e10vk

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

This report contains forward-looking statements and information that are based on management’s current expectations as of the date of this document. When used in this report, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “intend” and “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that may cause the actual results to be materially different from those reflected in such forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, changes in the terms of student loans and the educational credit marketplace arising from the implementation of applicable laws and regulations and from changes in these laws and regulations, which may reduce the volume, average term and costs of yields on student loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (“FFELP”) or result in loans being originated or refinanced under non-FFELP programs or may affect the terms upon which banks and others agree to sell FFELP loans to SLM Corporation, more commonly known as Sallie Mae, and its subsidiaries (collectively, “the Company”). The Company could also be affected by changes in the demand for educational financing or in financing preferences of lenders, educational institutions, students and their families; changes in the general interest rate environment and in the securitization markets for education loans, which may increase the costs or limit the availability of financings necessary to initiate, purchase or carry education loans; losses from loan defaults; and changes in prepayment rates and credit spreads.

Consolidation Loans — Under the FFELP, borrowers with eligible student loans may consolidate them into one note with one lender and convert the variable interest rates on the loans being consolidated into a fixed rate for the life of the loan. The new note is considered a Consolidation Loan. Typically a borrower can consolidate their student loans only once unless the borrower has another eligible loan with which to consolidate with the existing Consolidation Loan. The borrower rate on a Consolidation Loan is fixed for the term of the loan and is set by the weighted-average interest rate of the loans being consolidated, rounded up to the nearest 1/8th of a percent, not to exceed 8.25 percent. In low interest rate environments, Consolidation Loans provide an attractive refinancing opportunity to borrowers because they allow borrowers to consolidate variable rate loans into a long-term fixed rate loan. Holders of Consolidation Loans are eligible to earn interest under the Special Allowance Payment (“SAP”) formula (see definition below).

Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee — All holders of Consolidation Loans are required to pay to the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) an annual 105 basis point Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee on all outstanding principal and accrued interest balances of Consolidation Loans purchased or originated after October 1, 1993, except for loans for which consolidation applications were received between October 1, 1998 and January 31, 1999, where the Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee is 62 basis points.

Constant Prepayment Rate (“CPR”) — A variable in life of loan estimates that measures the rate at which loans in the portfolio pay before their stated maturity. The CPR is directly correlated to the average life of the portfolio. CPR equals the percentage of loans that prepay annually as a percentage of the beginning of period balance.

Embedded Floor Income — Embedded Floor Income is Floor Income (see definition below) that is earned on off-balance sheet student loans that are in securitization trusts sponsored by us. At the time of the securitization, the option value of Embedded Fixed Rate Floor Income is included in the initial valuation of the Residual Interest (see definition below) and the gain or loss on sale of the student loans. Embedded Floor Income is also included in the quarterly fair value adjustments of the Residual Interest.

Exceptional Performer (“EP”) Designation — The EP designation is determined by ED in recognition of meeting certain performance standards set by ED in servicing FFELP loans. Upon receiving the EP designation, the EP servicer receives 100 percent reimbursement on default claims on federally guaranteed student loans for all loans serviced for a period of at least 270 days before the date of default and will no longer be subject to the two percent Risk Sharing (see definition below) on these loans. The EP servicer is entitled to receive this benefit as long as it remains in compliance with the required servicing standards, which are assessed on an annual and quarterly basis through compliance audits and other criteria.

Floor Income — Our portfolio of FFELP student loans earns interest at the higher of a floating rate based on the Special Allowance Payment or SAP formula (see definition below) set by ED and the borrower rate, which is fixed over a period of time. We generally finance our student loan portfolio with floating rate debt over all interest rate levels. In low and/or declining interest rate environments, when the fixed borrower rate is higher than the rate produced by the SAP formula, our student loans earn at a fixed rate while the interest on our floating rate debt continues to decline. In these interest rate environments, we earn additional spread income that we refer to as Floor Income. Depending on the type of the student loan and when it was originated, the borrower rate is either fixed to term or is reset to a market rate each July 1. As a result, for loans where the borrower rate is fixed to term, we may earn Floor Income for an extended period of time, and for those loans where the borrower interest rate is reset annually on July 1, we may earn Floor Income to the next reset date.

Based on this example, if the quarterly average commercial paper rate is over 0.735 percent, the holder of the student loan will earn at a floating rate based on the SAP formula, which in this example is a fixed spread to commercial paper of 2.64 percent. On the other hand, if the quarterly average commercial paper rate is below 0.735 percent, the SAP formula will produce a rate below the fixed borrower rate of 3.375 percent and the loan holder earns at the borrower rate of 3.375 percent. The difference between the fixed borrower rate and the lender’s expected yield based on the SAP formula is referred to as Floor Income. Our student loan assets are generally funded with floating rate debt, so when student loans are earning at the fixed borrower rate, decreases in interest rates may increase Floor Income.

Floor Income Contracts — We enter into contracts with counterparties under which, in exchange for an upfront fee representing the present value of the Floor Income that we expect to earn on a notional amount of student loans being hedged, we will pay the counterparties the Floor Income earned on that notional amount of student loans over the life of the Floor Income Contract. Specifically, we agree to pay the counterparty the difference, if positive, between the fixed borrower rate less the SAP spread and the average of the applicable interest rate index on that notional amount of student loans for a portion of the estimated life of the student loan. This contract effectively locks in the amount of Floor Income we will earn over the period of the contract. Floor Income Contracts are not considered effective hedges under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,” and each quarter we must record the change in fair value of these contracts through income.

Managed Basis — We generally analyze the performance of our student loan portfolio on a Managed Basis, under which we view both on-balance sheet student loans and off-balance sheet student loans owned by the securitization trusts as a single portfolio, and the related on-balance sheet financings are combined with off-balance sheet debt. When the term Managed is capitalized in this document, it is referring to Managed Basis.

Offset Fee — We were required to pay to ED an annual 30 basis point Offset Fee on the outstanding balance of Stafford and PLUS student loans purchased and held by the GSE after August 10, 1993. The fee did not apply to student loans sold to securitized trusts or to loans held outside of the GSE. This fee no longer applies, as the GSE was dissolved under the terms of the Privatization Act on December 29, 2004.

Private Education Loans (formerly referred to as “Private Credit Student Loans”) — Education loans to students or parents of students that are not guaranteed or reinsured under the FFELP or any other federal student loan program. Private Education Loans include loans for traditional higher education, undergraduate and graduate degrees, and for alternative education, such as career training, private kindergarten through secondary education schools and tutorial schools. Traditional higher education loans have repayment terms similar to FFELP loans, whereby repayments begin after the borrower leaves school. Repayment for alternative education or career training loans begins immediately.

