table presents the status of the Company’s Postretirement Plan recognized in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2009 and 2008.

 

     2009     2008  

Change in benefit obligation

    

Benefit obligation at beginning of year

   $ 59,949      $ 51,598   

Service cost

     1,734        1,951   

Interest cost

     3,625        3,288   

Plan participants’ contributions

     149        74   

Actuarial (gain) loss

     (7,634     4,564   

Gross benefits paid

     (2,133     (1,582

Less federal subsidy on benefits paid

     2        56   

Enhanced termination benefits

     3,944        —     
                

Projected benefit obligation at end of year

   $ 59,636      $ 59,949   
                

Change in plan assets

    

Employer contributions

   $ 1,982      $ 1,452   

Plan participants’ contributions

     149        74   

Net benefits paid

     (2,131     (1,526
                

Fair value of plan assets at end of year

   $ —        $ —     
                

Funded status

    

Projected benefit obligation

   $ (59,636   $ (59,949
                

Funded status at end of year

   $ (59,636   $ (59,949
                

Amounts recognized on the consolidated balance sheets consist of:

    

Accrued expenses

   $ (2,644   $ (2,564

Other liabilities, long-term

     (56,992     (57,385
                
   $ (59,636   $ (59,949
                

Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income consist of:

    

Net actuarial gain

   $ (13,509   $ (5,874

Transition obligation

     642        856   
                
   $ (12,867   $ (5,018
                

Weighted-average assumptions used to determine end of year benefit obligation

    

Discount rate

     5.75     6.00

Rate of compensation increase

     5.37     5.37

The assumed health care cost trend rates at December 31 for the Postretirement Plan were as follows:

 

     2009     2008  

Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year

   7.50   8.00

Rate to which the cost trend rate is expected to decline (the ultimate trend rate)

   5.00   5.00

Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate

   2015      2015   

 

Components of net periodic benefit costs recorded in general and administrative expenses, for each of the years ended December 31 for the Postretirement Plan were as follows:

 

     2009    2008     2007

Service cost

   $ 1,734    $ 1,951      $ 2,354

Interest cost

     3,625      3,288        3,392

Amortization:

       

Actuarial gain

     —        (518     —  

Transition obligation

     214      214        214

Enhanced termination benefits

     3,944      —          —  
                     

Net periodic postretirement benefit cost

   $ 9,517    $ 4,935      $ 5,960
                     

Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations for the Postretirement Plan that were recognized in other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31 were as follows:

 

     2009     2008     2007  

Current year actuarial (gain) loss

   $ (7,634   $ 4,564      $ (10,663

Current year prior service credit

     —          —          (2,693

Amortization of actuarial gain

     —          518        —     

Amortization of transition obligation

     (214     (214     (214
                        

Total recognized in other comprehensive income (loss)

   $ (7,848   $ 4,868      $ (13,570
                        

Total recognized in net periodic benefit cost and other comprehensive income (loss)

   $ 1,669      $ 9,803      $ (7,610
                        

The estimated amounts that are expected to be amortized for the Postretirement Plan from accumulated other comprehensive income into net periodic benefit cost in 2010 are as follows:

 

Actuarial gain

   $ (657)

Transition obligation

     214
      

Total

   $ (443)
      

The weighted-average assumptions for the Postretirement Plan which were used to determine net periodic postretirement benefit cost for the years ended December 31 were:

 

     2009     2008     2007  

Discount rate

   6.00   6.25   5.75

Rate of compensation increase

   5.37   5.37   5.37

The assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect on the amounts reported for the Postretirement Plan. A one-percentage point change in assumed health care cost trend rates for 2009 would have the following effects:

 

     1% increase    1% decrease  

Effect on postretirement obligation

   $ 6,095    $ (5,174

Effect on total service and interest cost components

     494      (421

 

The Company does not make any contributions to its Postretirement Plan other than funding benefits payments. The following table summarizes expected net benefit payments from the Company’s general assets through 2019:

 

     Benefit
Payments
   Expected
Subsidy
Receipts
   Net
Benefit
Payments

2010

   $ 2,714    $ 71    $ 2,643

2011

     3,028      91      2,937

2012

     3,369      111      3,258

2013

     3,660      134      3,526

2014

     4,019      151      3,868

2015 – 2019

     22,686      1,071      21,615

The Company provides limited postemployment benefits to eligible former U.S. employees, primarily severance under a formal severance plan (the “Severance Plan”). The Company accounts for severance expense by accruing the expected cost of the severance benefits expected to be provided to former employees after employment over their relevant service periods. The Company updates the assumptions in determining the severance accrual by evaluating the actual severance activity and long-term trends underlying the assumptions. As a result of updating the assumptions, the Company recorded incremental severance expense (benefit) related to the Severance Plan of $3,471, $2,643 and $(3,418), respectively, during the years 2009, 2008 and 2007. These amounts were part of total severance expenses of $135,113, $32,997 and $21,284 in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively, included in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

Debt
Debt

Note 14. Debt

On April 28, 2008, the Company extended its committed unsecured revolving credit facility, dated as of April 28, 2006 (the “Credit Facility”), for an additional year. The new expiration date of the Credit Facility is April 26, 2011. The available funding under the Credit Facility will remain at $2,500,000 through April 27, 2010 and then decrease to $2,000,000 during the final year of the Credit Facility agreement. Other terms and conditions in the Credit Facility remain unchanged. The Company’s option to request that each lender under the Credit Facility extend its commitment was provided pursuant to the original terms of the Credit Facility agreement. Borrowings under the facility are available to provide liquidity in the event of one or more settlement failures by MasterCard International customers and, subject to a limit of $500,000, for general corporate purposes. The facility fee and borrowing cost are contingent upon the Company’s credit rating. At December 31, 2009, the facility fee was 7 basis points on the total commitment, or approximately $1,774 annually. Interest on borrowings under the Credit Facility would be charged at the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus an applicable margin of 28 basis points or an alternative base rate, and a utilization fee of 10 basis points would be charged if outstanding borrowings under the facility exceed 50% of commitments. At the inception of the Credit Facility, the Company also agreed to pay upfront fees of $1,250 and administrative fees of $325, which are being amortized over five years. Facility and other fees associated with the Credit Facility totaled $2,222, $2,353 and $2,477 for each of the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. MasterCard was in compliance with the covenants of the Credit Facility and had no borrowings under the Credit Facility at December 31, 2009 or December 31, 2008. The majority of Credit Facility lenders are members or affiliates of members of MasterCard International.

In June 1998, MasterCard International issued ten-year unsecured, subordinated notes (the “Notes”) paying a fixed interest rate of 6.67% per annum. MasterCard repaid the entire principal amount of $80,000 on June 30, 2008 pursuant to the terms of the Notes. The interest expense on the Notes was $2,668 and $5,336 for each of the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

 

At December 31, 2008, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet included $149,380 in short-term debt relating to the Company’s Variable Interest Entity. See Note 15 (Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity) for more information. On March 2, 2009, the Company repaid this short-term debt.

On January 5, 2009, HSBC Bank plc (“HSBC”) notified the Company that, effective December 31, 2008, it had terminated an uncommitted credit agreement totaling 100 million euros between HSBC and MasterCard Europe. There were no borrowings under this agreement at December 31, 2008.

Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity

Note 15. Consolidation of Variable Interest Entity

As discussed in Note 8 (Property, Plant and Equipment), the Company executed a new lease agreement for Winghaven, effective March 1, 2009. In conjunction with entering into the new lease agreement, the Company terminated the original synthetic lease agreement for Winghaven, which included a ten-year term with MCI O’Fallon 1999 Trust (the “Trust”) as the lessor. The Trust, which was a variable interest entity, was established for a single discrete purpose, was not an operating entity, had a limited life and had no employees. The Trust had financed Winghaven through a combination of a third party equity investment in the amount of $4,620 and the issuance of 7.36 percent Series A Senior Secured Notes (the “Secured Notes”) with an aggregate principal amount of $149,380 and a maturity date of September 1, 2009. MasterCard International executed a guarantee of 85.15 percent of the aggregate principal amount of the Secured Notes outstanding, for a total of $127,197. Additionally, upon the occurrence of specific events of default, MasterCard International guaranteed the repayment of the total outstanding principal and interest on the Secured Notes and agreed to take ownership of the facility. During 2004, MasterCard Incorporated became party to the guarantee and assumed certain covenant compliance obligations, including financial reporting and maintenance of a certain level of consolidated net worth. As the primary beneficiary of the Trust, the Company had consolidated the assets and liabilities of the Trust in its consolidated financial statements.

Effective March 1, 2009, the aggregate outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Secured Notes was repaid, the investor equity was redeemed, and the guarantee obligations of MasterCard International and MasterCard Incorporated were terminated. The aggregate principal amount and interest plus a “make-whole” amount repaid to the holders of Secured Notes and the equity investor was $164,572. The “make-whole” amount of $4,874 included in the repayment represented the discounted value of the remaining principal and interest on the Secured Notes, less the outstanding principal balance and an equity investor premium. Also as a result of the transaction, $154,000 of short-term municipal bonds classified as held-to-maturity investments were cancelled.

The Trust is no longer considered a variable interest entity and is no longer consolidated by the Company. During the period when the Trust was a consolidated entity within the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, its operations had no impact on net income. However, interest income and interest expense were increased by $6,773, $11,390 and $11,390 in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Company did not provide any financial or other support that it was not contractually required to provide during each of the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.

Stockholders' Equity
Stockholders' Equity

Note 16. Stockholders’ Equity

Initial Public Offering (“IPO”)

On May 31, 2006, MasterCard transitioned to a new ownership and governance structure upon the closing of its IPO and issuance of a new class of the Company’s common stock. Prior to the IPO, the Company’s capital stock was privately held by certain of its customers that were principal members of MasterCard International. All stockholders held shares of Class A redeemable common stock.

