PART I.

Wells Fargo & Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and a financial holding company and a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (BHC Act). Its principal business is to act as a holding company for its subsidiaries. References in this report to “the Parent” mean the holding company. References to “we,” “our,” “us” or “the Company” mean the holding company and its subsidiaries that are consolidated for financial reporting purposes.

At December 31, 2011, we had assets of $1.3 trillion, loans of $770 billion, deposits of $920 billion and stockholders’ equity of $140 billion. Based on assets, we were the fourth largest bank holding company in the United States. At December 31, 2011, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. was the Company’s principal subsidiary with assets of $1.2 trillion, or 88% of the Company’s assets.

At December 31, 2011, we had 264,200 active, full-time equivalent team members.

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, are available free at www.wellsfargo.com/invest_relations/filings as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). They are also available free on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

General

We are a diversified financial services company. We provide retail, commercial and corporate banking services through banking stores and offices, the internet and other distribution channels to individuals, businesses and institutions in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and in other countries. We provide other financial services through subsidiaries engaged in various businesses, principally: wholesale banking, mortgage banking, consumer finance, equipment leasing, agricultural finance, commercial finance, securities brokerage and investment banking, insurance agency and brokerage services, computer and data processing services, trust services, investment advisory services, mortgage-backed securities servicing and venture capital investment.

We have three operating segments for management reporting purposes: Community Banking; Wholesale Banking; and Wealth, Brokerage and Retirement. The 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders includes financial information and descriptions of these operating segments.

Competition

The financial services industry is highly competitive. Our subsidiaries compete with financial services providers such as banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, mortgage banking companies, insurance companies, investment banks and mutual fund companies. They also face increased competition from nonbank institutions such as brokerage houses, as well as from financial services subsidiaries of commercial and manufacturing companies. Many of these competitors enjoy fewer regulatory constraints and some may have lower cost structures.

Securities firms and insurance companies that elect to become financial holding companies may acquire banks and other financial institutions. Combinations of this type could significantly change the competitive environment in which we conduct business. The financial services industry is also likely to become more competitive as further technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services. These technological advances may diminish the importance of depository institutions and other financial intermediaries in the transfer of funds between parties.

REGULATION AND SUPERVISION

We describe below, and in Notes 3 (Cash, Loan and Dividend Restrictions) and 26 (Regulatory and Agency Capital Requirements) to Financial Statements included in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders, the material elements of the regulatory framework applicable to us. Banking statutes, regulations and policies are continually under review by Congress and state legislatures and federal and state regulatory agencies, and a change in them, including changes in how they are interpreted or implemented, could have a material effect on our business. The regulatory framework applicable to bank holding companies is intended to protect depositors, federal deposit insurance funds, consumers and the banking system as a whole, and not necessarily investors in bank holding companies such as the Company.

Statutes, regulations and policies could restrict our ability to diversify into other areas of financial services, acquire depository institutions, and pay dividends on our capital stock. They may also require us to provide financial support to one or more of our subsidiary banks, maintain capital balances in excess of amounts desired by management, and pay higher deposit insurance premiums as a result of a general deterioration in the financial condition of depository institutions. See the “Risk Factors” section in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders for additional information.

General

Parent Bank Holding Company. As a bank holding company, the Parent is subject to regulation under the BHC Act and to inspection, examination and supervision by its primary regulator, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board or FRB). The Parent is also subject to the disclosure and regulatory requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, both as administered by the SEC. As a company with securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the Parent is subject to the rules of the NYSE for listed companies.

Subsidiary Banks. Our subsidiary national banks, and their subsidiaries, are subject to regulation and examination primarily by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and also by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the FRB. The foreign branches and representative offices of our subsidiary national banks are subject to regulation and examination by their respective foreign financial regulators as well as by the OCC and the FRB. Foreign subsidiaries of our national bank subsidiaries may be subject to the laws and regulations of the foreign countries in which they conduct business. Our state-chartered banks are subject to primary federal regulation and examination by the FDIC and, in addition, are regulated and examined by their respective state banking departments.

Nonbank Subsidiaries. Many of our nonbank subsidiaries are also subject to regulation by the FRB and other applicable federal and state agencies. Our insurance subsidiaries are subject

to regulation by applicable state insurance regulatory agencies, as well as the FRB. Our brokerage subsidiaries are regulated by the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and, in some cases, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, and state securities regulators. Our other nonbank subsidiaries may be subject to the laws and regulations of the federal government and/or the various states as well as foreign countries in which they conduct business.

Parent Bank Holding Company Activities

“Financial in Nature” Requirement. We became a financial holding company effective March 13, 2000. We continue to maintain our status as a bank holding company for purposes of other FRB regulations. As a bank holding company that has elected to become a financial holding company pursuant to the BHC Act, we may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature or incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature. “Financial in nature” activities include securities underwriting, dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking; and activities that the FRB, in consultation with the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, determines to be financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity. “Complementary activities” are activities that the FRB determines upon application to be complementary to a financial activity and do not pose a safety and soundness risk.

FRB approval is not generally required for us to acquire a company (other than a bank holding company, bank or savings association) engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature, as determined by the FRB. Prior notice to the FRB may be required, however, if the company to be acquired has total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. Prior FRB approval is required before we may acquire the beneficial ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all of the assets of a bank holding company, bank or savings association. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) also prohibits our ability to merge, acquire all or substantially all of the assets of, or acquire control of another company if our total resulting consolidated liabilities would exceed 10% of the aggregate consolidated liabilities of all financial companies.