Residual Interest — When we securitize student loans, we retain the right to receive cash flows from the student loans sold to trusts we sponsor in excess of amounts needed to pay servicing, derivative costs (if any), other fees, and the principal and interest on the bonds backed by the student loans. The Residual Interest is the present value of the future expected cash flows from off-balance sheet student loans in securitized trusts, which includes the present value of Embedded Fixed Rate Floor Income described above. We value the Residual Interest at the time of sale of the student loans to the trust and at each subsequent quarter.

Risk Sharing — When a FFELP loan defaults, the federal government guarantees 98 percent of the principal balance plus accrued interest and the holder of the loan generally must absorb the two percent not guaranteed as a Risk Sharing loss on the loan. FFELP student loans acquired after October 1, 1993 are subject to Risk Sharing on loan default claim payments unless the default results from the borrower’s death, disability or bankruptcy. FFELP loans serviced by a servicer that has EP designation from ED are not subject to Risk Sharing.

Special Allowance Payment (“SAP”) — FFELP student loans generally earn interest at the greater of the borrower rate or a floating rate determined by reference to the average of the applicable floating rates (91-day Treasury bill rate or commercial paper) in a calendar quarter, plus a fixed spread that is dependent upon when the loan was originated and the loan’s repayment status. If the resulting floating rate exceeds the borrower rate, ED pays the difference directly to us. This payment is referred to as the Special Allowance Payment or SAP and the formula used to determine the floating rate is the SAP formula. We refer to the fixed spread to the underlying index as the Special Allowance spread.

Variable Rate Floor Income — For FFELP Stafford student loans whose borrower interest rate resets annually on July 1, we may earn Floor Income or Embedded Floor Income (see definitions above) based on a calculation of the difference between the borrower rate and the then current interest rate. We refer to this as Variable Rate Floor Income because Floor Income is earned only through the next reset date.

SLM Corporation, more commonly known as Sallie Mae, is the market leader in education finance. SLM Corporation is a holding company that operates through a number of subsidiaries and references in this annual report to “the Company” refer to SLM Corporation and its subsidiaries. We were formed 32 years ago as the Student Loan Marketing Association, a federally chartered government-sponsored enterprise (the “GSE”), with the goal of furthering access to higher education by acting as a secondary market for student loans. In 2004, we completed the historic privatization process that began in 1997 and resulted in the Wind-Down of the GSE. We completed the Wind-Down by defeasing the GSE’s remaining debt obligations and dissolving its federal charter on December 29, 2004.

We are the largest private source of funding, delivery and servicing support for education loans in the United States primarily through our participation in the FFELP. We originate, acquire and hold student loans, with the net interest income and gains on the sales of student loans in securitization being the primary source of our earnings. We also earn fees for pre- and post- default receivables management services. We have structured the Company to be the premier player in every phase of the student loan life cycle — from originating and servicing student loans to ultimately the debt management of delinquent and defaulted student loans. We also provide a wide range of financial services, processing capabilities and information technology to meet the needs of educational institutions, lenders, students and their families, and guarantee agencies. In 2004, we expanded our brand and geographical reach in the student loan business through two acquisitions.

In recent years we have diversified our business through the acquisition of several companies that provide default management and loan collections services. Initially these acquisitions were concentrated in the student loan industry, but in 2004 we acquired AFS Holdings, LLC, the parent company of Arrow Financial Services LLC (collectively, “AFS”), a debt management company that services several industries outside of student loans. With a vast array of products and service offerings, we are positioned to meet the growing demand for post-secondary education credit and related services. At the end of 2004, we had over 9,000 employees.

We believe that what distinguishes us from our competition is the breadth and sophistication of the products and services we offer to colleges, universities and students in addition to FFELP and Private Education Loans. These include the streamlining of the financial aid process through university-branded websites, call centers and other solutions that support the financial aid office.

We provide a comprehensive array of credit products and related services to the higher education community through two primary business segments: our Lending business segment and our Debt Management Operations business segment, which we refer to as our DMO business. Within our Corporate and Other business segment, we also provide a number of complementary products and services to financial aid offices and schools that are managed within smaller operating segments, the most prominent being our Guarantor Servicing and Loan Servicing businesses. Each of these operating businesses has unique characteristics and faces different opportunities and challenges.

We generate the largest share of earnings in our Lending business from the spread between the yield we receive on our Managed portfolio of student loans, and the cost of funding these loans. This spread income is reported on our income statement as “net interest income” for on-balance sheet loans, and “gains on student loan securitizations” and “servicing and securitization revenue” for off-balance sheet loans. Total revenues for this segment were $3.1 billion in 2004. We incur servicing, selling and administrative expenses in providing these products and services.

SFAS No. 131, “Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information,” requires public companies to report financial and descriptive information about their reportable operating segments. In accordance with SFAS No. 131, we included in Note 18 to our consolidated financial statements, “Segment Reporting,” separate financial information about our operating segments that is evaluated regularly by the “chief operating decision makers” in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing the operating results of the business.

In our Lending business segment, we originate and acquire both federally guaranteed student loans which are administered by ED, and Private Education Loans, which are not federally guaranteed. Private Education Loans are primarily used to supplement FFELP loans in meeting the cost of education. We manage the largest portfolio of student loans in the industry, serving more than seven million borrowers through our ownership and management of $107.4 billion in Managed student loans, of which $96.0 billion or 89 percent are federally insured. We serve a diverse range of clients that includes over 6,000 educational and financial institutions and state agencies. We are also the largest servicer of student loans, servicing more than eight million borrowers totaling $110.5 billion in student loans. In addition to education lending, we also originate mortgage and consumer loans with the intent of selling most of these loans. In 2004 we originated $1.5 billion in mortgage and consumer loans and the mortgage and consumer loan portfolio totaled $449 million at December 31, 2004, of which $167 million pertains to mortgages in the held for sale portfolio.

The following chart shows the estimated sources of funding for attending two-year and four-year colleges for the academic year (“AY”) ended June 30, 2004 (AY 2003-2004). Approximately 35 percent of the funding comes from federally guaranteed student loans and Private Education Loans. The parent/student contribution comes from investments, current period earnings and other loans obtained without going through the normal financial aid process.