 

Immediately prior to the closing of the IPO, MasterCard Incorporated filed an amended and restated certificate of incorporation (the “certificate of incorporation”). The certificate of incorporation authorized 4,501,000 shares, consisting of the following new classes of capital stock:

 

Class

  

Par Value

   Authorized
Shares

(in millions)
 

Dividend and Voting Rights

A

   $.0001 per share    3,000  

•   One vote per share

•   Dividend rights

B

   $.0001 per share    1,200  

•   Non-voting

•   Dividend rights

M

   $.0001 per share    1  

•   Generally non-voting, but can elect up to three, but not more than one-quarter, of the members of the Company’s Board of Directors and approve specified significant corporate actions (e.g., the sale of all of the assets of the Company)

•   No dividend rights

Preferred

   $.0001 per share    300  

•   No shares issued or outstanding. Dividend and voting rights are to be determined by the Board of Directors of the Company upon issuance.

The certificate of incorporation also provided for the immediate reclassification of all of the Company’s 99,978 outstanding shares of existing Class A redeemable common stock, causing each of its existing stockholders to receive 1.35 shares of the Company’s newly issued Class B common stock for each share of common stock that they held prior to the reclassification as well as a single share of Class M common stock. The Company paid stockholders an aggregate of $27 in lieu of issuing fractional shares that resulted from the reclassification. This resulted in the issuance of 134,969 shares of Class B common stock and 2 shares of Class M common stock.

The Company issued 66,135 newly authorized shares of Class A common stock in the IPO, including 4,614 shares sold to the underwriters pursuant to an option to purchase additional shares, at a price of $39 per share. The Company received net proceeds from the IPO of approximately $2,449,910. The Company issues and retires one share of Class M common stock at the inception or termination, respectively, of each principal membership of MasterCard International. All outstanding Class M common stock will be transferred to the Company and retired and unavailable for issue or reissue on the day on which the outstanding shares of Class B common stock represent less than 15% of the total outstanding shares of Class A common stock and Class B common stock.

The MasterCard Foundation

In connection and simultaneously with the IPO, the Company issued and donated 13,497 newly authorized shares of Class A common stock to The MasterCard Foundation (the “Foundation”). The Foundation is a private charitable foundation incorporated in Canada that is controlled by directors who are independent of the Company and its principal members. Under the terms of the donation, the Foundation can only resell the donated shares beginning on the fourth anniversary of the IPO to the extent necessary to meet charitable disbursement requirements dictated by Canadian tax law. Under Canadian tax law, the Foundation is generally required to disburse at least 3.5% of its assets not used in administration each year for qualified charitable disbursements. However, the Foundation obtained permission from the Canadian tax authorities to defer the giving requirements for up to ten years. The Foundation, at its discretion, may decide to meet its disbursement obligations on an annual basis or to settle previously accumulated obligations during any given year. The Foundation will be permitted to sell all of its remaining shares beginning twenty years and eleven months after the consummation of the IPO. During 2007, the Company donated $20,000 in cash to the Foundation, which is included in general and administrative expense.

 

Ownership and Governance Structure

Equity ownership and voting power of the Company’s shares were allocated as follows as of December 31:

 

     2009     2008  
     Equity
Ownership
    General
Voting
Power
    Equity
Ownership
    General
Voting
Power
 

Public Investors (Class A stockholders)

   74.2   87.7   65.7   86.3

Principal or Affiliate Members (Class B stockholders)

   15.4   0.0   23.9   0.0

Foundation (Class A stockholders)

   10.4   12.3   10.4   13.7

Class B Common Stock Conversions

At the annual meeting of stockholders of the Company on June 7, 2007, the Company’s stockholders approved amendments to the Company’s certificate of incorporation designed to facilitate an accelerated, orderly conversion of Class B common stock into Class A common stock for subsequent sale. Through “conversion transactions,” in amounts and at times designated by the Company, current holders of shares of Class B common stock who elect to participate will be eligible to convert their shares, on a one-for-one basis, into shares of Class A common stock for subsequent sale or transfer to public investors, within a 30 day “transitory” ownership period. Holders of Class B common stock are not allowed to participate in any vote of holders of Class A common stock during this “transitory” ownership period. The number of shares of Class B common stock eligible for conversion transactions is limited to an annual aggregate number of up to 10% of the total combined outstanding shares of Class A common stock and Class B common stock, based upon the total number of shares outstanding as of December 31 of the prior calendar year. In addition, prior to May 31, 2010, a conversion transaction will not be permitted that will cause the number of shares of Class B common stock to represent less than 15% of the total number of outstanding shares of Class A common stock and Class B common stock outstanding.

During 2007, the Company implemented and completed two separate conversion programs in which 11,387 shares, of an eligible 13,400 shares, of Class B common stock were converted into an equal number of shares of Class A common stock and subsequently sold or transferred to public investors.

In February 2008, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the conversion and sale or transfer of up to 13,100 shares of Class B common stock into Class A common stock in one or more conversion programs during 2008. In May 2008, the Company implemented and completed a conversion program in which all of the 13,100 authorized shares of Class B common stock were converted into an equal number of shares of Class A common stock and subsequently sold or transferred by participating holders of Class B common stock to public investors.

In February 2009, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the conversion and sale or transfer of up to 11,000 shares of Class B common stock into Class A common stock. In May 2009, the Company implemented and completed a conversion program in which 10,871 shares of Class B common stock were converted into an equal number of shares of Class A common stock and subsequently sold or transferred to public investors.

Notwithstanding the conversion transactions completed during 2007, 2008 and 2009, commencing on the fourth anniversary of the IPO, each share of Class B common stock will be convertible, at the holder’s option, into a share of Class A common stock on a one-for-one basis. In February 2010, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized programs to facilitate conversions of shares of Class B common stock on a one-for-one basis into shares of Class A common stock for subsequent sale or transfer to public investors, beginning after May 31, 2010. The conversion programs follow the expiration on May 31, 2010 of a 4-year post-IPO restriction period with respect to the conversion of shares of Class B common stock. The Company currently expects that the first 2010 conversion program will consist of four one-week periods in June 2010. Holders of shares of Class B common stock will be able to make conversion elections in a program to be modeled on the Company’s 2008 and 2009 programs, except that there will not be a limit on the number of shares of Class B common stock that are eligible for conversion by any one holder. Starting in early July 2010, the Company expects to run a subsequent, continuous conversion program for remaining shares of Class B common stock, featuring an “open window” for elections of any size.

Additionally, if at any time while shares of Class M common stock are outstanding, the number of shares of Class B common stock outstanding is less than 41% of the aggregate number of shares of Class A common stock and Class B common stock outstanding, Class B stockholders will in certain circumstances be permitted to acquire an aggregate number of shares of Class A common stock in the open market or otherwise, with acquired shares thereupon converting into an equal number of shares of Class B common stock so that holders of Class B common stock could own up to 41% of the aggregate number of shares of Class A common stock and Class B common stock outstanding at such time. Shares of Class B common stock are non-registered securities that may be bought and sold among eligible holders of Class B common stock subject to certain limitations.

Stock Repurchase Program

In April 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized a plan for the Company to repurchase up to $500,000 of its Class A common stock in open market transactions during 2007. On October 29, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors amended the share repurchase plan to authorize the Company to repurchase an incremental $750,000 (aggregate for the entire repurchase program of $1,250,000) of its Class A common stock in open market transactions through June 30, 2008. As of December 31, 2007, approximately 3,922 shares of Class A common stock had been repurchased at a cost of $600,532. During 2008, the Company repurchased approximately 2,819 shares of Class A common stock at a cost of $649,468, completing its aggregate authorized share repurchase program of $1,250,000. The Company records the repurchase of shares of common stock at cost based on the settlement date of the transaction. These shares are classified as treasury stock, which is a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Treasury stock is included in authorized and issued shares but excluded from outstanding shares.

Share Based Payment and Other Benefits
Share Based Payment and Other Benefits

Note 17. Share Based Payment and Other Benefits

In May 2006, the Company implemented the MasterCard Incorporated 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”). The LTIP is a shareholder-approved omnibus plan that permits the grant of various types of equity awards to employees.

The Company has granted restricted stock units (“RSUs”), non-qualified stock options (“options”) and Performance Stock Units (“PSUs”) under the LTIP. The RSUs generally vest after three to four years. The options, which expire ten years from the date of grant, generally vest ratably over four years from the date of grant. The PSUs generally vest after three years. Additionally, the Company made a one-time grant to all non-executive management employees upon the IPO for a total of approximately 440 RSUs (the “Founders’ Grant”). The Founders’ Grant RSUs vested three years from the date of grant. The Company uses the straight-line method of attribution for expensing equity awards. Compensation expense is recorded net of estimated forfeitures. Estimates are adjusted as appropriate.

 

Upon termination of employment, excluding retirement, all of a participant’s unvested awards are forfeited. However, when a participant terminates employment due to retirement, the participant generally retains all of their awards without providing additional service to the Company. Eligible retirement is dependent upon age and years of service, as follows: age 55 with ten years of service, age 60 with five years of service and age 65 with two years of service. Compensation expense is recognized over the shorter of the vesting periods stated in the LTIP, or the date the individual becomes eligible to retire.

There are 11,550 shares of Class A common stock reserved for equity awards under the LTIP. Although the LTIP permits the issuance of shares of Class B common stock, no such shares have been reserved for issuance. Shares issued as a result of option exercises and the conversions of RSUs are expected to be funded with the issuance of new shares of Class A common stock.

Stock Options

The fair value of each option is estimated on the date of grant using a Black-Scholes option pricing model. The following table presents the weighted-average assumptions used in the valuation and the resulting weighted-average fair value per option granted for the years ended December 31:

 

     2009     2008     2007  

Risk-free rate of return

     2.5     3.2     4.4

Expected term (in years)

     6.17        6.25        6.25   

Expected volatility

     41.7     37.9     30.9

Expected dividend yield

     0.4     0.3     0.6

Weighted-average fair value per option granted

   $ 71.03      $ 78.54      $ 41.03   

The risk-free rate of return was based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect on the date of grant. The Company utilizes the simplified method for calculating the expected term of the option based on the vesting terms and the contractual life of the option. The expected volatility for options granted during 2009 was based on the average of the implied volatility of MasterCard and a blend of the historical volatility of MasterCard and the historical volatility of a group of companies that management believes is generally comparable to MasterCard. The expected volatility for options granted during 2008 was based on the average of the implied volatility of MasterCard and the historical volatility of a group of companies that management believes is generally comparable to MasterCard. As the Company did not have sufficient publicly traded stock data historically, the expected volatility for options granted during 2007 was primarily based on the average of the historical and implied volatility of a group of companies that management believed was generally comparable to MasterCard. The expected dividend yields were based on the Company’s expected annual dividend rate on the date of grant.