Because we are a financial holding company, if any of our subsidiary banks receives a rating under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as amended (CRA), of less than satisfactory, we will be prohibited, until the rating is raised to satisfactory or better, from engaging in new activities or acquiring companies other than bank holding companies, banks or savings associations, except that we could engage in new activities, or acquire companies engaged in activities, that are closely related to banking under the BHC Act. In addition, if the FRB finds that any one of our subsidiary banks is not well capitalized or well managed, we would be required to enter into an agreement with the FRB to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements and which may contain additional limitations or conditions. Until corrected, we could be

prohibited from engaging in any new activity or acquiring companies engaged in activities that are not closely related to banking under the BHC Act without prior FRB approval. If we fail to correct any such condition within a prescribed period, the FRB could order us to divest our banking subsidiaries or, in the alternative, to cease engaging in activities other than those closely related to banking under the BHC Act.

Interstate Banking. Under the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act (Riegle-Neal Act), a bank holding company may acquire banks in states other than its home state, subject to any state requirement that the bank has been organized and operating for a minimum period of time, not to exceed five years, and the requirement that the bank holding company not control, prior to or following the proposed acquisition, more than 10% of the total amount of deposits of insured depository institutions nationwide or, unless the acquisition is the bank holding company’s initial entry into the state, more than 30% of such deposits in the state (or such lesser or greater amount set by the state).

The Riegle-Neal Act also authorizes banks to merge across state lines, thereby creating interstate branches. Banks are also permitted to acquire and to establish new branches in other states where authorized under the laws of those states.

Regulatory Approval. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, federal bank regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, financial condition, and future prospects including current and projected capital ratios and levels, the competence, experience, and integrity of management and record of compliance with laws and regulations, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, including the acquiring institution’s record of compliance under the CRA, the effectiveness of the acquiring institution in combating money laundering activities and the risk to the stability of the United States banking system.

Dividend Restrictions

The Parent is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiary banks and other subsidiaries. A significant source of funds to pay dividends on our common and preferred stock and principal and interest on our debt is dividends from the Parent’s subsidiaries. Various federal and state statutory provisions and regulations limit the amount of dividends the Parent’s subsidiary banks and certain other subsidiaries may pay without regulatory approval. Federal bank regulatory agencies have the authority to prohibit the Parent’s subsidiary banks from engaging in unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their businesses. The payment of dividends, depending on the financial condition of the bank in question, could be deemed an unsafe or unsound practice. The ability of the Parent’s subsidiary banks to pay dividends in the future is currently, and could be further, influenced by bank regulatory policies and capital guidelines. For information about the restrictions applicable to the Parent’s subsidiary banks, see Note 3 (Cash, Loan and Dividend Restrictions) to Financial Statements included in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders.

In addition to these restrictions on the ability of our subsidiary banks to pay dividends to us, the FRB finalized rules in late December 2011 that require large bank holding companies (BHCs), including Wells Fargo, to submit annual capital plans and to obtain regulatory approval before making capital distributions, such as the payment of dividends. In late 2011 the FRB also proposed additional regulations that would restrict or prohibit our ability to pay dividends upon the occurrence of capital, stress test, risk management, or liquidity risk management triggers.

Holding Company Structure

Transfer of Funds from Subsidiary Banks. The Parent’s subsidiary banks are subject to restrictions under federal law that limit the transfer of funds or other items of value from such subsidiaries to the Parent and its nonbank subsidiaries (including affiliates) in so-called “covered transactions.” In general, covered transactions include loans and other extensions of credit, investments and asset purchases, as well as certain other transactions involving the transfer of value from a subsidiary bank to an affiliate or for the benefit of an affiliate. Unless an exemption applies, covered transactions by a subsidiary bank with a single affiliate are limited to 10% of the subsidiary bank’s capital and surplus and, with respect to all covered transactions with affiliates in the aggregate, to 20% of the subsidiary bank’s capital and surplus. Also, loans and extensions of credit to affiliates generally are required to be secured by qualifying collateral. A bank’s transactions with its nonbank affiliates are also generally required to be on arm’s length terms.

Source of Strength. The FRB has a policy that a BHC is expected to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to each of its subsidiary banks and, under appropriate circumstances, to commit resources to support each such subsidiary bank. This support may be required at times when the BHC may not have the resources to provide the support.

The OCC may order an assessment of the Parent if the capital of one of its national bank subsidiaries were to become impaired. If the Parent failed to pay the assessment within three months, the OCC could order the sale of the Parent’s stock in the national bank to cover the deficiency.

Capital loans by the Parent to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and certain other indebtedness of the subsidiary bank. In addition, in the event of the Parent’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the Parent to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

Depositor Preference. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) provides that, in the event of the “liquidation or other resolution” of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors of the institution (including the claims of the FDIC as subrogee of insured depositors) and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as a receiver will have

priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors, along with the FDIC, will have priority in payment ahead of unsecured, nondeposit creditors, including the Parent, with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.

Liability of Commonly Controlled Institutions. All of the Company’s subsidiary banks are insured by the FDIC. FDIC-insured depository institutions can be held liable for any loss incurred, or reasonably expected to be incurred, by the FDIC due to the default of an FDIC-insured depository institution controlled by the same bank holding company, and for any assistance provided by the FDIC to an FDIC-insured depository institution that is in danger of default and that is controlled by the same bank holding company. “Default” means generally the appointment of a conservator or receiver. “In danger of default” means generally the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance.

Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, will result in broad changes to the U.S. financial system and is the most significant financial reform legislation since the 1930s. Although a number of its provisions are effective, many of these provisions require the issuance of rules or other agency guidance which remain open to public comment and are not final. As a result, much of the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act is not yet known, but we anticipate the Dodd-Frank Act will affect most of our businesses in some way, either directly through regulation of specific activities or indirectly through regulation of concentration risks, capital or liquidity. At the enterprise level, the FRB recently proposed rules to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act regarding enhanced supervision and regulation of large BHCs like Wells Fargo and other systemically significant firms. The proposed rules include new risk-based capital requirements and leverage limits, liquidity requirements, counterparty credit exposure limits, risk management requirements, stress testing requirements, debt-to-equity requirements, and early remediation requirements. The FRB published the proposed rules in December 2011. Until the proposed rules are final, we are unable to accurately estimate their impact on the Company, but we expect the final rules will significantly increase our compliance and regulatory requirements.

In addition to proposing rules in 2011 for the enhanced supervision and regulation of large BHCs and other systemically significant firms, federal financial regulators also implemented rules to facilitate the resolution of financial companies. At the end of 2011, the FDIC and FRB finalized regulations requiring large BHCs like Wells Fargo to prepare and periodically revise resolution plans in the event of material distress or failure. The FDIC also finalized rules implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizing it to resolve some financial companies and, under its authority as the agency responsible for insuring deposits with banks, the FDIC implemented rules requiring large

banks to prepare resolution plans. The FDIC also implemented rules shifting the basis for calculating FDIC assessments from deposits to assets and imposing a separate risk-based assessment on large banks.

During 2011, the FRB finalized rules implementing other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, including for the regulation of interchange fees (the Durbin Amendment) and for the repeal of the prohibition on the payment of interest on business checking accounts. The final rules implementing the Durbin Amendment establish a maximum fee that we may generally receive for electronic debit transactions, and the repeal of the prohibition on payment of interest on business checking accounts required changes to our affected products.

Federal regulatory agencies issued numerous other rulemakings in 2011 to implement various other requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, but many of these other proposed rules remain open for comment. Agencies have proposed rules establishing a comprehensive framework for the regulation of derivatives, prohibiting banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading or owning interests in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds (the Volcker Rule), and requiring sponsors of asset-backed securities (ABS) to retain an ownership stake in the ABS. Although we have analyzed these and other proposed rules, the absence of final rules and the complexity of some of the proposed rules make it difficult for the Company to estimate the financial, compliance or operational impacts.

The Dodd-Frank Act also established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to ensure consumers receive clear and accurate disclosures regarding financial products and to protect consumers from hidden fees and unfair or abusive practices. The CFPB has begun exercising supervisory review of banks under its jurisdiction and is expected to focus its rulemaking efforts on a variety of mortgage-related topics, such as the steering of consumers toward certain products, abusive or unfair lending practices, disclosure requirements, mortgage underwriting standards and mortgage servicing standards. Proposed regulations have been issued on several topics, including minimum mortgage underwriting standards; however, the content of final rules and impacts to our businesses are uncertain at this time.

Capital Requirements

We are subject to regulatory capital requirements and guidelines imposed by the FRB, which are substantially similar to those imposed by the OCC and the FDIC on depository institutions within their jurisdictions. Under these guidelines, a depository institution’s or a holding company’s assets and certain specified off-balance sheet commitments and obligations are assigned to various risk categories. Tier 1 capital is considered core capital and generally includes common stockholders’ equity, qualifying preferred stock, and trust preferred securities, and noncontrolling interests in consolidated subsidiaries, reduced by goodwill, net of related taxes, certain intangible and other assets in excess of prescribed limitations, and adjusted for the aggregate impact of certain items included in other comprehensive income. Total capital includes Tier 1 capital, subordinated debt and other components that do not qualify for

Tier 1 capital, and the aggregate allowance for credit losses up to a specified percentage of risk-weighted assets. In addition to measures of Tier 1 and Total capital, a further measure of capital, Tier 1 common capital, reflects common equity and retained earnings, less goodwill and certain other deductions.

During 2011, we redeemed $9.2 billion of our trust preferred securities as a result of a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act known as the Collins Amendment that phases out trust preferred securities from the calculation of Tier 1 capital. We will be required to phase existing trust preferred securities out of Tier 1 capital over three years beginning January 1, 2013. We expect proposed rules implementing the Collins Amendment to provide additional clarity regarding the timing of the phase out.

National banks and bank holding companies currently are required to maintain Tier 1 and Total capital equal to at least 4% and 8%, respectively, of their total risk-weighted assets (including certain off-balance sheet items, such as standby letters of credit). The risk-based capital rules state that the capital requirements are minimum standards based primarily on broad credit-risk considerations and do not take into account the other types of risk a banking organization may be exposed to (e.g., interest rate, market, liquidity and operational risks). The FRB may, therefore, set higher capital requirements for categories of banks (e.g. systematically important firms), or for an individual bank as situations warrant. For example, holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions are expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets. For these reasons, we are expected to operate with a capital position well above the minimum ratios, with the amount of capital held to be determined by us through an internal capital assessment that corresponds to our broad risk exposure.