There are two competing programs that provide student loans where the ultimate credit risk lies with the federal government: the FFELP and the FDLP. FFELP loans are provided by private sector institutions and are ultimately guaranteed by ED. FDLP loans are funded by taxpayers and provided to borrowers directly by ED on terms similar to student loans in the FFELP. In addition to these government guaranteed programs,

For the federal fiscal year (“FFY”) ended September 30, 2004 (FFY 2004), ED estimated that the FFELP’s market share in federally guaranteed student loans was 75 percent, up from 74 percent in FFY 2003. See “LENDING BUSINESS SEGMENT — Competition.” Total FFELP and FDLP volume for FFY 2004 grew by 14 percent, with the FFELP portion growing 16 percent. Based on current industry trends, management expects the federal student loan market growth will continue in low double digits over the next three years.

The HEA includes regulations that cover every aspect of the servicing of a student loan, including communications with borrowers, loan originations and default aversion. Failure to service a student loan properly could jeopardize the guarantee on these federal student loans. This guarantee generally covers 98 percent of the student loan’s principal and accrued interest, except in the case of death, disability, or bankruptcy of the borrower, or when an eligible lender or lender servicer (as agent for the eligible lender) has been designated by ED as an Exceptional Performer (“EP”). In these cases, the guarantee covers 100 percent of the student loan’s principal and accrued interest. In October 2004, we were designated as an EP and since that time all principal and interest on FFELP student loans serviced by us are 100 percent guaranteed.

FFELP student loans are guaranteed by state or non-profit agencies called guarantors, with ED providing reinsurance to the guarantor. Guarantors are responsible for performing certain functions necessary to ensure the program’s soundness and accountability. These functions include reviewing loan application data to detect and prevent fraud and abuse and to assist lenders in preventing default by providing counseling to borrowers. Generally, the guarantor is responsible for ensuring that loans are being serviced in compliance with the requirements of the HEA. When a borrower defaults on a FFELP loan, we submit a claim form to the guarantor who pays us 100 percent of the principal and accrued interest. See “OTHER RELATED EVENTS AND INFORMATION — Reauthorization and Budget Proposals” for a description of certain HEA reauthorization proposals that would reduce the guarantee and APPENDIX A to this document for a more complete description of the role of guarantors.

In addition to federal loan programs, which have statutory limits on annual and total borrowing, we sponsor a variety of Private Education Loan programs and purchase loans made under such programs to bridge the gap between the cost of education and a student’s resources. Most of our higher education Private Education Loans are made in conjunction with a FFELP Stafford loan, so they are marketed to schools through the same marketing channels as FFELP loans by the same sales force. In 2004, we expanded our direct to consumer loan marketing channel with our Tuition Answer^SM loan program where we originate and purchase loans outside of the traditional financial aid process. We also originate and purchase alternative Private Education Loans, which are marketed by our SLM Financial subsidiary to technical and trade schools, tutorial and learning centers, and private kindergarten through secondary education schools. These loans are primarily made at schools not eligible for Title IV loans. Private Education Loans are discussed in more detail below.

The growth in our Managed student loan portfolio, which includes both on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet student loans, is driven by the growth in the overall student loan marketplace, which has grown due to rising enrollment and college costs, as well as by our own market share gains. The size of the federally insured student loan market has more than doubled over the last ten years with student loan originations growing from $23.4 billion in FFY 1995 to $52.1 billion in FFY 2004.

According to the College Board, tuition and fees at four-year public institutions and four-year private institutions have increased 36 percent and 51 percent, respectively, in constant, inflation adjusted dollars, since AY 1994-1995. Under the FFELP, there are limits to the amount students can borrow each academic year. These loan limits have not changed since 1992. As a result, more students and parents are turning to Private Education Loans to meet an increasing portion of their education financing needs. See “OTHER RELATED

EVENTS AND INFORMATION — Reauthorization and Budget Proposals” for a description of proposals that would increase loan limits. Loans — both federal and private — as a percentage of total student aid have increased from 52 percent of total student aid in AY 1993-1994 to 56 percent in AY 2003-2004. Private Education Loans approximated 17 percent of total federally guaranteed student loans and Private Education Loans in AY 2003-2004.

ED predicts that the college-age population will increase approximately 10 percent from 2004 to 2013. Demand for education credit will also increase due to the rise in non-traditional students (those not attending college directly from high school) and adult education. The following charts show the projected enrollment and average tuition and fee growth for four-year public and private colleges and universities.

Our primary marketing point-of-contact is the school’s financial aid office where we focus on delivering flexible and cost-effective products to the school and its students. Our sales force, which works with financial aid administrators on a daily basis, is the largest in the industry and currently markets the following internal lender brands: Academic Management Services Corp. (“AMS”), Nellie Mae, Sallie Mae Educational Trust, SLM Financial, Student Loan Funding Resources (“SLFR”), Southwest Student Services (“Southwest”) and Student Loan Finance Association (“SLFA”). We also actively market the loan guarantee of United Student Aid Funds, Inc. (“USA Funds”) and its affiliate Northwest Education Loan Association (“NELA”) through a separate sales force.

Over the past several years we have successfully changed our business model from a wholesale purchaser of loans on the secondary market, to a direct origination model where we control the front-end origination process. This provides us with higher yielding loans that have a longer duration because we originate or purchase them at or immediately after full disbursement. The key measure of this successful transition is the growth in our Preferred Channel Originations, which, in 2004, accounted for 78 percent of Managed student loan acquisitions (exclusive of loans acquired through business acquisitions). These are our most valuable loans because they cost the least to acquire and remain in our portfolio the longest. In 2004, we originated $18.0 billion in student loans through our Preferred Channel, of which a total of $5.7 billion or 32 percent was originated through our owned brands, $6.9 billion or 38 percent was originated through our largest lending partners, Bank One and JPMorgan Chase, and $5.4 billion or 30 percent was originated through other lender partners. Currently, we purchase substantially all student loans originated by JPMorgan Chase through a joint venture arrangement, which resulted in $2.7 billion of origination volume in 2004.

During 2004, Bank One and JPMorgan Chase completed their merger. Following this merger, we entered into a comprehensive agreement with Bank One under which our previous marketing service and loan purchase agreements were terminated for which we received combined termination fees of $23 million and the ExportSS® loan purchase agreement was extended for three years. Under this agreement we will acquire substantially all of Bank One’s origination volume through 2008.

The separate joint venture with JPMorgan Chase was not affected by the merger, although JPMorgan Chase has rejected our initial offer to renew the agreements that support the joint venture and has filed a petition in a Delaware Chancery Court seeking to dissolve the joint venture. Under the terms of the joint venture agreements, if by May 31, 2005 the parties are unable to reach an agreement to renew or extend these agreements, then either party may trigger a “Dutch Auction” process. Under the terms of the current joint venture agreements we will continue to acquire all JPMorgan Chase-branded student loans originated through the joint venture through September 2007. The lawsuit seeks to dissolve the joint venture before the other party can invoke the Dutch Auction process. A JPMorgan Chase request with the Chancery Court for an expedited schedule for a final hearing on the merits has been stayed pending settlement discussions among the parties. See “Legal Proceedings” and “RECENT DEVELOPMENTS — Bank One/JPMorgan Chase Joint Venture.”