 

The following table summarizes the Company’s option activity for the year ended December 31, 2009:

 

     Options     Weighted Average
Exercise Price
   Weighted Average
Remaining
Contractual Term

(in years)
   Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value

Outstanding at January 1, 2009

   705      $ 93      

Granted

   184      $ 168      

Exercised

   (153   $ 57      

Forfeited/expired

   (5   $ 117      
              

Outstanding at December 31, 2009

   731      $ 120    7.7    $ 99,686
                        

Exercisable at December 31, 2009

   185      $ 96    7.1    $ 29,534
                        

Options vested at December 31, 20091

   455      $ 105    7.4    $ 68,638
                        

 

1

Includes options for participants that are eligible to retire and thus have fully earned their awards.

The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $21,762, $36,987 and $4,877, respectively. As of December 31, 2009, there was $10,589 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested options. The cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.6 years.

Restricted Stock Units

The following table summarizes the Company’s RSU activity for the year ended December 31, 2009:

 

     Units     Weighted-Average
Grant-Date Fair
Value
   Weighted Average
Remaining
Contractual Term

(in years)
   Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value

Outstanding at January 1, 2009

   1,523      $ 43      

Granted

   270      $ 164      

Converted

   (571   $ 40      

Forfeited/expired

   (14   $ 44      
              

Outstanding at December 31, 2009

   1,208      $ 71    0.6    $ 308,968
                        

RSUs vested at December 31, 20091

   454      $ 44    0.1    $ 116,215
                        

 

1

Includes RSUs for participants that are eligible to retire and thus have fully earned their awards.

The fair value of each RSU is the closing stock price on the New York Stock Exchange of the Company’s Class A common stock on the date of grant. The weighted-average grant-date fair value of RSUs granted during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 was $208.64 and $153.93, respectively. The portion of the RSU award related to the minimum statutory withholding taxes will be settled by withholding shares upon vesting. The remaining RSUs will be settled in shares of the Company’s Class A common stock after the vesting period. The total intrinsic value of RSUs converted into shares of Class A common stock during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $91,079, $194,051 and $31,389, respectively. As of December 31, 2009, there was $29,821 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested RSUs. The cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.1 years.

 

Performance Stock Units

The following table summarizes the Company’s PSU activity for the year ended December 31, 2009:

 

     Units     Weighted-Average
Grant-Date Fair
Value
   Weighted Average
Remaining
Contractual Term
(in years)
   Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value

Outstanding at January 1, 2009

   857      $ 136      

Granted

   203      $ 184      

Converted

   —        $ —        

Forfeited/expired

   (33   $ 159      
              

Outstanding at December 31, 2009

   1,027      $ 145    0.7    $ 262,888
                        

PSUs vested at December 31, 20091

   305      $ 141    0.7    $ 78,170
                        

 

1

Includes PSUs for participants that are eligible to retire and thus have fully earned their awards.

The fair value of each PSU is the closing price on the New York Stock Exchange of the Company’s Class A common stock on the date of grant. With regard to the performance units granted in 2009, whether or not the performance stock units will vest will be based upon MasterCard performance against a predetermined return on equity goal, with an average of return on equity over the three-year period commencing January 1, 2009 yielding threshold, target or maximum performance, with a potential adjustment determined at the discretion of the MasterCard Human Resources and Compensation Committee using subjective quantitative and qualitative goals expected to be established at the beginning of each year in the performance period from 2009-2011. These goals are expected to include MasterCard performance against internal management metrics and external relative metrics. With regard to the performance units granted in 2008, the ultimate number of shares to be received by the employee upon vesting will be determined by the Company’s performance against predetermined net income (two-thirds weighting) and operating margin (one-third weighting) goals for the three-year period commencing January 1, 2008. With regard to the performance units granted in 2007, the Company expects to award 200% of the original number of shares granted and not forfeited prior to vesting based upon the Company’s performance against equally weighted predetermined net income and return on equity goals for the three-year period commencing January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2009. The weighted-average grant-date fair value of PSUs granted during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 was $191.82 and $106.29, respectively. There were no PSUs converted into shares of Class A common stock during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.

These performance units have been classified as equity awards, will be settled by delivering stock to the employees and contain service and performance conditions. Given that the performance terms are subjective and not fixed on the date of grant, the performance units will be remeasured at the end of each reporting period, at fair value, until the time the performance conditions are fixed and the ultimate number of shares to be issued is determined. Estimates are adjusted as appropriate. Compensation expense is calculated using the number of performance stock units expected to vest; multiplied by the period ending price of a share of MasterCard’s Class A common stock on the New York Stock Exchange; less previously recorded compensation expense. As of December 31, 2009, there was $28,555 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested PSUs. The cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.2 years.

For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Company recorded compensation expense for the equity awards of $87,279, $59,761 and $57,162, respectively. The total income tax benefit recognized for the equity awards was $30,333, $20,726 and $19,828 for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The income tax benefit related to options exercised during 2009 was $7,545. The additional paid-in capital balance attributed to the equity awards was $197,350, $135,538 and $114,637 as of December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

On July 18, 2006, the Company’s stockholders approved the MasterCard Incorporated 2006 Non-Employee Director Equity Compensation Plan (the “Director Plan”). The Director Plan provides for awards of Deferred Stock Units (“DSUs”) to each director of the Company who is not a current employee of the Company. There are 100 shares of Class A common stock reserved for DSU awards under the Director Plan. During the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Company granted 7 DSUs, 4 DSUs and 8 DSUs, respectively. The fair value of the DSUs was based on the closing stock price on the New York Stock Exchange of the Company’s Class A common stock on the date of grant. The weighted average grant-date fair value of DSUs granted during the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $168.18, $284.92 and $139.27, respectively. The DSUs vested immediately upon grant and will be settled in shares of the Company’s Class A common stock on the fourth anniversary of the date of grant. Accordingly, the Company recorded general and administrative expense of $1,151, $1,209 and $1,051 for the DSUs for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The total income tax benefit recognized in the income statement for DSUs was $410, $371 and $413 for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

Commitments
Commitments

Note 18. Commitments

At December 31, 2009, the Company had the following future minimum payments due under non-cancelable agreements:

 

     Total    Capital
Leases
   Operating
Leases
   Sponsorship,
Licensing &
Other

2010

   $ 283,987    $ 7,260    $ 25,978    $ 250,749

2011

     146,147      4,455      17,710      123,982

2012

     108,377      3,221      15,358      89,798

2013

     59,947      36,838      10,281      12,828

2014

     13,998      —        8,371      5,627

Thereafter

     25,579      —        22,859      2,720
                           

Total

   $ 638,035    $ 51,774    $ 100,557    $ 485,704
                           

Included in the table above are capital leases with imputed interest expense of $7,929 and a net present value of minimum lease payments of $43,845. In addition, at December 31, 2009, $63,616 of the future minimum payments in the table above for leases, sponsorship, licensing and other agreements was accrued. Consolidated rental expense for the Company’s office space, which is recognized on a straight line basis over the life of the lease, was approximately $39,586, $42,905 and $35,614 for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Consolidated lease expense for automobiles, computer equipment and office equipment was $9,137, $7,694 and $7,679 for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

In January 2003, MasterCard purchased a building in Kansas City, Missouri for approximately $23,572. The building is a co-processing data center which replaced a back-up data center in Lake Success, New York. During 2003, MasterCard entered into agreements with the City of Kansas City for (i) the sale-leaseback of the building and related equipment which totaled $36,382 and (ii) the purchase of municipal bonds for the same amount which have been classified as investment securities held-to-maturity. The agreements enabled MasterCard to secure state and local financial benefits. No gain or loss was recorded in connection with the agreements. The leaseback has been accounted for as a capital lease as the agreement contains a bargain purchase option at the end of the ten-year lease term on April 1, 2013. The building and related equipment are being depreciated over their estimated economic life in accordance with the Company’s policy. Rent of $1,819 is due annually and is equal to the interest due on the municipal bonds. The future minimum lease payments are $43,962 and are included in the table above. A portion of the building was subleased to the original building owner for a five-year term with a renewal option. As of December 31, 2009, the future minimum sublease rental income is $3,312.

Obligations Under Litigation Settlements
Obligations Under Litigation Settlements

Note 19. Obligations Under Litigation Settlements

On October 27, 2008, MasterCard and Visa Inc. (“Visa”) entered into a settlement agreement (the “Discover Settlement”) with Discover Financial Services, Inc. (“Discover”) relating to the U.S. federal antitrust litigation amongst the parties. The Discover Settlement ended all litigation among the parties for a total of $2,750,000. In July 2008, MasterCard and Visa had entered into a judgment sharing agreement that allocated responsibility for any judgment or settlement of the Discover action among the parties. Accordingly, the MasterCard share of the Discover Settlement was $862,500, which was paid to Discover in November 2008. In addition, in connection with the Discover Settlement, Morgan Stanley, Discover’s former parent company, paid MasterCard $35,000 in November 2008, pursuant to a separate agreement. The net impact of $827,500 is included in litigation settlements for the year ended December 31, 2008.

On June 24, 2008, MasterCard entered into a settlement agreement (the “American Express Settlement”) with American Express Company (“American Express”) relating to the U.S. federal antitrust litigation between MasterCard and American Express. The American Express Settlement ended all existing litigation between MasterCard and American Express. Under the terms of the American Express Settlement, MasterCard is obligated to make 12 quarterly payments of up to $150,000 per quarter beginning in the third quarter of 2008. MasterCard’s maximum nominal payments will total $1,800,000. The amount of each quarterly payment is contingent on the performance of American Express’s U.S. Global Network Services business. The quarterly payments will be in an amount equal to 15% of American Express’s U.S. Global Network Services billings during the quarter, up to a maximum of $150,000 per quarter. If, however, the payment for any quarter is less than $150,000, the maximum payment for subsequent quarters will be increased by the difference between $150,000 and the lesser amount that was paid in any quarter in which there was a shortfall. MasterCard assumes American Express will achieve these financial hurdles. MasterCard recorded the present value of $1,800,000, at a 5.75% discount rate, or $1,649,345 for the year ended December 31, 2008. As of December 31, 2009, the Company has six quarterly payments for a total of $900,000 remaining.