The regulatory capital rules state that voting common stockholders’ equity should be the dominant element within Tier 1 capital and that banking organizations should avoid overreliance on non-common equity elements. During 2009, in conjunction with the FRB’s SCAP stress test process, the ratio of Tier 1 common equity to risk-weighted assets became significant as a measurement of the predominance of common equity in Tier 1 capital. There is currently no mandated minimum ratio.

In June 2004, the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision (BCBS) published new international guidelines for determining regulatory capital that are designed to be more risk sensitive than the existing framework and to promote enhanced risk management practices among large, internationally active banking organizations. The United States federal bank regulatory agencies each approved a final rule similar to the international guidelines in November 2007. This advanced capital adequacy framework is known as “Basel II,” and is intended to more closely align regulatory capital requirements with actual risks. Basel II incorporates three pillars that address (a) capital adequacy, (b) supervisory review, which relates to the computation of capital and internal assessment processes, and (c) market discipline, through increased disclosure requirements. Embodied within these pillars are aspects of risk strategy, measurement and management that relate to credit risk, market risk, and operational risk. Banking organizations

are required to enhance the measurement and management of those risks through the use of advanced approaches for calculating risk-based capital requirements. Basel II includes safeguards that include a requirement that banking organizations conduct a parallel run over a period of four consecutive calendar quarters for measuring regulatory capital under the new regulatory capital rules and the existing general risk-based capital rules before solely operating under the Basel II framework; a requirement that an institution satisfactorily complete a series of transitional periods before operating under Basel II without floors; and a commitment by the federal bank regulatory agencies to conduct ongoing analysis of the framework to ensure Basel II is working as intended. However, the federal bank regulators adopted a final rule in 2011 to replace the transitional floors in the advanced approaches with a permanent capital floor equal to the risk-based capital requirements under the Basel I capital adequacy guidelines. Wells Fargo is implementing the advanced approach under Basel II, and has established a project management infrastructure to implement the regulations and enter the parallel run in 2012 with regulatory approval. Our delayed entry into the parallel run phase was approved by the FRB in 2010 as a result of our acquisition of Wachovia.

In addition, the federal bank regulatory agencies have established minimum leverage (Tier 1 capital to adjusted average total assets) guidelines for banks within their regulatory jurisdiction. These guidelines provide for a minimum leverage ratio of 3% for banks that meet certain specified criteria, including excellent asset quality, high liquidity, low interest rate exposure and the highest regulatory rating. Institutions not meeting these criteria are required to maintain a leverage ratio of 4%. Our Tier 1 and total risk-based capital ratios and leverage ratio as of December 31, 2011, are included in Note 26 (Regulatory and Agency Capital Requirements) to Financial Statements included in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders. At December 31, 2011, the Company and each of its subsidiary banks were “well capitalized” under the applicable regulatory capital adequacy guidelines.

In December 2010, the BCBS finalized a set of international guidelines for determining regulatory capital known as “Basel III.” These guidelines were developed in response to the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 and address many of the weaknesses identified in the banking sector as contributing to the crisis including excessive leverage, inadequate and low quality capital and insufficient liquidity buffers. Basel III fundamentals:

The U.S. regulatory bodies are reviewing the final international standards and final U.S. rulemaking is expected to be completed in 2012.

The BCBS proposed additional Tier 1 common equity surcharge requirements for global systemically important banks (G-SIBs). The surcharge ranges from 1.0% to 3.5% depending on the bank’s systemic importance to be determined under an indicator-based approach that would consider five broad categories: cross-jurisdictional activity, size, inter-connectedness, substitutability/financial institution infrastructure and complexity. These additional capital requirements, which would be phased in beginning in January 2016 and become fully effective on January 1, 2019, would be in addition to the minimum Basel III 7.0% Tier 1 common equity requirement finalized in December 2010. The Financial Stability Board has determined that the Company is one of the initial 29 G-SIBs that would be subject to the surcharge, but has not yet determined the surcharge amount for us and the other banks.

In December 2011, the FRB issued proposed rules requiring large BHCs like Wells Fargo to submit annual capital plans demonstrating their ability to maintain capital above existing minimum regulatory capital ratios and above a Tier 1 common ratio of 5% under both expected and stressed conditions over at least a nine-quarter period. The proposed rule did not include Basel III capital requirements or a surcharge for G-SIBs. The FRB, however, did indicate it is continuing to implement Basel III capital reforms and expects to adopt rules in 2014 that will implement a G-SIB surcharge consistent with the BCBS approach.

Although uncertainty exists regarding final capital rules, including the FRB’s approach to capital requirements, we evaluate the impact of Basel III on our capital ratios based on our interpretation of the proposed capital requirements and we estimate that our Tier 1 common equity ratio under the Basel III proposal exceeded the fully phased-in minimum of 7.0% by 50 basis points at the end of 2011. This estimate is subject to change depending on final promulgation of Basel III capital rulemaking and interpretations thereof by regulatory authorities.

From time to time, the FRB and the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) propose changes and amendments to, and issue interpretations of, risk-based capital guidelines and related reporting instructions. In addition, the FRB has closely monitored capital levels of the institutions it supervises during the ongoing financial disruption, and may require such institutions to modify capital levels based on FRB determinations. Such determinations, proposals or interpretations could, if implemented in the future, affect our reported capital ratios and net risk-adjusted assets.