Our Preferred Channel Originations growth has been fueled by both FDLP and new school conversions, same school sales growth, and growth in the for-profit sector. Since 1999, we have partnered with over 100 schools that have chosen to return to the FFELP from the FDLP. Our FFELP originations at these schools totaled over $1.4 billion in 2004. In addition to winning new schools, we have also forged broader relationships with many of our existing school clients. Consistent with enrollment trends, our FFELP and private originations at for-profit schools have grown faster than at traditional higher education schools.

Over the past three years, we have seen a surge in consolidation activity as a result of historically low interest rates that has contributed to the changing composition of our student loan portfolio. Consolidation Loans earn a lower yield than FFELP Stafford Loans due primarily to the Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee. This negative impact is somewhat mitigated by the longer average life of Consolidation Loans. We have made a substantial investment in consolidation marketing to protect our asset base and grow our portfolio, including targeted direct mail campaigns and web-based initiatives for borrowers. In 2004, this investment resulted in a net Managed portfolio gain of $504 million from consolidation activity. During 2004, $10.7 billion of FFELP Stafford loans in our Managed loan portfolio consolidated either with us ($8.6 billion) or with other lenders ($2.1 billion). Consolidation Loans now represent over 50 percent of our federally guaranteed Managed student loan portfolio and over 60 percent of our on-balance sheet owned portfolio.

We sponsor a variety of Private Education Loan programs that bridge the gap between the cost of education and a student’s resources, including federally guaranteed loans. Since we bear the full credit risk for Private Education Loans, they are underwritten and priced according to credit risk based upon standardized consumer credit scoring criteria. To mitigate some of the credit risk, we provide price and eligibility incentives for students to obtain a credit-worthy co-borrower. Approximately 48 percent of our Private Education Loans have a co-borrower. Due to their higher risk profile, Private Education Loans earn higher spreads than their FFELP loan counterparts. In 2004, Private Education Loans earned an average spread, after provision for loan losses, of 2.69 percent versus an average spread of 1.59 percent for FFELP loans.

The rising cost of education has led students and their parents to seek additional private credit sources to finance their education. Private Education Loans are often packaged as supplemental or companion products to FFELP loans and priced and underwritten competitively to provide additional value for our school relationships. In certain situations, the school shares the borrower credit risk. Over the last several years, the growth of Private Education Loans has accelerated due to tuition increasing faster than the rate of inflation coupled with no increase in the FFELP lending limits. This rapid growth coupled with the relatively higher spreads has led to Private Education Loans contributing a higher percentage of our net interest margin in each of the last three years and we expect this trend to continue in the foreseeable future. In 2004, Private Education Loans contributed 17 percent of the overall net interest income after provision, up from 15 percent in 2003.

Our largest Private Education Loan program is the Signature Loan® offered to undergraduates and graduates through the financial aid offices of colleges and universities and packaged with the traditional FFELP and PLUS loan products. We also offer specialized loan products to graduate and professional students primarily through our MBALoans®,LAWLOANS® and MEDLOANS^SM programs. Generally, these loans, which are made by lender partners and sold to the Company, do not require the borrower to begin repaying his or her loan until after graduation and allow a grace period from six to nine months.

In the third quarter of 2004 we began to offer Tuition Answer^SM loans direct to the consumer through targeted direct mail campaigns and web-based initiatives. Tuition Answer loans are made by a lender-partner and are sold to the Company. Under the Tuition Answer loan program, creditworthy parents, sponsors and students may borrow between $1,500 and $30,000 per year (limit raised to $40,000 per year in 2005) to cover any college-related expense. No school certification is required, although a borrower must provide enrollment documentation. At December 31, 2004, we had $95 million of Tuition Answer loans outstanding.

Through SLM Financial, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SLM Corporation, we offer Private Education Loan products to finance the needs of students in career training, lifelong learning programs such as technical and trade schools, tutorial and learning centers, and private kindergarten through secondary schools. The major fields of study for the technical and trade schools include information technology, cosmetology, mechanics, medical/dental/lab, culinary and broadcasting. On average, these training programs typically last fewer than 12 months. Generally, these loans require the borrower to begin repaying his or her loan immediately; however, students can opt to make relatively small payments while enrolled. At December 31, 2004, we had $1.3 billion of SLM Financial Private Education Loans outstanding.

An important component of our growth strategy has been strategic acquisitions. Beginning in 1999 with the purchase of Nellie Mae, we have acquired several companies in the student loan industry that have increased our sales and marketing capabilities, added significant new brands and greatly enhanced our product offerings. Strategic student lending acquisitions have included Student Loan Funding Resources and USA Group, Inc. (“USA Group”) in 2000, and AMS in 2003. We continued this strategy in 2004 by acquiring two companies (1) Arizona-based, Southwest Student Services Corporation (“Southwest”) and (2) Student Loan Finance Association that included a controlling interest in the business of Washington Student Loan Finance Association and Idaho Student Loan Finance Association (collectively, “SLFA”). The SLFA acquisition is a two-step transaction that will be completed in 2005. In conjunction with the SLFA transaction, NELA, a non-profit regional guarantor, entered into an affiliation with USA Funds, the nation’s largest guarantor and Sallie Mae’s largest guarantor servicing client. NELA contracted for Sallie Mae to provide comprehensive operational and other guarantor services to NELA.

In connection with both 2004 acquisitions, we acquired sizable loan portfolios ($4.8 billion from Southwest and $1.4 billion from SLFA). Southwest is among the top 30 originators of federal student loans, issuing approximately $300 million in Stafford and PLUS loans and $1.5 billion in Consolidation Loans annually, and is the nation’s ninth largest holder of federal student loans. Southwest provides student loans and related services nationally with a primary focus on colleges and universities in Arizona and Florida, providing us with an enhanced presence in these fast growing areas of the country. SLFA enhances our presence in the Northwest and enables us to expand our guarantor servicing business.