In 2003, MasterCard entered into a settlement agreement (the “U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement”) related to the U.S. merchant lawsuit described under the caption “U.S. Merchant and Consumer Litigations” in Note 21 (Legal and Regulatory Proceedings) and contract disputes with certain customers. Under the terms of the U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement, the Company was required to pay $125,000 in 2003 and $100,000 annually each December from 2004 through 2012. On July 1, 2009, MasterCard entered into an agreement (the “Prepayment Agreement”) with plaintiffs of the U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement whereby MasterCard agreed to make a prepayment of its remaining $400,000 in payment obligations at a discounted amount of $335,000 on September 30, 2009. The Company made the prepayment at the discounted amount of $335,000 on September 30, 2009, after the Prepayment Agreement became final. In addition, in 2003, several other lawsuits were initiated by merchants who opted not to participate in the plaintiff class in the U.S. merchant lawsuit. The “opt-out” merchant lawsuits were not covered by the terms of the U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement and all have been individually settled.

 

We recorded liabilities for these and certain litigation settlements in 2009 and prior years. Total liabilities for litigation settlements changed from December 31, 2007, as follows:

 

Balance as of December 31, 2007

   $ 404,436   

Provision for Discover Settlement

     862,500   

Provision for American Express Settlement

     1,649,345   

Provision for other litigation settlements

     6,000   

Interest accretion on U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement

     32,879   

Interest accretion on American Express Settlement

     44,300   

Payments on American Express Settlement

     (300,000

Payments on Discover Settlement

     (862,500

Payment on U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement

     (100,000

Other payments and accretion

     (662
        

Balance as of December 31, 2008

     1,736,298   

Interest accretion on U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement

     20,506   

Interest accretion on American Express Settlement

     65,812   

Payments on American Express Settlement

     (600,000

Payment on U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement

     (335,000

Gain on prepayment of U.S. Merchant Lawsuit Settlement

     (14,234

Other payments, accruals and accretion, net

     (3,661
        

Balance as of December 31, 2009

   $ 869,721   
        

See Note 21 (Legal and Regulatory Proceedings) for additional discussion regarding the Company’s legal proceedings.

Income Tax
Income Tax

Note 20. Income Tax

The total income tax provision for the years ended December 31 is comprised of the following components:

 

     2009    2008     2007  

Current

       

Federal

   $ 160,883    $ 118,387      $ 371,250   

State and local

     17,818      13,124        36,661   

Foreign

     240,022      223,143        183,127   
                       
     418,723      354,654        591,038   

Deferred

       

Federal

     307,614      (481,783     (8,666

State and local

     20,968      2,002        5,429   

Foreign

     8,122      (4,171     (2,255
                       
     336,704      (483,952     (5,492
                       

Total income tax expense (benefit)

   $ 755,427    $ (129,298   $ 585,546   
                       

 

The domestic and foreign components of earnings (loss) before income taxes for the years ended December 31 are as follows:

 

     2009    2008     2007

United States

   $ 1,481,934    $ (986,175   $ 959,977

Foreign

     736,117      602,962        711,455
                     
   $ 2,218,051    $ (383,213   $ 1,671,432
                     

MasterCard has not provided for U.S. federal income and foreign withholding taxes on approximately $1,257,946 of undistributed earnings from non-U.S. subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 because such earnings are intended to be reinvested indefinitely outside of the United States. If these earnings were distributed, foreign tax credits may become available under current law to reduce the resulting U.S. income tax liability, however, the amount of the tax and credits is not practically determinable.

The provision for income taxes differs from the amount of income tax determined by applying the appropriate statutory U.S. federal income tax rate to pretax income (loss) for the years ended December 31, as a result of the following:

 

    2009     2008     2007  
    Amount     Percent     Amount     Percent     Amount     Percent  

Income (loss) before income tax expense

  $ 2,218,051        $ (383,213     $ 1,671,432     

Federal statutory tax

    776,318      35.0     (134,125   35.0     585,001      35.0

State tax effect, net of federal benefit

    25,211      1.1        11,140      (2.9     27,359      1.6   

Foreign tax effect, net of federal benefit

    (21,737   (1.0     1,969      (0.5     (12,069   (0.7

Non-deductible expenses and other differences

    (17,866   (0.8     2,260      (0.7     (2,918   (0.2

Tax exempt income

    (6,499   (0.3     (10,542   2.8        (11,827   (0.7
                                         

Income tax expense (benefit)

  $ 755,427      34.1   $ (129,298   33.7   $ 585,546      35.0 
                                         

Effective Income Tax Rate

The effective income tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were 34.1%, 33.7% and 35.0%, respectively. The primary cause of the changes in the effective rates was due to the litigation settlement charges recorded in 2008, which resulted in a pretax loss in a higher tax jurisdiction and pretax income in lower tax jurisdictions. In addition, deferred tax assets were remeasured and reduced by $15,045 and $20,605 in 2009 and 2008, respectively, due to changes in our state effective tax rate. As a result of the remeasurements, our income tax expense was increased for the same amounts.

 

Deferred Taxes

Deferred tax assets and liabilities represent the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and the tax bases of assets and liabilities. The net deferred tax asset at December 31 was comprised of the following:

 

     Assets (Liabilities)  
     2009     2008  
     Current     Non-current     Current     Non-current  

Accrued liabilities (including litigation settlements)

   $ 240,219      $ 113,845      $ 268,376      $ 386,608   

Deferred compensation and benefits

     19,769        50,500        5,670        72,163   

Stock based compensation

     —          59,169        —          50,621   

Intangible assets

     —          (52,126     —          (49,476

Property, plant and equipment

     —          (63,290     —          (23,406

State taxes and other credits

     9,244        54,178        21,513        31,589   

Other items

     (25,671     33,937        (11,764     29,760   

Valuation allowance

     —          (11,704     —          (4,810
                                
   $ 243,561      $ 184,509      $ 283,795      $ 493,049   
                                

The net increase in the valuation allowance during the year was $6,894. The 2009 valuation allowance relates to the Company’s ability to recognize tax benefits associated with certain foreign net operating losses. The recognition of these benefits is dependent upon the future taxable income in such foreign jurisdictions. The 2008 valuation allowance relates to the Company’s ability to recognize tax benefits associated with certain state net operating losses and other deferred tax assets, and are primarily attributable to a domestic subsidiary disposed of during the year.

On January 1, 2007, the Company adopted a new accounting pronouncement that addresses the accounting for uncertainties in income taxes. The adoption of this new accounting pronouncement required the Company to inventory, evaluate, and measure all uncertain tax positions taken or to be taken on tax returns, and to record liabilities for the amount of such positions that would not be sustained, or would only partially be sustained, upon examination by the relevant taxing authorities.

A reconciliation of beginning and ending tax benefits for the years ended December 31, is as follows:

 

     2009     2008     2007  

Beginning balance

   $ 163,185      $ 134,826      $ 109,476   

Additions:

      

Current year tax positions

     19,064        20,447        40,288   

Prior year tax positions

     9,914        15,654        4,544   

Reductions:

      

Prior year tax positions, due to changes in judgments

     (18,248     (2,613     (4,886

Settlements with tax authorities

     (16,460     (1,397     (11,990

Expired statute of limitations

     (11,708     (3,732     (2,606
                        

Ending balance

   $ 145,747      $ 163,185      $ 134,826   
                        

The entire balance of $145,747 of unrecognized tax benefits, if recognized, would affect the effective tax rate. There are no positions for which it is reasonably possible that the total amounts of unrecognized tax benefits will increase or decrease significantly within the next twelve months.

 

The Company is subject to tax in the United States, Belgium and various state and other foreign jurisdictions. With few exceptions, the Company is no longer subject to federal, state, local and foreign examinations by tax authorities for years before 2001.

It is the Company’s policy to account for interest expense related to income tax matters as interest expense in its statement of operations, and to include penalties related to income tax matters in the income tax provision. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company had recognized net interest payable of $18,866 and $14,014, respectively, in its consolidated balance sheets. For the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Company recorded net interest expense of $4,852, $8,118 and $800, respectively, in its consolidated statements of operations. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Company had recognized $155 and $2,609, respectively, of penalties payable in its consolidated balance sheets.

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

Note 21. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

MasterCard is a party to legal and regulatory proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of business. Some of these proceedings involve complex claims that are subject to substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages. Therefore, the probability of loss and an estimation of damages are not possible to ascertain at present. Accordingly, except as discussed below, MasterCard has not established reserves for any of these proceedings. MasterCard has recorded liabilities for certain legal proceedings which have been settled through contractual agreements. Except as described below, MasterCard does not believe that any legal or regulatory proceedings to which it is a party would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Although MasterCard believes that it has strong defenses for the litigations and regulatory proceedings described below, it could in the future incur judgments and/or fines, enter into settlements of claims or be required to change its business practices in ways that could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Notwithstanding MasterCard’s belief, in the event it were found liable in a large class-action lawsuit or on the basis of a claim entitling the plaintiff to treble damages or under which it were jointly and severally liable, charges it may be required to record could be significant and could materially and adversely affect its results of operations, cash flow and financial condition, or, in certain circumstances, even cause MasterCard to become insolvent. Moreover, an adverse outcome in a regulatory proceeding could result in fines and/or lead to the filing of civil damage claims and possibly result in damage awards in amounts that could be significant and could materially and adversely affect the Company’s results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Department of Justice Antitrust Litigation and Related Private Litigations

In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed suit against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that both MasterCard’s and Visa’s governance structure and policies violated U.S. federal antitrust laws. First, the DOJ claimed that “dual governance”—the situation where a financial institution has a representative on the Board of Directors of MasterCard or Visa while a portion of its card portfolio is issued under the brand of the other association—was anti-competitive and acted to limit innovation within the payment card industry. Second, the DOJ challenged MasterCard’s Competitive Programs Policy (“CPP”) and a Visa bylaw provision that prohibited financial institutions participating in the respective associations from issuing competing proprietary payment cards (such as American Express or Discover). The DOJ alleged that MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s bylaw provision acted to restrain competition.