As an additional means to identify problems in the financial management of depository institutions, the FDI Act requires federal bank regulatory agencies to establish certain non-capital

safety and soundness standards for institutions for which they are the primary federal regulator. The standards relate generally to operations and management, asset quality, interest rate exposure, executive compensation and risk management. The agencies are authorized to take action against institutions that fail to meet such standards.

The FDI Act requires federal bank regulatory agencies to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to FDIC-insured depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. A depository institution’s treatment for purposes of the prompt corrective action provisions will depend upon how its capital levels compare to various capital measures and certain other factors, as established by regulation.

Capital Planning

In connection with its increased focus on the adequacy of regulatory capital and risk management for large financial firms, the FRB required large banks to submit a capital plan in early 2011 as part of its Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). Following submission of our capital plan on January 7, 2011, the FRB notified us on March 18, 2011, that it did not object to our 2011 capital plan. Since that notification, the Company took several capital actions in 2011, including increasing the quarterly common stock dividend to $0.12 a share, repurchasing $2.4 billion of our common stock, and redeeming $9.2 billion of trust preferred securities that will no longer count as Tier 1 capital under the Dodd-Frank Act and the proposed Basel III capital standards.

In late 2011, the FRB finalized rules to require large BHCs to submit capital plans annually and to obtain regulatory approval before making capital distributions. The rule requires updates to capital plans in the event of material changes in a BHC’s risk profile, including as a result of any significant acquisitions.

Under the FRB’s new capital plan rule, 2012 CCAR will include a BHC’s comprehensive capital plan supported by an assessment of expected uses and sources of capital over a given planning horizon under a range of expected and stress scenarios, similar to the process the FRB relied upon to conduct the 2011 CCAR. As part of the 2012 CCAR, the FRB will also generate a supervisory stress test driven by a sharp decline in the economy and significant decline in asset pricing using the information provided by the BHC to estimate performance. The FRB has indicated it will publish its estimates of performance under this scenario on a BHC-specific basis. We submitted our board-approved 2012 capital plan to the FRB on January 6, 2012. We expect the FRB’s response to our submission in March 2012.

Deposit Insurance Assessments

Our bank subsidiaries, including Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., are members of the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) maintained by the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC insures the deposits of our banks up to prescribed limits for each depositor. The DIF was formed March 31, 2006, upon the merger of the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Insurance Fund in accordance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (the FDIR Act). The FDIR Act established a range of 1.15% to 1.50% within which

the FDIC board of directors may set the Designated Reserve Ratio (reserve ratio or DRR). The FDIR Act also granted the FDIC Board the discretion to price deposit insurance according to risk for all insured institutions regardless of the level of the reserve ratio.

The Dodd-Frank Act gave the FDIC greater discretion to manage the DIF, raised the minimum DRR to 1.35% and removed the upper limit of the range. In October 2010, the FDIC Board adopted a Restoration Plan to ensure that the DIF reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. At the same time, the FDIC Board proposed a comprehensive, long-range plan for DIF management. In December 2010, as part of the comprehensive plan, the FDIC Board adopted a final rule to set the DRR at 2%, and in February 2011, the FDIC Board approved the remainder of the comprehensive plan. The Restoration Plan eliminated a 3 basis point increase in the annual assessment rates that was to take effect January 1, 2011.

In 2009, the FDIC undertook several measures in an effort to replenish the DIF. On February 27, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule modifying the risk-based assessment system and set new initial base assessment rates beginning April 1, 2009. Rates ranged from a minimum of 12 cents per $100 of domestic deposits for well-managed, well-capitalized institutions with the highest credit ratings, to 45 cents per $100 for those institutions posing the most risk to the DIF. Risk-based adjustments to the initial assessment rate could have lowered the rate to 7 cents per $100 of domestic deposits for well-managed, well-capitalized banks with the highest credit ratings or raised the rate to 77.5 cents per $100 for depository institutions posing the most risk to the DIF. On May 22, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule imposing a 5 basis point special assessment on each insured depository institution’s assets minus Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009. The amount of the special assessment for any institution was limited to 10 basis points times the institution’s assessment base for the second quarter 2009. On November 17, 2009, the FDIC amended its regulations to require insured institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for fourth quarter 2009, and all of 2010, 2011, and 2012. For purposes of determining the prepayment, the FDIC used the institution’s assessment rate in effect on September 30, 2009. The combined prepayment amount for our banking subsidiaries was $3.9 billion, of which $1.4 billion remains available to offset future assessments.

On February 7, 2011, the FDIC Board approved a final rule on assessments, dividends, assessment base and large bank pricing that took effect on April 1, 2011. To maintain the DIF, member institutions are assessed an insurance premium based on an assessment base and an assessment rate. Generally, the assessment base is an institution’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. For large and highly complex institutions (those that are very large and are structurally and operationally complex or that pose unique challenges and risks in the case of failure), the assessment rate is determined by combining supervisory ratings and certain financial measures into scorecards. The score received by an institution will be converted into an assessment rate for the institution. The FDIC retains the ability to adjust the total score

of large and highly complex institutions based upon quantitative or qualitative measures not adequately captured in the scorecards.