With the completion of the GSE Wind-Down, we now fund our operations exclusively through non-GSE sources, primarily through the issuance of SLM Corporation (“SLM”) student loan asset-backed securities (securitization) and SLM debt securities. We issue these securities in both the domestic and overseas capital markets using both public offerings and private placements. The major objective when financing our business is to minimize interest rate risk on a pooled basis to the extent practicable through match funding of the interest rate characteristics of our assets and liabilities. As part of this process, we use derivative financial instruments extensively to reduce our interest rate and foreign currency exposure. Interest rate risk management helps us to achieve a stable student loan spread irrespective of the interest rate environment and changes in asset mix. We continuously look for ways to minimize funding costs and to provide liquidity for our student loan acquisitions. To that end, we are continually expanding and diversifying our pool of investors by establishing debt programs in multiple markets that appeal to varied investor bases and by educating potential investors about our business. Finally, we take appropriate steps to ensure sufficient liquidity by financing in multiple markets, which include the institutional, retail, floating-rate, fixed-rate, unsecured, asset-backed, domestic and international markets.

Our primary competitor for federally guaranteed student loans is the FDLP, which in its first four years of existence (FFYs 1994-1997) grew market share from 4 percent to a peak of 34 percent in 1997, but has steadily declined since then to a 25 percent share in 2004 for the total federally sponsored student loan market. We also face competition for both federally guaranteed and non-guaranteed student loans from a variety of financial institutions including banks, thrifts and state-supported secondary markets. Sallie Mae’s FFY 2004 Preferred Channel FFELP originations totaled $13.4 billion, representing a 26 percent market share.

In the FFELP student lending marketplace, we are seeing increased use of discounts and borrower benefits, as well as heightened interest in the school-as-lender model in which graduate and professional schools make FFELP Stafford loans directly to eligible borrowers. The schools do not typically hold the loans, preferring to sell them in the secondary market. This greatly increases our cost of acquisition when compared to our Preferred Channel volume. According to ED, 71 institutions used the school-as-lender model for FFY 2004, with total school-as-lender volume of $2.1 billion.

Certain lenders, state agencies and non-profit organizations offer deeply discounted or zero fee pricing on Stafford loans in which the lender pays the mandatory three percent origination fee on behalf of the borrower. As a result, the lenders have increased their market share of FFELP student lending. To compete more effectively with those lenders, we have launched a zero fee pricing initiative. In addition, on a school-by-school basis, we have begun to offer more competitive pricing solutions that include zero fee options. This competitive strategy is designed to boost our Preferred Channel volume and to protect and grow our volume at specific schools. While the goal of this pricing initiative and the pricing solutions is to grow our FFELP loan volume, this strategy will reduce our margins on the affected student loans.

Through the five operating units that comprise our DMO business segment, we provide a wide range of accounts receivable and collections services including defaulted student loan portfolio management services, contingency collections services for student loans and other asset classes, student loan default aversion services, and accounts receivable management and collection for purchased portfolios of receivables that have been charged off by their original creditors.

Beginning with the acquisition of USA Group in 2000, our DMO business was built to service the student loan marketplace through a broad array of default management services on a contingency fee or other pay for performance basis. We have since acquired three additional companies that strengthened our presence in the student loan market and diversified our product offerings to include a full range of receivables management and collections services for a diverse customer base including large federal agencies, state agencies, credit card issuers, utilities, and other holders of consumer debt.

In September 2004, we acquired a majority interest with an option to purchase the remaining shares of AFS. AFS primarily purchases and services defaulted consumer receivables from credit grantors or resellers and then attempts to collect a sufficient amount to cover its investment and earn a return from each purchased portfolio. AFS also collects on behalf of debt owners on a contingency fee basis and provides first-party delinquent and default servicing.

The acquisition of AFS was important to our DMO business segment for two main reasons. It has further diversified our DMO revenues outside of the education marketplace and provided a servicing platform and a disciplined portfolio pricing approach from years of experience in the purchase of delinquent and defaulted receivables. The addition of AFS also enables us to offer the purchase of distressed or defaulted debt to our partner schools as an additional method of enhancing their receivables management strategies.

In 2004, our DMO business earned revenues totaling $340 million and net income of $111 million, which represented increases of 31 percent and 32 percent over 2003, respectively. The 2004 results included slightly more than three full months of AFS operating activities. Our largest customer, USA Funds, accounted for over 50 percent of our revenue in 2004. With the AFS acquisition, we expect USA Funds to account for less than 40 percent in 2005.

Our DMO business segment manages the defaulted student loan portfolios for six guarantors under long-term contracts. DMO’s largest customer, USA Funds, represents approximately 24 percent of defaulted student loan portfolios in the market. Our portfolio management services include selecting collection agencies and determining account placements to those agencies, processing loan consolidations and loan rehabilitations and managing federal and state offset programs.

Our DMO business segment is also engaged in the collection of defaulted student loans and other debt on behalf of various clients including guarantor agencies, large federal agencies, credit card issuers, utilities, and other retail clients earning fees that are contingent on the amounts collected. We also provide collection services for ED and now control approximately 13 percent of the total market for such services. We also have relationships with more than 1,000 colleges and universities to provide collection services for delinquent student loans and other receivables from various campus-based programs.

Our DMO business purchases delinquent and defaulted receivables from credit originators and other holders of receivables at a significant discount from the face value of the debt instruments. Collections are generated through both internal and external work strategies. Depending on the characteristics of the portfolio, revenue is recognized using either the effective interest method or cost recovery method.

The private sector collections industry is highly fragmented with few large companies and a large number of small scale companies. The DMO businesses that provide third-party collections services for ED, FFELP guarantors and other federal holders of defaulted debt are highly competitive. In addition to competing with other collection enterprises, we also compete with credit grantors who each have unique mixes of internal collections, outsourced collections, and debt sales. Although the scale, diversification, and performance of our DMO business has been a competitive advantage, increasing acquisition trends in the receivables management industry could bring about greater competition.

In the purchased portfolio business, the marketplace is trending more toward open market competitive bidding rather than solicitation by sellers to a select group of potential buyers. Price inflation and the availability of capital into the sector contribute to this trend. Unlike many of our competitors, our DMO business does not rely solely on purchased portfolio revenue. This enables us to maintain pricing discipline and purchase only those portfolios that are expected to meet our profitability and strategic goals. Portfolios are purchased individually on a spot basis or through contractual relationships with sellers to purchase regular monthly portfolios at set prices. We compete primarily on price, but also on the basis of our reputation, industry experience and relationships.

We earn fees for providing a full complement of administrative services to FFELP guarantors. FFELP student loans are guaranteed by these agencies, with ED providing reinsurance to the guarantor. The guarantors are non-profit institutions or state agencies that, in addition to providing the primary guarantee on FFELP loans, are responsible for other guarantor servicing activities including:

Currently, we provide a variety of these services to ten guarantors and, in 2004, we processed $13.5 billion in new FFELP loan guarantees, of which $9.9 billion was for USA Funds, the nation’s largest guarantor. We now process guarantees for approximately 25 percent of the FFELP and FDLP loan market. Guarantor servicing revenue, which included guaranty issuance and account maintenance fees, was $120 million for 2004, 85 percent of which we earned from services performed on behalf of USA Funds.