On October 9, 2001, District Court Judge Barbara Jones issued an opinion upholding the legality and pro-competitive nature of dual governance. However, the judge also held that MasterCard’s CPP and the Visa bylaw constituted unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws. On November 26, 2001, the judge issued a final judgment that ordered MasterCard to repeal the CPP insofar as it applies to issuers and enjoined MasterCard from enacting or enforcing any bylaw, rule, policy or practice that prohibits its issuers from issuing general purpose credit or debit cards in the United States on any other general purpose card network. The Second Circuit upheld the final judgment and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, both American Express and Discover Financial Services, Inc. filed complaints against MasterCard and Visa in which they alleged that the implementation and enforcement of MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s bylaw provision violated both Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracy to monopolize a particular market. These actions were designated as related cases to the DOJ litigation. On June 24, 2008, MasterCard entered into a settlement agreement with American Express to resolve all current litigation between American Express and MasterCard. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, MasterCard is obligated to make twelve quarterly payments of up to $150,000 per quarter with the first payment having been made in September 2008. See Note 19 (Obligations under Litigation Settlements) for additional discussion. On October 27, 2008, MasterCard and Visa entered into a settlement agreement with Discover, ending all litigation between the parties for a total of $2,750,000. The MasterCard share of the settlement, paid to Discover in November 2008, was $862,500. In addition, in connection with the Discover Settlement and pursuant to a separate agreement, Morgan Stanley, Discover’s former parent company, paid MasterCard $35,000 in November 2008.

On April 29, 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the “Attridge action”). The claims in this action seek to piggyback on the portion of the DOJ antitrust litigation discussed above with regard to the district court’s findings concerning MasterCard’s CPP and Visa’s related bylaw. MasterCard and Visa moved to dismiss the complaint and the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Cartwright Act claims but denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Section 17200 unfair competition claims. MasterCard filed an answer to the complaint on June 19, 2006 and the parties have proceeded with discovery. On September 14, 2009, MasterCard executed a settlement agreement that is subject to court approval in the California consumer litigations (see “—U.S. Merchant and Consumer Litigations”). The agreement includes a release that the parties believe encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge action. On January 5, 2010, the court in the California consumer actions executed an order preliminarily approving the settlement, overruling objections by the plaintiff in the Attridge case. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for July 16, 2010. At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or estimate the liability related to, the Attridge action and no incremental provision for losses has been provided in connection with it.

Currency Conversion Litigations

MasterCard International, together with Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp., are defendants in a state court lawsuit in California. The lawsuit alleges that MasterCard and Visa wrongfully imposed an asserted one percent currency conversion “fee” on every credit card transaction by U.S. MasterCard and Visa cardholders involving the purchase of goods or services in a foreign country, and that such alleged “fee” is unlawful. This action, titled Schwartz v. Visa Int’l Corp., et al. (the “Schwartz action”), was brought in the Superior Court of California in February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the general public. Trial of the Schwartz action commenced on May 20, 2002 and concluded on November 27, 2002. The Schwartz action claims that the alleged “fee” grossly exceeds any costs the defendants might incur in connection with currency conversions relating to credit card purchase transactions made in foreign countries and is not properly disclosed to cardholders. MasterCard denies these allegations.

 

On April 8, 2003, the trial court judge issued a final decision in the Schwartz matter. In his decision, the trial judge found that MasterCard’s currency conversion process does not violate the Truth in Lending Act or regulations, nor is it unconscionably priced under California law. However, the judge found that the practice is deceptive under California law, and ordered that MasterCard mandate that members disclose the currency conversion process to cardholders in cardholder agreements, applications, solicitations and monthly billing statements. As to MasterCard, the judge also ordered restitution to California cardholders. The judge issued a decision on restitution on September 19, 2003, which requires a traditional notice and claims process in which consumers have approximately nine months to submit their claims. The court issued its final judgment on October 31, 2003. On December 29, 2003, MasterCard appealed the judgment. The final judgment and restitution process were stayed pending MasterCard’s appeal. On August 6, 2004, the court awarded plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $28,224 to be paid equally by MasterCard and Visa. Accordingly, during the three months ended September 30, 2004, MasterCard accrued amounts totaling $14,112. MasterCard subsequently filed a notice of appeal on the attorneys’ fee award on October 1, 2004. With respect to restitution, MasterCard believed that it was likely to prevail on appeal. In February 2005, MasterCard filed an appeal regarding the applicability of Proposition 64, which amended sections 17203 and 17204 of the California Business and Professions Code, to this action. On September 28, 2005, the appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the action in light of Proposition 64. On May 8, 2007, the trial court dismissed the case.

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are also defendants in a number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion “fee.” Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (“MDL Complaint”) adding MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants. This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (i) an alleged “inter-association” conspiracy among MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency conversion “fees” allegedly charged to cardholders of “no less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently more”; and (ii) two alleged “intra-association” conspiracies, whereby each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have conspired with its members to fix currency conversion “fees” allegedly charged to cardholders of “no less than 1% of the transaction amount” and “to facilitate and encourage institution—and collection—of second tier currency conversion surcharges.” The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency conversion “fees” have not been disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related matters, as well as the Schwartz matter. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard paid $72,480 to be used for the defendants’ settlement fund to settle the MDL action and $13,440 to settle the Schwartz matter. On November 8, 2006, Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreements, which were subject to both final approval by Judge Pauley and resolution of all appeals. On November 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On November 3, 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement agreements. On November 20, 2009, the same plaintiff in the New York state cases filed notice of appeal of final settlement approval in the MDL action. Within the time period for appeal in the MDL action, twelve other such notices of appeal were filed. With regard to other state court currency conversion actions, MasterCard has reached agreements in principle with the plaintiffs for a total of $3,557, which has been accrued. Settlement agreements have been executed with plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri actions. At this time, it is not possible to predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of these matters.

U.S. Merchant and Consumer Litigations

Commencing in October 1996, several class action suits were brought by a number of U.S. merchants against MasterCard International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. Those suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard’s “Honor All Cards” rule (and a similar Visa rule), which required merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard card, constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard and Visa unlawfully tied acceptance of debit cards to acceptance of credit cards. On June 4, 2003, MasterCard International signed a settlement agreement to settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court approved on December 19, 2003. On January 24, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the District Court’s approval of the settlement agreement thus making it final. On July 1, 2009, MasterCard International entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to prepay MasterCard International’s remaining payment obligations under the settlement agreement at a discount. On August 26, 2009, the court entered a final order approving the prepayment agreement. The agreement became final pursuant to its terms on September 25, 2009 as there were no appeals of the court’s approval, and the prepayment was made on September 30, 2009. See Note 19 (Obligations under Litigation Settlements) for additional discussion.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19 different states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes of consumers. The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold. MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in seventeen of the jurisdictions as courts have granted MasterCard’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints. However, there are outstanding cases in New Mexico and California. The parties are awaiting a decision on MasterCard’s motion to dismiss in New Mexico. In December 2008, MasterCard reached an agreement in principle to resolve the California state court actions described above for a payment by MasterCard of $6,000. As discussed above under “Department of Justice Antitrust Litigation and Related Party Litigations,” in connection with the Attridge action, on September 14, 2009, the parties to the California state court actions executed a settlement agreement which the parties believe would resolve the actions, subject to approval by the California state court. On January 5, 2010, the court executed an order preliminarily approving the settlement. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for July 16, 2010.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or, except as indicated above in the California consumer action, estimate the liability related to, the remaining consumer cases and no provision for losses has been provided in connection with them. The consumer class actions are not covered by the terms of the settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant lawsuit.

 

Interchange Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings

Interchange fees represent a sharing of payment system costs among the financial institutions participating in a four-party payment card system such as MasterCard’s. Typically, interchange fees are paid by the acquirer to the issuer in connection with transactions initiated with the payment system’s cards. These fees reimburse the issuer for a portion of the costs incurred by it in providing services which are of benefit to all participants in the system, including acquirers and merchants. MasterCard or its customer financial institutions establish default interchange fees in certain circumstances that apply when there is no other interchange fee arrangement between the issuer and the acquirer. MasterCard establishes a variety of interchange rates depending on such considerations as the location and the type of transaction, and collects the interchange fee on behalf of the institutions entitled to receive it and remits the interchange fee to eligible institutions. As described more fully below, MasterCard’s interchange fees are subject to regulatory and/or legal review and/or challenges in a number of jurisdictions. At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, any of the interchange proceedings described below. Except as described below, no provision for losses has been provided in connection with them.

United States.    On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number of member banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade. In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately fifty similar complaints (the majority styled as class actions although a few complaints are on behalf of individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut. On October 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720. On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of the individual merchants are generally brought under both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry. Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of the following claims: (i) that MasterCard’s and Visa’s setting of interchange fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions) violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act; (iii) that MasterCard’s and Visa’s purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and (iv) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled transaction fees. In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law, some of these complaints contain certain unfair competition law claims under state law based upon the same conduct described above. These interchange-related litigations seek treble damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were brought in the individual merchant complaints. On January 8, 2008, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ pre-2004 damage claims. On May 14, 2008, the court denied MasterCard’s motion to dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims. Fact discovery has been proceeding and was generally completed by November 21, 2008. Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs’ class certification motion on November 19, 2009. The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion.

 

On January 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The allegations and claims in this complaint generally mirror those in the first amended class action complaint described above although plaintiffs have added additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act against MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks alleging, among other things, that the networks and banks have continued to fix interchange fees following each network’s initial public offering. On March 31, 2009, MasterCard and the other defendants in the action filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its entirety, or alternatively, to narrow the claims in the complaint. The parties have fully briefed the motion and the court heard oral argument on the motion on November 18, 2009. The parties are awaiting decisions on the motions.