All FDIC-insured depository institutions must also pay a quarterly assessment towards interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation, a federal corporation chartered under the authority of the Federal Housing Finance Board. The bonds (commonly referred to as FICO bonds) were issued to capitalize the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. FDIC-insured depository institutions paid approximately 1.00 to 1.02 cents per $100 of assessable deposits during the first nine months of 2011. To coincide with Dodd-Frank Act mandated changes to the insurance assessment base, the FDIC established lower FICO assessment rates, .68 cents per $100 of assessment base for the fourth quarter of 2011 and .66 cents per $100 of assessment base for first quarter 2012. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company’s FDIC deposit insurance assessments, including FICO assessments, totaled $1.3 billion.

The FDIC may terminate a depository institution’s deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution’s financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices or has violated any applicable rule, regulation, order or condition enacted or imposed by the institution’s regulatory agency. The termination of deposit insurance for one or more of our bank subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, depending on the collective size of the particular banks involved.

Fiscal and Monetary Policies

Our business and earnings are affected significantly by the fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government and its agencies. We are particularly affected by the policies of the FRB, which regulates the supply of money and credit in the United States. Among the instruments of monetary policy available to the FRB are (a) conducting open market operations in United States government securities, (b) changing the discount rates of borrowings of depository institutions, (c) imposing or changing reserve requirements against depository institutions’ deposits, and (d) imposing or changing reserve requirements against certain borrowings by banks and their affiliates. These methods are used in varying degrees and combinations to directly affect the availability of bank loans and deposits, as well as the interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits. The policies of the FRB may have a material effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Privacy Provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Restrictions on Cross-Selling

Federal banking regulators, as required under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the GLB Act), have adopted rules limiting the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose nonpublic information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. The rules require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to nonaffiliated third parties. The privacy provisions of the GLB Act affect how consumer information

is transmitted through diversified financial services companies and conveyed to outside vendors. Federal financial regulators have issued regulations under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act that have the effect of increasing the length of the waiting period, after privacy disclosures are provided to new customers, before information can be shared among different affiliated companies for the purpose of cross-selling products and services between those affiliated companies.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley) implemented a broad range of corporate governance and accounting measures to increase corporate responsibility, to provide for enhanced penalties for accounting and auditing improprieties at publicly traded companies, and to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of disclosures under federal securities laws. We are subject to Sarbanes-Oxley because we are required to file periodic reports with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, Sarbanes-Oxley and/or its implementing regulations established membership requirements and additional responsibilities for our audit committee, imposed restrictions on the relationship between us and our outside auditors (including restrictions on the types of non-audit services our auditors may provide to us), imposed additional responsibilities for our external financial statements on our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, expanded the disclosure requirements for our corporate insiders, required our management to evaluate our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting, and required our auditors to issue a report on our internal control over financial reporting.

Patriot Act

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Patriot Act) is intended to strengthen the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies and intelligence communities to work together to combat terrorism on a variety of fronts. The Patriot Act has significant implications for depository institutions, brokers, dealers and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The Patriot Act required us to implement new or revised policies and procedures relating to anti-money laundering, compliance, suspicious activities, and currency transaction reporting and due diligence on customers. The Patriot Act also requires federal bank regulators to evaluate the effectiveness of an applicant in combating money laundering in determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition.

Future Legislation or Regulation

In light of recent conditions in the U.S. and global financial markets and the U.S. and global economy, legislators, the presidential administration and regulators have continued their increased focus on regulation of the financial services industry. Proposals that further increase regulation of the financial services industry have been and are expected to continue to be

introduced in the U.S. Congress in state legislatures and abroad. Only a small percentage of the regulations authorized or required under the Dodd-Frank Act have been proposed or finalized by federal regulators. Further legislative changes and additional regulations may change our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such legislation and regulations could increase our cost of doing business, affect our compensation structure, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. We cannot predict whether future legislative proposals will be enacted and, if enacted, the effect that they, or any implementing regulations, would have on our business, results of operations or financial condition. The same uncertainty exists with respect to regulations authorized or required under the Dodd-Frank Act but that have not yet been proposed or finalized.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Additional information in response to this Item 1 can be found in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Review” and under “Financial Statements.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Information in response to this Item 1A can be found in this report on pages 2-8 and in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Review – Risk Factors.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Not applicable.

As of December 31, 2011, we provided banking, insurance, investments, mortgage and consumer and commercial finance from more than 9,000 domestic stores under ownership and lease agreements.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Additional information in response to this Item 2 can be found in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Statements – Notes to Financial Statements – Note 7 (Premises, Equipment, Lease Commitments and Other Assets).” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Information in response to this Item 3 can be found in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Statements – Notes to Financial Statements – Note 15 (Legal Actions).” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

Information relating to the Company’s executive officers is included in Item 10 of this report.

Not applicable.

PART II

MARKET INFORMATION

The Company’s common stock is listed on the NYSE (symbol “WFC”). The Quarterly Financial Data table of the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders provides the quarterly prices of, and quarterly dividends paid on, the Company’s common stock for the two-year period ended December 31, 2011, and is incorporated herein by reference. Prices shown represent the daily high and low, and the quarter-end sale prices of the Company’s common stock as reported on the NYSE Composite Transaction Reporting System for the periods indicated. At January 31, 2012, there were 200,518 holders of record of the Company’s common stock.

DIVIDENDS

The dividend restrictions discussions on page 3 of this report and in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Statements – Notes to Financial Statements – Note 3 (Cash, Loan and Dividend Restrictions)” are incorporated into this item by reference.

REPURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

In September 2008, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of 25 million shares of our common stock and in March 2011, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of an additional 200 million shares of our common stock. The authorization covered shares repurchased to meet team member benefit plan requirements. The Company maintains a variety of retirement plans for its team members and typically is a net issuer of shares of common stock to these plans. From time to time, it also purchases shares of common stock from these plans to accommodate team member preferences. Share repurchases are subtracted from the Company’s repurchase authority without offset for share issuances. Shares may be repurchased as part of employee stock option exercises, from the different benefit plans or in the open market, subject to regulatory approval.

The amount and timing of stock repurchases will be based on various factors, including our capital requirements, the number of shares we expect to issue for employee benefit plans and acquisitions, market conditions (including the trading price of our stock), and regulatory and legal considerations. In June 2010, our Board of Directors also authorized the repurchase of up to $1 billion of warrants to purchase our common stock. The warrants are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “WFCWS.” The amount and timing of warrant repurchases will be based on various factors including market conditions. See the “Capital Management” section in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders for additional information about our common stock and warrant repurchases.

Information in response to this Item 6 can be found in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Review” in Table 1. That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Information in response to this Item 7 can be found in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Review.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Information in response to this Item 7A can be found in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Review – Risk Management – Asset/Liability Management.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Information in response to this Item 8 can be found in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Financial Statements” and under “Quarterly Financial Data.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Not applicable.

Information in response to this Item 9A can be found in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders under “Controls and Procedures.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Not applicable.

AUDIT COMMITTEE INFORMATION

The Audit and Examination Committee is a standing audit committee of the Board of Directors established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Committee has six members: John D. Baker II, Enrique Hernandez, Jr., Nicholas G. Moore (Chair), Federico F. Peña, Philip J. Quigley and Susan G. Swenson. Each member is independent, as independence for audit committee members is defined by NYSE rules. The Board of Directors has determined, in its business judgment, that each member of the Audit and Examination Committee is financially literate, as required by NYSE rules, and that each qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by SEC regulations.

CODE OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS CONDUCT

The Company’s Code of Ethics and Business Conduct for team members (including executive officers), Director Code of Ethics, the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, and the charters for the Audit and Examination, Governance and Nominating, Human Resources, Corporate Responsibility, Credit, Finance, and Risk Committees are available at www.wellsfargo.com/about/corporate/corporate_governance. This information is also available in print to any stockholder upon written request to the Office of the Secretary, Wells Fargo & Company, MAC N9305-173, Wells Fargo Center, Sixth and Marquette, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Additional information in response to this Item 10 can be found in the Company’s 2012 Proxy Statement under “Ownership of Our Common Stock – Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” and “Item 1 – Election of Directors – Director Nominees for Election” and “–Other Matters Relating to Directors.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Information in response to this Item 11 can be found in the Company’s 2012 Proxy Statement under “Item 1 – Election of Directors – Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation” and “–Director Compensation,” under “Corporate Governance – Risk Management and Compensation Practices,” under “Information About Related Persons – Related Person Transactions,” and under “Item 2 – Executive Compensation and Advisory Resolution (Say-on-Pay)” excluding “–Advisory Resolution Regarding Named Executives’ Compensation.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

The following table provides information about our equity compensation plans in effect on December 31, 2011, separately aggregated for plans approved by stockholders and for plans not approved by stockholders. A description of the material features of each equity compensation plan not approved by stockholders follows the table. All outstanding awards relate to shares of our common stock. Information is as of December 31, 2011, unless otherwise indicated.

Material Features of Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved by Stockholders

The 2003 SIP. The amended and restated Wachovia Corporation 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (2003 SIP) was originally approved by Wachovia’s shareholders in 2003 and prior to the merger had been used for equity awards to Wachovia’s executive officers and other key employees. We assumed the 2003 SIP in the merger and in February 2009 used substantially all remaining available shares for stock option grants to legacy Wachovia team members. No awards have been granted since then, and no future awards will be granted under the 2003 SIP.

At December 31, 2011, only options and stock awards in the form of RSAs were outstanding under the 2003 SIP. The options generally expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant date and vest ratably over a three-year period from the grant date. The option price is payable to us in full by methods the Board’s Human Resources Committee (HRC) designates, including, but not limited to, in cash or its equivalent, by tendering or withholding shares of our common stock having a fair market value at the time of exercise equal to the total option price, or by a combination of the foregoing. Unless the HRC determines otherwise or except as prohibited by applicable law, options may also be exercised by a “cashless exercise” where the participant gives irrevocable instructions to a broker to promptly deliver to us the amount of sale proceeds from the shares covered by the option exercised, together with any withholding taxes due to the Company. The proceeds from any cash payments upon option exercise are added to our general funds and used for general corporate purposes. The outstanding RSAs vest upon the achievement of the specified performance criteria. Prior to vesting, the holders of RSAs may exercise full voting rights with respect to those shares and are entitled to receive all dividends and other distributions paid with respect to those shares. Each participant’s award agreement will state the extent, if any, to which the participant may receive unvested stock awards following termination of employment.

PartnerShares Plan. We used the PartnerShares Stock Option Plan (PartnerShares) from 1996-2002 primarily for equity awards to team members not eligible for grants under the LTICP. The plan was in effect at December 31, 2011, only as to the issuance of common stock upon exercise of outstanding options. No future awards may be granted under the PartnerShares Plan.