We earn fees by providing a full complement of activities required to service student loans on behalf of other lenders. Such servicing activities generally commence once a loan has been fully disbursed and include processing correspondence and filing claims, originating and disbursing Consolidation Loans on behalf of the lender, and other administrative activities required by ED. Loan servicing revenue was $55 million for 2004.

Like other participants in the FFELP program, the Company is subject, from time to time, to review of its student loan operations by ED and guarantee agencies. ED is authorized under its regulations to limit, suspend or terminate lenders from participating in the FFELP, as well as impose civil penalties if lenders violate program regulations. The laws relating to the FFELP program are subject to revision from time to time. See “OTHER RELATED EVENTS AND INFORMATION — Reauthorization and Budget Proposals.” In addition, Sallie Mae, Inc., as a servicer of student loans, is subject to certain ED regulations regarding financial responsibility and administrative capability that govern all third-party servicers of insured student loans. Failure to satisfy such standards may result in the loss of the government guarantee of the payment of principal and accrued interest on defaulted FFELP loans. Also, in connection with our guarantor servicing operations, the Company must comply with, on behalf of its guarantor servicing customers, certain ED regulations that govern guarantor activities as well as agreements for reimbursement between the Secretary of Education and the Company’s guarantor servicing customers. Failure to comply with these regulations or the provisions of these agreements may result in the termination of the Secretary of Education’s reimbursement obligation.

The GSE was established in 1972 as a for-profit corporation under an Act of Congress for the purpose of creating a national secondary market in federal student loans. Having accomplished our original mission and with the creation of a federal competitor, the FDLP, we obtained congressional and shareholder approval to transform from the GSE to a private sector corporation. As a result, SLM Corporation was formed as a Delaware corporation in 1997. On December 29, 2004, we completed the Wind-Down of the operations of the GSE, defeased the GSE’s remaining obligations and dissolved the GSE’s federal charter.

A significant benefit of shedding our GSE status is the ability to originate student loans directly, reducing our dependence on other student loan originators. Privatization has also facilitated our entry into other credit and fee-based businesses within and beyond the student loan industry. The principal cost of privatization is the elimination of our access to the federal agency funding market.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) maintains an Internet site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains periodic and other reports such as annual, quarterly and current reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K, respectively, as well as proxy and information statements regarding SLM Corporation and other companies that file electronically with the SEC. Copies of our annual reports on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q are available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with the SEC. Investors and other interested parties can also access these reports at www.salliemae.com/investors.

Our Code of Business Conduct, which applies to Board members and all employees, including our chief executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer, is also available, free of charge, on our website at www.salliemae.com/about/business conduct.html. We intend to disclose any amendments to or waivers from our Code of Business Conduct (to the extent applicable to our chief executive officer, principal financial officer, or principal accounting officer or director) by posting such information on our website.

In 2004, the Company submitted the annual certification of its chief executive officer regarding the Company’s compliance with the NYSE’s corporate governance listing standards, pursuant to Section 303A.12(a) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual. The Company delivered a supplemental written affirmation to the NYSE in February 2005 following a change in the memberships of both the Company’s Audit Committee and its Nominations Committee.

In December 2003, the Company sold its prior Reston, Virginia headquarters and leased approximately 229,000 square feet of that building from the purchaser through August 21, 2004. The Company completed the construction of a new headquarters building in Reston, Virginia in August 2004 that has approximately 240,000 square feet of space. All Reston-based employees were moved into the new headquarters in August 2004.

The Company leases approximately 36,000 square feet for its SLM Financial headquarters and operations in Marlton, New Jersey. The Company also leases approximately 71,000 square feet for its debt management and collections center in Summerlin, Nevada. In addition, the Company leases approximately 80,000 square feet of office space in Cincinnati, Ohio for the headquarters and debt management and collections center for General Revenue Corporation. In the first quarter of 2004, the Company entered into a 10-year lease with the Wyoming County Industrial Development Authority with a right of reversion to the Company for the Arcade and Perry, New York facilities. The Company also leases an additional 10,000 square feet in Perry, New York for Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc.’s debt management and collections business. In addition, net of the space it subleases, the Company leases approximately 6,000 square feet of office space in Washington, D.C. With the exception of the Pennsylvania loan servicing center, none of the Company’s facilities is encumbered by a mortgage. The Company believes that its headquarters, loan servicing centers data center, back-up facility and data management and collections centers are generally adequate to meet its long-term student loan and new business goals. The Company’s principal office is currently in owned space at 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, Virginia, 20190.

On February 17, 2005, JPMorgan Chase, through its affiliates, petitioners TCB Education First Marketing Corporation and Chase Education Holdings, Inc., filed a petition in the Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County seeking to dissolve the limited liability companies that comprise our joint venture with JPMorgan Chase. Those limited liability companies, Chase Education First LLC and Education First Finance LLC, and Sallie Mae, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of SLM Corporation, were named as respondents in the petition. JPMorgan Chase’s central claim in the petition is that a change in our business model from a secondary market into an originator of student loans has undermined the business of the joint venture, which is

to market JPMorgan Chase-branded student loans. We believe that this claim is untenable because we began originating loans approximately four years before the parties comprehensively renegotiated and amended the joint venture effective July 16, 2002. Chase also claims that the dutch auction dissolution provision, which was a negotiated provision in the joint venture agreements, is an inadequate remedy. On February 22, 2005, the petitioners filed a request with the Chancery court seeking an expedited schedule for a final hearing on the merits. That request has been stayed pending settlement discussions among the parties. See “RECENT DEVELOPMENTS — Bank One/ JPMorgan Chase Relationships” and “JPMorgan Chase Joint Venture.”