On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard’s initial public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the “IPO”) and certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2) violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3) constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are allegedly attempting to release without adequate consideration from the member banks MasterCard’s right to assess the member banks for MasterCard’s litigation liabilities in these interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust litigations pending against it. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. On September 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims contained in the supplemental complaint. On November 25, 2008, the district court granted MasterCard’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ supplemental complaint in its entirety with leave to file an amended complaint. On January 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs repled their complaint directed at MasterCard’s IPO by filing a First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint. The causes of action in the complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs’ original IPO-related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to expand their factual allegations based upon discovery that has been garnered in the case. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO. On March 31, 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and the court heard oral argument on the motion on November 18, 2009. The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion. On July 2, 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs’ theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of billions of dollars. The defendants served their expert reports on December 14, 2009 countering the plaintiffs’ assertions of liability and damages. Briefing on dispositive motions, including summary judgment motions, is currently scheduled to be completed on October 25, 2010. No trial date has been scheduled. The parties have also entered into court-recommended mediation.

On October 10, 2008, the Antitrust Division of the DOJ issued a civil investigative demand to MasterCard and other payment industry participants seeking information regarding certain rules relating to merchant point of acceptance rules, particularly with respect to merchants’ ability to steer customers to payment forms preferred by merchants. Subsequently, MasterCard received requests for similar information from certain State Attorneys General, including the Attorneys General of Ohio and Texas. In addition, on December 23, 2009, MasterCard received a request from the Texas Attorney General’s office for MasterCard’s responses to questions concerning both its merchant point of acceptance rules as well as its practices surrounding the setting of default interchange rates. MasterCard is cooperating with the DOJ and the offices of the State Attorneys General in connection with their requests for information.

European Union.    In September 2000, the European Commission issued a “Statement of Objections” challenging Visa International’s cross-border default interchange fees under European Community competition rules. On July 24, 2002, the European Commission announced its decision to exempt the Visa interchange fees from these rules through the end of 2007 based on certain changes proposed by Visa to its interchange fees. Among other things, in connection with the exemption order, Visa agreed to adopt a cost-based methodology for calculating its interchange fees similar to the methodology employed by MasterCard, which considers the costs of certain specified services provided by issuers, and to reduce its interchange rates for debit and credit transactions to amounts at or below certain specified levels.

On September 25, 2003, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections challenging MasterCard Europe’s cross-border default interchange fees. On June 23, 2006, the European Commission issued a supplemental Statement of Objections covering credit, debit and commercial card fees. On November 14 and 15, 2006, the European Commission held hearings on MasterCard Europe’s cross-border default interchange fees. On March 23, 2007, the European Commission issued a Letter of Facts, also covering credit, debit and commercial card fees and discussing its views on the impact of the IPO on the case. MasterCard Europe responded to the Statements of Objections and Letter of Facts and made presentations on a variety of issues at the hearings.

The European Commission announced its decision on December 19, 2007. The decision applies to MasterCard’s default cross-border interchange fees for MasterCard and Maestro branded consumer payment card transactions in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) (the European Commission refers to these as “MasterCard’s MIF”), but not to commercial card transactions (the European Commission stated publicly that it has not yet finished its investigation of commercial card interchange fees). The decision applies to MasterCard’s MIF for cross-border consumer card payments and to any domestic consumer card transactions that default to MasterCard’s MIF, of which currently there are none. The decision required MasterCard to stop applying the MasterCard MIF, to refrain from repeating the conduct, and not apply its then recently adopted (but never implemented) Maestro SEPA and Intra-Eurozone default interchange fees to debit card payment transactions within the Eurozone. MasterCard understood that the decision gave MasterCard until June 21, 2008 to comply, with the possibility that the European Commission could have extended this time at its discretion. The decision also required MasterCard to issue certain specific notices to financial institutions and other entities that participate in its MasterCard and Maestro payment systems in the EEA and make certain specific public announcements regarding the steps it has taken to comply. The decision did not impose a fine on MasterCard, but provides for a daily penalty of up to 3.5% of MasterCard’s daily consolidated global turnover in the preceding business year (which MasterCard estimates to be approximately $500 U.S. per day) in the event that MasterCard fails to comply. On March 1, 2008, MasterCard filed an application for annulment of the European Commission’s decision with the General Court of the European Union.

On March 26, 2008, the European Commission announced that it has opened formal antitrust proceedings against, and on April 6, 2009, the European Commission announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections to, Visa Europe Limited, under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. The proceedings are in relation to Visa’s multilateral interchange fees for cross-border and certain domestic consumer payment card transactions within the EEA and Visa’s ‘honor all cards’ rule as it applies to these transactions.

The December 19, 2007 decision against MasterCard permits MasterCard to establish other default cross-border interchange fees for MasterCard and Maestro branded consumer payment card transactions in the EEA if MasterCard can demonstrate by empirical proof to the European Commission’s satisfaction that the new interchange fees create efficiencies that outweigh the restriction of competition alleged by the European Commission, that consumers get a fair share of the benefits of the new interchange fees, that there are no less restrictive means of achieving the efficiencies of MasterCard’s payment systems, and that competition is not eliminated altogether. In March 2008, MasterCard entered into discussions with the European Commission about, among other things, the nature of the empirical proof it would require for MasterCard to establish other default cross-border interchange fees consistent with the decision and so as to understand more fully the European Commission’s position as to how it may comply with the decision. MasterCard requested an extension of time to comply with the decision and, on April 26, 2008, the European Commission informed MasterCard that it had rejected such request. On June 12, 2008, MasterCard announced that, effective June 21, 2008, MasterCard would temporarily repeal its then current default intra-EEA cross-border consumer card interchange fees in conformity with the decision. On October 17, 2008, MasterCard received an information request from the European Commission in connection with the decision concerning certain pricing changes that MasterCard implemented as of October 1, 2008. MasterCard submitted its response on November 13, 2008.

On March 30, 2009, MasterCard gave certain undertakings to the European Commission and, in response, on April 1, 2009, the Commissioner for competition policy and DG Competition informed MasterCard that, subject to MasterCard’s fulfilling its undertakings, they do not intend to pursue proceedings for non-compliance with or circumvention of the decision of December 19, 2007 or for infringing the antitrust laws in relation to the October 1, 2008 pricing changes, the introduction of new cross-border consumer default interchange fees or any of the other MasterCard undertakings. MasterCard’s undertakings include: (1) repealing the October 1, 2008 pricing changes; (2) adopting a specific methodology for the setting of cross-border consumer default interchange fees; (3) establishing new default cross-border consumer interchange fees as of July 1, 2009 such that the weighted average interchange fee for credit card transactions does not exceed 30 basis points and for debit card transactions does not exceed 20 basis points; (4) introducing a new rule prohibiting its acquirers from requiring merchants to process all of their MasterCard and Maestro transactions with the acquirer; and (5) introducing a new rule requiring its acquirers to provide merchants with certain pricing information in connection with MasterCard and Maestro transactions. The undertakings will be effective until a final decision by the General Court of the European Union regarding MasterCard’s application for annulment of the European Commission’s December 19, 2007 decision.

Although MasterCard believes that any other business practices it would implement in response to the decision would be in compliance with the December 19, 2007 decision, the European Commission may deem any such practice not in compliance with the decision, or in violation of European competition law, in which case MasterCard may be assessed fines for the period that it is not in compliance. Furthermore, because a balancing mechanism like default cross-border interchange fees constitutes an essential element of MasterCard Europe’s operations, the December 19, 2007 decision could also significantly impact MasterCard International’s European customers’ and MasterCard Europe’s business. The European Commission decision could also lead to additional competition authorities in European Union member states commencing investigations or proceedings regarding domestic interchange fees or, in certain jurisdictions, regulation. In addition, the European Commission’s decision could lead to the filing of private actions against MasterCard Europe by merchants and/or consumers which, if MasterCard is unsuccessful in its application for annulment of the decision, could result in MasterCard owing substantial damages.

United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading.    On September 25, 2001, the Office of Fair Trading of the United Kingdom (“OFT”) issued a Rule 14 Notice under the U.K. Competition Act 1998 challenging the MasterCard default interchange fees and multilateral service fee (“MSF”), the fee paid by issuers to acquirers when a customer uses a MasterCard-branded card in the United Kingdom either at an ATM or over the counter to obtain a cash advance. Until November 2004, the interchange fees and MSF were established by MasterCard U.K. Members Forum Limited (“MMF”) (formerly MasterCard Europay U.K. Ltd.) for domestic credit card transactions in the United Kingdom. The notice contained preliminary conclusions to the effect that the MasterCard U.K. default interchange fees and MSF infringed U.K. competition law and did not qualify for an exemption in their present forms. On February 11, 2003, the OFT issued a supplemental Rule 14 Notice, which also contained preliminary conclusions challenging MasterCard’s U.K. interchange fees (but not the MSF) under the Competition Act. On November 10, 2004, the OFT issued a third notice (now called a Statement of Objections) claiming that the interchange fees infringed U.K. and European Union competition law.

On November 18, 2004, MasterCard’s board of directors adopted a resolution withdrawing the authority of the U.K. members to set domestic MasterCard interchange fees and MSFs and conferring such authority exclusively on MasterCard’s President and Chief Executive Officer.

On September 6, 2005, the OFT issued its decision, concluding that MasterCard’s U.K. interchange fees that were established by MMF prior to November 18, 2004 contravene U.K. and European Union competition law. The OFT decided not to impose penalties on MasterCard or MMF. MMF and MasterCard appealed the OFT’s decision to the U.K. Competition Appeals Tribunal. On June 19, 2006, the U.K. Competition Appeals Tribunal set aside the OFT’s decision, following the OFT’s request to the Tribunal to withdraw the decision and end its case against MasterCard’s U.K. default interchange fees in place prior to November 18, 2004.