Options under the PartnerShares Plan are exercisable at the closing share price of our common stock as of the trading day immediately before the grant date. All options granted under the plan were vested at December 31, 2011. Options are exercisable for ten years from the grant date or one year from the participant’s death, whichever occurs first. If a participant leaves the Company other than because of death, permanent disability or discharge for cause, the option terminates immediately or three months after termination, as specified in

the grant terms. If a participant is discharged for cause, the option terminates immediately. Participants can pay the exercise price in cash or by cashless exercise through a broker.

Deferred Compensation Plan. Under the Deferred Compensation Plan eligible team members may defer receipt of salary, bonuses and certain other compensation subject to the terms of the plan. Deferral elections are irrevocable once made except for limited re-deferral opportunities. We treat amounts deferred by a participant as if invested in the earnings options selected by the participant, and determine the deferred compensation benefit payable to the participant based on the performance of those earnings options. The plan offers a number of earnings options, including one based on our common stock with dividends reinvested. We generally distribute amounts allocated to the common stock option in shares of common stock. Participants have no direct interest in any of the earnings options and are general unsecured creditors of the Company with respect to their deferred compensation benefits under the plan.

Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan for Independent Contractors. Under the Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan for Independent Contractors participants who perform qualifying investment or other financial services for participating affiliates as independent contractors may defer all or part of their eligible compensation payable to them by the affiliate subject to the terms of the plan. Deferral elections are irrevocable once made. Amounts deferred by a participant are treated as if invested in the earnings options selected by the participant, which determine the deferred compensation benefit payable to the participant. The plan offers a number of earnings options, including one based on our common stock with dividends reinvested. We generally distribute amounts allocated to the common stock option in shares of common stock. The plan is sponsored by a wholly owned subsidiary, WF Deferred Compensation Holdings, Inc. We have guaranteed its obligations under the plan. Participants have no direct interest in any of the earnings options and are general unsecured creditors of the plan sponsor and the Company with respect to their deferred compensation benefits under the plan.

Norwest Corporation Directors’ Formula Stock Award Plan. Under the Norwest Corporation Directors’ Formula Stock Award Plan we awarded shares of common stock to non-employee directors. The plan allowed participants to defer receipt of all or a portion of their awards, with dividends reinvested, until a future year or years as selected by the participants subject to the terms of the plan. Participants can elect one time to defer commencement of distribution of their deferral accounts if the election is made sufficiently in advance of the original distribution commencement date and the new distribution commencement date is sufficiently beyond the original distribution commencement date. Participants have no direct interest in the shares deferred under the plan and are general unsecured creditors of the Company with respect to payment of their deferred stock awards under the plan. No future stock awards or deferrals may be made under this plan.

Norwest Corporation Directors’ Stock Deferral Plan. Under the Norwest Corporation Directors’ Stock Deferral Plan a participating director could defer receipt of all or part of the annual cash retainer and meeting fees payable to the director until a future year or years as selected by the director subject to the terms of the plan. A participating director could elect distribution of his or her deferral account in a lump sum in either cash or whole shares of common stock, or a combination of both. Alternatively, the director could elect to receive the distribution in up to ten annual installments of cash. A participant can elect one time to defer commencement of distribution of his or her deferral account if the election is made sufficiently in advance of the original distribution commencement date and the new distribution commencement date is sufficiently beyond the original distribution commencement date. No future deferrals may be made under this plan.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Additional information in response to this Item 12 can be found in the Company’s 2012 Proxy Statement under “Ownership of Our Common Stock – Directors and Executive Officers” and “–Principal Stockholders.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Information in response to this Item 13 can be found in the Company’s 2012 Proxy Statement under “Corporate Governance – Director Independence” and under “Information About Related Persons.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

Information in response to this Item 14 can be found in the Company’s 2012 Proxy Statement under “Item 3 – Appointment of Independent Auditors – KPMG Fees” and “–Audit and Examination Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures.” That information is incorporated into this item by reference.

PART IV

1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The Company’s consolidated financial statements, including the notes thereto, and the report of the independent registered public accounting firm thereon, are set forth in the 2011 Annual Report to Stockholders, and are incorporated into this item by reference.

2. FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

All financial statement schedules for the Company have been included in the consolidated financial statements or the related footnotes, or are either inapplicable or not required.

3. EXHIBITS

A list of exhibits to this Form 10-K is set forth on the Exhibit Index immediately preceding such exhibits and is incorporated into this item by reference.

Stockholders may obtain a copy of any of the following exhibits, upon payment of a reasonable fee, by writing to Wells Fargo & Company, Office of the Secretary, Wells Fargo Center, N9305-173, Sixth and Marquette, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479.

The Company’s SEC file number is 001-2979. On and before November 2, 1998, the Company filed documents with the SEC under the name Norwest Corporation. The former Wells Fargo & Company filed documents under SEC file number 001-6214. The former Wachovia Corporation filed documents under SEC file number 001-10000.

John D. Baker II

Elaine L. Chao

John S. Chen

Lloyd H. Dean

Susan E. Engel

Enrique Hernandez, Jr.

Mackey J. McDonald

Cynthia H. Milligan

Nicholas G. Moore

Federico F. Peña

Philip J. Quigley

Judith M. Runstad

Stephen W. Sanger

John G. Stumpf

Susan G. Swenson