The Company and various affiliates are defendants in a lawsuit brought by College Loan Corporation (“CLC”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging various breach of contract and common law tort claims in connection with CLC’s consolidation loan activities. The Complaint sought compensatory damages of at least $60 million. On June 25, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company on all counts. CLC subsequently filed an appeal. On January 31, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the jury verdict on the grounds that the trial judge’s pretrial rulings improperly limited CLC’s proof at trial and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals decision did not address the merits of the case. We filed a petition for rehearing or alternatively a rehearing en banc, which the Fourth Circuit denied. The Company currently intends to defend this case on the merits at the District Court. Plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages in addition to the compensatory damages.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit brought by three Wisconsin residents on December 20, 2001 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit sought to bring a nationwide class action on behalf of all borrowers who allegedly paid “undisclosed improper and excessive” late fees over the past three years. The plaintiffs sought damages of one thousand five hundred dollars per violation plus punitive damages and claimed that the class consisted of two million borrowers. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company charged excessive interest by capitalizing interest quarterly in violation of the promissory note. On February 27, 2003, the Superior Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On March 4, 2004, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s decision granting our motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead the first count, which alleged violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. On September 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On October 15, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint with the Superior Court for failure to state a claim and non-compliance with the Court of Appeals’ ruling. On December 27, 2004, the Superior Court granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended compliant. Plaintiffs again appealed the Superior Court’s December 27, 2004 dismissal order to the Court of Appeals. The Company believes that it will prevail on the merits of this case if it becomes necessary to further litigate this matter.

In July 2003, a borrower in California filed a class action complaint against the Company and certain of its affiliates in state court in San Francisco in connection with a monthly payment amortization error discovered by the Company in the fourth quarter of 2002. The complaint asserts claims under the California Business and Professions Code and other California statutory provisions. The complaint further seeks certain injunctive relief and restitution. On May 14, 2004, the court issued an order dismissing two of the three counts of the complaint. The case is currently in the discovery phase. While management is confident of a favorable outcome in this case, management believes that even an adverse ruling will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

The Company continues to cooperate with the SEC concerning an informal investigation that the SEC initiated on January 14, 2004. Although there are currently no data requests outstanding and the SEC has not sought to interview any additional witnesses, discussions with the SEC are ongoing. The investigation concerns certain 2003 year-end accounting entries made by employees of one of the Company’s debt collection agency subsidiaries. The Company’s Audit Committee engaged outside counsel to investigate the matter and management conducted its own investigation. These investigations by the Audit Committee and management have been completed and the amounts in question were less than $100,000.

We are also subject to various claims, lawsuits and other actions that arise in the normal course of business. Most of these matters are claims by borrowers disputing the manner in which their loans have been processed or the accuracy of our reports to credit bureaus. In addition, the collections subsidiaries in our debt management operation group are routinely named in individual plaintiff or class action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs allege that we have violated a federal or state law in the process of collecting their account. Management believes that these claims, lawsuits and other actions will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The Company’s common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SLM. The number of holders of record of the Company’s common stock as of March 4, 2005 was 741. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices for the Company’s common stock for each full quarterly period within the two most recent fiscal years.

In May 2003, the Company announced a three-for-one stock split of the Company’s common stock to be effected in the form of a stock dividend. The additional shares were distributed on June 20, 2003 for all shareholders of record on June 6, 2003. All share and per share amounts presented have been retroactively restated for the stock split. Stockholders’ equity has been restated to give retroactive recognition to the stock split for all periods presented, by reclassifying from additional paid-in capital to common stock, the par value of the additional shares issued as a result of the stock split.

The following table summarizes the Company’s common share repurchases during 2004 pursuant to the stock repurchase program (see Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements, “Common Stock”) first authorized in September 1997 by the Board of Directors. Since the inception of the program, which has no expiration date, the Board of Directors has authorized the purchase of up to 308 million shares as of December 31, 2004. Included in this total are 30 million additional shares authorized for repurchase by the Board in October 2004.

The following table sets forth selected financial and other operating information of the Company. The selected financial data in the table is derived from the consolidated financial statements of the Company. The data should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements, related notes, and “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS” included in this Form 10-K.

Some of the statements contained in this annual report discuss future expectations and business strategies or include other “forward-looking” information. Those statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by the statements. The forward-looking information is based on various factors and was derived using numerous assumptions. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements.

We are the largest source of funding, delivery and servicing support for education loans in the United States primarily through our participation in the FFELP. Our primary business is to originate, acquire and hold student loans, with the net interest income and gains on the sales of student loans in securitization being the primary source of our earnings. We also earn fees for pre-default and post-default receivables management services. We are now engaged in every phase of the student loan life cycle — from originating and servicing student loans to default prevention and ultimately the collection on defaulted student loans. We also provide a wide range of financial services, processing capabilities and information technology to meet the needs of educational institutions, lenders, students and their families, and guarantee agencies. SLM Corporation, more commonly known as Sallie Mae, is a holding company that operates through a number of subsidiaries and references in this annual report to “the Company” refer to SLM Corporation and its subsidiaries.

We have used both internal growth and strategic acquisitions to attain our leadership position in the education finance marketplace. We have the largest sales force in the student loan industry that delivers our product offerings on campuses. The core of our marketing strategy is to promote our on-campus brands, which generate student loan originations through our Preferred Channel. Loans generated through our Preferred Channel are more profitable than loans acquired through our forward purchase commitments or the spot market since they are owned earlier in the student loan’s life and we generally incur lower costs on such loans. We have built brand leadership between the Sallie Mae name, the brands of our subsidiaries and those of our lender partners, such that we capture the volume of three of the top five originators of FFELP loans. These sales and marketing efforts are supported by the largest and most diversified servicing capabilities in the industry, providing an unmatched array of servicing capability to financial aid offices.

In recent years we have diversified our business through the acquisition of several companies that provide default management and loan collections services, all of which are combined in our Debt Management Operations (“DMO”) business segment. Initially these acquisitions concentrated in the student loan industry, but through a 2004 acquisition we expanded our capabilities to include a full range of accounts receivable management services to a number of different industries. The DMO business segment has been expanding rapidly such that revenue grew 31 percent in 2004 and we now employ over 3,000 people in this segment.

In December 2004, we completed the Wind-Down of the GSE and are now a fully privatized company. We have defeased all remaining GSE debt obligations and dissolved the GSE’s federal charter. The liquidity provided to the Company by the GSE has been replaced by non-GSE financing, including securitizations originated by non-GSE subsidiaries of SLM Corporation. This funding transformation was accomplished by increasing and diversifying our investor base over the last three years. We now have a number of sources of liquidity including the formation of our first asset-backed commercial paper program ($5 billion in available borrowings) and our unsecured revolving credit facilities, which were increased from $3 billion to $5 billion in 2004.