Shortly thereafter, the OFT commenced a new investigation of MasterCard’s current U.K. default credit card interchange fees and announced on February 9, 2007 that the investigation would also cover so-called “immediate debit” cards. To date, the OFT has issued a number of requests for information to MasterCard Europe and financial institutions that participate in MasterCard’s payment system in the United Kingdom. MasterCard understands that the OFT is considering whether to commence a formal proceeding through the issuance of a Statement of Objections. The OFT has indicated that it does not intend to issue such a Statement of Objections prior to the judgment of the General Court of the European Union with respect to the December 2007 decision of the European Commission. If the OFT ultimately determines that any of MasterCard’s U.K. interchange fees contravene U.K. and European Union competition law, it may issue a new decision and possibly levy fines accruing from the date of its first decision. MasterCard would likely appeal a negative decision by the OFT in any future proceeding to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. Such an OFT decision could lead to the filing of private actions against MasterCard by merchants and/or consumers which, if its appeal of such an OFT decision were to fail, could result in an award or awards of substantial damages and could have a significant adverse impact on the revenues of MasterCard International’s U.K. customers and MasterCard’s overall business in the U.K.

Poland.    In April 2001, in response to merchant complaints, the Polish Office for Protection of Competition and Consumers (the “PCA”) initiated an investigation of MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) domestic credit and debit card default interchange fees. MasterCard Europe filed several submissions and met with the PCA in connection with the investigation. In January 2007, the PCA issued a decision that MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) interchange fees are unlawful under Polish competition law, and imposed fines on MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) licensed financial institutions. As part of this decision, the PCA also decided that MasterCard (and Visa) had not violated the law. MasterCard and the financial institutions appealed the decision. On November 12, 2008, the appeals court reversed the decision of the PCA and also rejected MasterCard’s appeal on the basis that MasterCard did not have a legal interest in the PCA’s decision because its conduct was not found to be in breach of the relevant competition laws. MasterCard has appealed this part of the appeals court’s decision because it has significant interest in the outcome of the case. The PCA has appealed other parts of the decision. If on appeal the PCA’s decision is ultimately allowed to stand, it could have a significant adverse impact on the revenues of MasterCard’s Polish customers and on MasterCard’s overall business in Poland.

Hungary.    In January 2008, the Hungarian Competition Authority (HCA) notified MasterCard that it had commenced a formal investigation of MasterCard Europe’s (and Visa Europe’s) domestic interchange fees. This followed an informal investigation that the HCA had been conducting since the middle of 2007. On July 12, 2009, the HCA issued to MasterCard a Preliminary Position that MasterCard Europe’s historic domestic interchange fees violate Hungarian competition law. MasterCard responded to the Preliminary Position both in writing and at a hearing which was held on September 8 and 9, 2009. On September 24, 2009, the HCA ruled that MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) historic interchange fees violated the law and fined MasterCard Europe and Visa Europe each approximately $2,600, which was paid during the fourth quarter of 2009. The HCA issued its formal decision on December 2, 2009 and on December 18, 2009, MasterCard appealed the decision to the Hungarian courts. If the HCA’s decision is not reversed on appeal, it could have a significant adverse impact on the revenues of MasterCard’s Hungarian customers and on MasterCard’s overall business in Hungary.

Italy.    On July 15, 2009, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) commenced a proceeding against MasterCard and a number of its customers concerning MasterCard Europe’s domestic interchange fees in Italy. MasterCard, as well as each of the banks involved in the proceeding, offered to give certain undertakings to the ICA, which were rejected. If the Italian Competition Authority issues a Statement of Objections to MasterCard in connection with the matter, MasterCard would have the opportunity to respond both in writing and at a hearing and, if a negative decision were reached, to appeal the decision. A negative decision could result in MasterCard and/or its customers being fined and, if not reversed on appeal, could have a significant adverse impact on the revenues of MasterCard’s Italian customers and on MasterCard’s overall business in Italy.

New Zealand.    In November 2003, MasterCard assumed responsibility for setting domestic default interchange fees in New Zealand, which previously had been set by MasterCard’s customer financial institutions in New Zealand. In early 2004, the New Zealand Competition Commission (the “NZCC”) commenced an investigation of MasterCard’s domestic interchange fees. MasterCard cooperated with the NZCC in its investigation, made a number of submissions concerning its New Zealand domestic default interchange fees and met with the NZCC on several occasions to discuss its investigation. In November 2006, the NZCC filed a lawsuit alleging that MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) domestic default interchange fees and certain other of MasterCard’s practices, including its “honor all cards” rule, do not comply with New Zealand competition law, and seeking penalties. Several large merchants subsequently filed similar lawsuits seeking damages and injunctive relief. On August 24, 2009, MasterCard entered into a settlement with the NZCC under which, in return for the NZCC terminating the proceeding as against MasterCard, MasterCard agreed to modify and/or clarify some of its rules as they apply to New Zealand. These rule modifications, which were instituted as a result of the settlement, include the fact that MasterCard will set maximum interchange rates for New Zealand transactions and post them on its website, and issuers will be permitted to set their own interchange fees up to the maximum rates, and MasterCard will not prohibit merchants from imposing a surcharge on their customers when they choose to use their MasterCard cards to make purchases in New Zealand, so long as merchants inform customers and any surcharges bear a reasonable relationship to the merchant’s cost of accepting MasterCard cards. In agreeing to the settlement with the NZCC, MasterCard did not admit any wrongdoing or pay any penalties (however, MasterCard did agree to pay half of the NZCC’s legal costs). On October 2, 2009, MasterCard entered into a settlement with the merchant plaintiffs under which, in return for the merchant plaintiffs terminating the proceeding as against MasterCard, MasterCard agreed, among other things and subject to certain conditions, to give the merchants the same commitments as it had given the NZCC, as set forth above. In agreeing to the settlement with the merchant plaintiffs, MasterCard did not admit any wrongdoing or agree to pay any damages (however, MasterCard did agree to pay half of the merchant plaintiffs’ legal costs).

Australia.    In 2002, the Reserve Bank of Australia (“RBA”) announced regulations under the Payments Systems (Regulation) Act of 1998 applicable to four-party credit card payment systems in Australia, including MasterCard’s. Those regulations, among other things, mandate the use of a formula for determining domestic interchange fees that effectively caps their weighted average at 50 basis points. Operators of three-party systems, such as American Express and Diners Club, were unaffected by the interchange fee regulation. In 2007, the RBA commenced a review of such regulations and, on September 26, 2008, the RBA released its final conclusions. These indicated that the RBA was willing to withdraw its regulations if MasterCard and Visa made certain undertakings regarding the future levels of their respective credit card interchange fees and other practices, including their “honor all cards” rules. If the undertakings were not made, the RBA said it would consider imposing in 2009 additional regulations that could further reduce the domestic interchange fees of MasterCard and Visa in Australia. On August 26, 2009, the RBA announced that it had decided not to withdraw its regulations and that it would maintain them in their current form pending further consideration of the regulations. MasterCard plans to continue discussions with the RBA as to the nature of the undertakings that MasterCard may be willing to provide. The effect of the undertakings or any such additional regulations could put MasterCard at an even greater competitive disadvantage relative to competitors in Australia that purportedly do not operate four-party systems or, in the case of the undertakings, possibly increase MasterCard’s legal exposure under Australian competition laws, which could have a significant adverse impact on MasterCard’s business in Australia.

South Africa.    On August 4, 2006, the South Africa Competition Commission created a special body, the Jali Enquiry (the “Enquiry”), to examine competition in the payments industry in South Africa, including interchange fees. After nearly two years of investigation, including several rounds of public hearings in which MasterCard participated, on June 25, 2008, the Enquiry published an Executive Summary of its findings. The Enquiry’s full report was made public on December 12, 2008. The Enquiry recommends, among other things, that an independent authority be established to set payment card interchange fees in South Africa and that payment systems’ (including MasterCard’s) respective “honor all cards” rules be modified to give merchants greater freedom to choose which types of cards to accept. The Enquiry’s report is non-binding but is under active consideration by South African regulators. If adopted, the Enquiry’s recommendations could have a significant adverse impact on MasterCard’s business in South Africa.

On October 21, 2008, the South African National Assembly (the “National Assembly”) adopted amendments to that country’s competition laws concerning so-called “complex monopolies” and criminalizing certain violations of those laws (the “South Africa Bill”). On January 29, 2009, the then President of South Africa referred the South Africa Bill back to the National Assembly for further consideration and, in early February 2009, the National Assembly readopted the South Africa Bill. The President also stated that he might submit the South Africa Bill to that country’s Constitutional Court for review. In April 2009, South Africa elected a new President, who signed the South Africa Bill on August 27, 2009 without either referring it to the Constitutional Court or setting a date on which the South Africa Bill will enter into force. If and when the South Africa Bill becomes effective, it could have a significant adverse impact on MasterCard’s business in South Africa.

Other Jurisdictions.    In January 2006, a German retailers association filed a complaint with the Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) in Germany concerning MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) domestic default interchange fees. The complaint alleges that MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) German domestic interchange fees are not transparent to merchants and include so-called “extraneous costs”. On December 21, 2009, the FCO sent MasterCard a questionnaire concerning its domestic interchange fees.

In July 2009, the Canadian Competition Bureau informed MasterCard that it intends to review MasterCard’s (and Visa’s) interchange fees and related rules, such as the “honor all cards” and “no surcharge” rules.

MasterCard is aware that regulatory authorities and/or central banks in certain other jurisdictions including Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Venezuela are reviewing MasterCard’s and/or its members’ interchange fees and/or related practices (such as the “honor all cards” rule) and may seek to regulate the establishment of such fees and/or such practices.

Settlement and Travelers Cheque Risk Management
Settlement and Travelers Cheque Risk Management

Note 22. Settlement and Travelers Cheque Risk Management

MasterCard International’s rules generally guarantee the payment of certain MasterCard, Cirrus and Maestro branded transactions between its principal members. The term and amount of the guarantee are unlimited. Settlement risk is the exposure to members under MasterCard International’s rules (“Settlement Exposure”), due to the difference in timing between the payment transaction date and subsequent settlement. Settlement Exposure is estimated using the average daily card charges during the quarter multiplied by the estimated number of days to settle. The Company has global risk management policies and procedures, which include risk standards, to provide a framework for managing the Company’s settlement risk. Member-reported transaction data and the transaction clearing data underlying the settlement risk calculation may be revised in subsequent reporting periods.

In the event that MasterCard International effects a payment on behalf of a failed member, MasterCard International may seek an assignment of the underlying receivables. Subject to approval by the Board of Directors, members may be charged for the amount of any settlement loss incurred during the ordinary activities of the Company.

MasterCard requires certain members that are not in compliance with the Company’s risk standards in effect at the time of review to post collateral, typically in the form of cash, letters of credit, and bank guarantees. This requirement is based on management review of the individual risk circumstances for each member that is out of compliance. In addition to these amounts, MasterCard holds collateral to cover variability and future growth in member programs. The Company also holds collateral to pay merchants in the event of merchant bank/acquirer failure. Although it is not contractually obligated under MasterCard International’s rules to effect such payments to merchants, the Company may elect to do so to protect brand integrity. MasterCard monitors its credit risk portfolio on a regular basis and the adequacy of collateral on hand. Additionally, from time to time, the Company reviews its risk management methodology and standards. As such, the amounts of estimated settlement risk are revised as necessary.

Estimated Settlement Exposure, and the portion of the Company’s uncollateralized Settlement Exposure for MasterCard-branded transactions that relates to members that are deemed not to be in compliance with, or that are under review in connection with, the Company’s risk management standards, were as follows:

 

     2009     2008  

MasterCard-branded transactions:

    

Gross Settlement Exposure

   $ 26,373,185      $ 21,179,044   

Collateral held for Settlement Exposure

     (2,759,105     (1,813,171
                

Net uncollateralized Settlement Exposure

   $ 23,614,080      $ 19,365,873   
                

Uncollateralized Settlement Exposure attributable to non-compliant members

   $ 210,618      $ 56,795   
                

Cirrus and Maestro transactions:

    

Gross Settlement Exposure

   $ 3,433,112      $ 3,236,175   
                

Although MasterCard holds collateral at the member level, the Cirrus and Maestro estimated settlement exposures are calculated at the regional level. Therefore, these settlement exposures are reported on a gross basis, rather than net of collateral.

 

Of the total estimated Settlement Exposure under the MasterCard brand, net of collateral, the U.S. accounted for approximately 40% and 49% at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The second largest country that accounted for this Settlement Exposure was the United Kingdom, at approximately 9% and 10% at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. A significant portion of the increase in Gross Settlement Exposure is attributable to an affiliate member domiciled outside the U.S. which became a principal member during 2009. Of the total uncollateralized Settlement Exposure attributable to non-compliant members, five members represented approximately 56% and 48% at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.

MasterCard guarantees the payment of MasterCard-branded travelers cheques in the event of issuer default. The guarantee estimate is based on all outstanding MasterCard-branded travelers cheques, reduced by an actuarial determination of cheques that are not anticipated to be presented for payment. The term and amount of the guarantee are unlimited. MasterCard calculated its MasterCard-branded travelers cheques exposure under this guarantee as $400,832 and $446,679 at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. The reduction in travelers cheques exposure is attributable to MasterCard branded travelers cheques no longer being issued.

A significant portion of the Company’s travelers cheques risk is concentrated in one MasterCard travelers cheques issuer. MasterCard has obtained an unlimited guarantee estimated at $313,009 and $348,995 at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively, from a financial institution that is a member, to cover all of the exposure of outstanding travelers cheques with respect to such issuer. In addition, MasterCard has obtained a limited guarantee estimated at $14,481 and $15,949 at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively, from a financial institution that is a member in order to cover the exposure of outstanding travelers cheques with respect to another issuer. These guarantee amounts have also been reduced by an actuarial determination of travelers cheques that are not anticipated to be presented for payment.

Beginning in 2008 and continuing in 2009, many of the Company’s financial institution customers were directly and adversely impacted by the unprecedented events that occurred in the financial markets around the world. The ongoing economic turmoil presents increased risk that the Company may have to perform under its settlement and travelers cheque guarantees. The Company’s global risk management policies and procedures, which are revised and enhanced from time to time, continue to be effective as evidenced by the historically low level of losses that the Company has experienced from customer financial institution failures, including no losses in the last several years.

The Company enters into business agreements in the ordinary course of business under which the Company agrees to indemnify third parties against damages, losses and expenses incurred in connection with legal and other proceedings arising from relationships or transactions with the Company. As the extent of the Company’s obligations under these agreements depends entirely upon the occurrence of future events, the Company’s potential future liability under these agreements is not determinable.

Foreign Exchange Risk Management
Foreign Exchange Risk Management

Note 23. Foreign Exchange Risk Management

The Company enters into foreign currency forward contracts to manage risk associated with anticipated receipts and disbursements which are either transacted in a non-functional currency or valued based on a currency other than its functional currencies. The Company also enters into foreign currency forward contracts to offset possible changes in value due to foreign exchange fluctuations of assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies. The objective of this activity is to reduce the Company’s exposure to transaction gains and losses resulting from fluctuations of foreign currencies against its functional currencies. On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted the new disclosure requirements for derivative instruments and hedging activities. This adoption had no impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations; it required additional financial statement disclosures. The Company has applied these disclosure requirements on a prospective basis. Accordingly, disclosures related to periods prior to the date of adoption have not been presented.

The Company does not designate foreign currency forward contracts as hedging instruments pursuant to the accounting standards for derivative instruments and hedging activities. The Company records the change in the estimated fair value of the outstanding forward contracts at the end of the reporting period to its consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations.

As of December 31, 2009, all contracts to purchase and sell foreign currency had been entered into with customers of MasterCard International. MasterCard’s forward contracts are classified by functional currency as summarized below:

U.S. Dollar Functional Currency

 

    
      December 31, 2009     December 31, 2008  
   Notional    Estimated
Fair Value1
    Notional    Estimated
Fair Value1
 

Commitments to purchase foreign currency

   $ 37,998    $ (463 )1    $ 292,538    $ 21,913 1 

Commitments to sell foreign currency

     50,296      (776 )1      154,187      12,227 1 

Balance Sheet Location:

          

Accounts Receivable

      $ 628         $ 34,227   

Other Current Liabilities

        (1,867        (87

Euro Functional Currency

 

    
     December 31, 2009     December 31, 2008  
     Notional    Estimated
Fair Value1
    Notional    Estimated
Fair Value1
 

Commitments to purchase foreign currency

   $ 16,122    $ (72) 1    $ —      $ —     

Commitments to sell foreign currency

     45,038    $ 37 1      66,405      (409) 1 

Balance Sheet Location:

          

Accounts Receivable

        81         $ 290   

Other Current Liabilities

        (116)           (699)   
     

Amount and Location of Gain (Loss)
Recognized in Income during the Year Ended
December 31, 2009

Derivatives Not Designated As Hedging Instruments

  

Foreign Currency Forward Contracts

   General and administrative    $ (11,944)
   Revenues      (6,087)
            
   Total    $ (18,031)
            

 

1

Amounts represent gross fair value amounts while these amounts may be netted for actual balance sheet presentation.

 

The currencies underlying the foreign currency forward contracts consist primarily of the euro, U.K. pound sterling, Australian dollar, and Norwegian Krone. The fair value of the foreign currency forward contracts generally reflects the estimated amounts that the Company would receive or (pay), on a pre-tax basis, to terminate the contracts at the reporting date based on broker quotes for the same or similar instruments. The terms of the foreign currency forward contracts are generally less than 18 months. The Company had no deferred gains or losses in accumulated other comprehensive income as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 as there were no derivative contracts accounted for under hedge accounting.

The Company’s derivative financial instruments are subject to both credit and market risk. Credit risk is the risk of loss due to failure of the counterparty to perform its obligations in accordance with contractual terms. Market risk is the potential change in an instrument’s value caused by fluctuations in interest rates and other variables related to currency exchange rates. Credit and market risk related to derivative instruments were not material at December 31, 2009 and 2008.

Generally, the Company does not obtain collateral related to forward contracts because of the high credit ratings of the counterparties. The amount of loss the Company would incur if the counterparties failed to perform according to the terms of the contracts is not considered material.

Segment Reporting
Segment Reporting

Note 24. Segment Reporting

MasterCard has one reportable segment, “Payment Solutions.” All of the Company’s activities are interrelated, and each activity is dependent upon and supportive of the other. Accordingly, all significant operating decisions are based upon analyses of MasterCard as one operating segment. The Chief Executive Officer has been identified as the chief operating decision-maker.

Revenue by geographic market is based on the location of the Company’s customer that issued the cards which are generating the revenue. Revenue generated in the U.S. was approximately 45.5%, 47.2% and 49.7% of net revenues in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. No individual country, other than the U.S., generated more than 10% of total revenues in those periods. MasterCard does not maintain or measure long-lived assets by geographic location.

MasterCard did not have any one customer that generated greater than 10% of net revenues in 2009, 2008 or 2007.

Other Income
Other Income

Note 25. Other Income

During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company recognized a gain of approximately $14,000 on the prepayment of the Company’s remaining obligation on a litigation settlement. During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company recognized $75,000, pre-tax, in other income, related to the termination of a customer business agreement for a customer exiting a specific line of business. During the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company recognized $90,000, pre-tax, in other income related to a settlement agreement to discontinue its relationship with the organization which operates the World Cup soccer events and not sponsor the 2010 and 2014 World Cup soccer events.

Document Information
Year Ended
Dec. 31, 2009
Document Type
10-K 
Amendment Flag
FALSE 
Document Period End Date
12/31/2009 
Entity Information (USD $)
Feb. 11, 2010
Year Ended
Dec. 31, 2009
Jun. 30, 2009
Trading Symbol
 
MA 
 
Entity Registrant Name
 
MASTERCARD INC 
 
Entity Central Index Key
 
0001141391 
 
Current Fiscal Year End Date
 
12/31 
 
Entity Well-known Seasoned Issuer
 
Yes 
 
Entity Current Reporting Status
 
Yes 
 
Entity Voluntary Filers
 
No 
 
Entity Filer Category
 
Large Accelerated Filer 
 
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding
110,441,542 
 
 
Entity Public Float
 
 
19,500,000,000 
Class B common stock
 
 
 
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding
19,977,657 
 
 
Class M common stock
 
 
 
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding
1,846