On December 16, 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment,” which is a revision of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.” Generally, the approach in SFAS No. 123(R) is similar to the approach described in SFAS No. 123. However, SFAS No. 123(R) requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, to be recognized in the income statement based on their fair values. Pro forma disclosure is no longer an alternative. The new standard will be effective for public entities (excluding small business issuers) in the first interim or annual reporting period beginning after June 15, 2005, irrespective of the entity’s fiscal year. Early adoption is permitted in periods in which financial statements have not yet been issued. SFAS No. 123(R) allows for two transition alternatives for public companies: (a) modified-prospective transition or (b) modified-retrospective transition. We are still evaluating both methods, but have tentatively decided to apply the modified-retrospective transition alternative for all periods presented and will recognize compensation cost in the amounts previously reported in the pro forma footnote disclosure under the provisions of SFAS No. 123. Had we adopted SFAS No. 123(R) in 2004, our diluted earnings per share would have been $.08 lower and the effect going forward should have a similar effect on diluted earnings per share.

We manage our business through two primary business segments: the Lending business segment and the DMO business segment. These businesses are considered reportable segments under SFAS No. 131, “Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information,” based on quantitative thresholds applied to the Company’s financial statements. In addition, we provide other complementary products and services, including guarantor and student loan servicing through smaller business units that do not meet such thresholds and are aggregated in the Corporate and Other business segment for financial reporting purposes.

Since our business segments operate in distinct business environments, the discussion herein of the results of our operations is primarily presented on a segment basis. The Lending business segment includes all discussion of income and related expenses associated with net interest margin, student loan spread and its components, securitization gains and the ongoing servicing and securitization income, derivative market value gains and losses, and other fees earned on our Managed portfolio of student loans.

SFAS No. 131 requires public companies to report financial and descriptive information about their reportable operating segments. This is the first year that the Company has been required to present segment information in accordance with SFAS No. 131, and we have included this information for all periods presented in our financial statements as required by SEC rules. The segment information that follows in this “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS” (“MD&A”) includes certain condensed financial information in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). In accordance with SFAS No. 131, in Note 18 to our consolidated financial statements, “Segment Reporting,” we present separate financial information about our operating segments that is used regularly by the “chief operating decision makers” in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing the operating results of the business. The financial information included in Note 18 reflects certain non-GAAP performance measures, which we refer to as “core cash” measures. These “core cash” measures are discussed in greater detail below in “ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES.”

federally guaranteed. The majority of our Private Education Loans are made in conjunction with a FFELP Stafford loan and as a result are marketed through the same marketing channels as FFELP Stafford Loans. While FFELP student loans and Private Education Loans have different overall risk profiles due to the federal guarantee of the FFELP student loans, they share many of the same characteristics such as similar repayment terms, the same marketing channel and sales force, and are originated and serviced on the same platform. Finally, where possible, the borrower receives a single bill for both the federally guaranteed and privately underwritten loans.

The earnings growth in our Lending business segment is a product of the growth in our Managed portfolio of student loans and the earning spread on those loans. In 2004, the Managed portfolio grew by 21 percent to $107 billion at December 31, 2004. As a result of receiving the Exceptional Performer (“EP”) Designation from ED, approximately 93 percent of our Managed FFELP student loans are 100 percent guaranteed by the federal government and as such represent high quality assets with very little credit risk. At December 31, 2004, our Managed FFELP student loan portfolio was $96.0 billion or 89 percent of our total Managed student loans.

The growth in our Lending business segment has been largely driven by the steady growth in the demand for post-secondary education in the United States over the last decade. This growth is evident in the volume of loans we originated or acquired in 2004. We acquired or originated $29.9 billion of student loans in 2004, a 45 percent increase over the $20.7 billion in 2003. Of this, we originated $18.0 billion of student loans through our Preferred Channel, an increase of 18 percent over the $15.2 billion of student loans originated through our Preferred Channel in 2003. We also acquired $6.2 billion of student loans through two acquisitions.

We expect the growth in the demand for post-secondary education to continue in the future due to a number of factors. First, the college age population will continue to grow. ED predicts that the college age population will increase 10 percent by 2013. Second, we project an increase in non-traditional students (those not attending college directly from high school) and adult education. Third, tuition costs have risen 36 percent for four-year public institutions and 51 percent for four-year private institutions on an inflation-adjusted basis since the academic year (“AY”) 1993-1994 and are projected to continue to rise at a pace greater than inflation. Management believes that the twin factors of increasing demand for education coupled with rising tuition costs will drive growth in education financing well into the next decade.

During 2004, we renegotiated our agreement with Bank One. Under the current agreement we will purchase all Bank One student loans originated on our platform through 2008. This volume represents the vast majority of loans originated under that brand name. However, we are no longer obligated to promote the Bank One brand on college campuses, allowing us to increase the marketing of the Sallie Mae family of brands as well as other lending partners.

Over the past three years, we have seen a surge in Consolidation Loan activity as a result of historically low interest rates which has substantially changed the composition of our student loan portfolio. Consolidation Loans earn a lower yield than FFELP Stafford Loans due primarily to the 105 basis point Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee. This negative impact is somewhat mitigated by higher SAP spreads, the longer average life of Consolidation Loans and the greater potential to earn Floor Income. Since interest rates on Consolidation Loans are fixed to term for the borrower, older Consolidation Loans with higher borrower rates can earn Floor Income over an extended period of time. In 2004, substantially all Floor Income was earned on Consolidation Loans. Borrowers typically do not consolidate loans prior to repayment. During 2004, $10.7 billion of FFELP Stafford loans in our Managed loan portfolio consolidated either with us ($8.6 billion) or with other lenders ($2.1 billion). The net result of consolidation activity in 2004 was a portfolio gain of $504 million. Consolidation Loans now represent over 60 percent of our on-balance sheet federally guaranteed student loan portfolio and over 50 percent of our Managed portfolio.

alternative sources of education financing. A large and growing source of this supplemental education financing is provided through campus-based Private Education Loans, of which we are the largest provider. The Private Education Loan portfolio grew by 38 percent in 2004 to $11.5 billion and now represents 11 percent of our Managed student loan portfolio, up from 9 percent in 2003.

Private Education Loans consist of two general types: those that meet the needs of borrowers of higher education schools and other Title IV eligible schools, and those that are used to meet the needs of students in alternative learning programs such as career training, distance learning and lifelong learning programs. Unlike FFELP loans, Private Education Loans are subject to the full credit risk of the borrower. We manage this additional risk through tested loan underwriting standards and a combination of higher interest rates and loan origination fees that compensate us for the higher risk. As a result, we earn higher spreads on Private Education Loans than on FFELP loans. Private Education Loans will continue to be an important driver of future earnings growth as the demand for post-secondary education grows and costs increase much faster than increases in federal loan limits.

We also originate lesser quantities of mortgage and consumer loans with the intent of immediately selling the majority of the mortgage loans. Mortgage and consumer loan originations and the mortgage loan portfolio we hold were 8 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of total loan originations and total loans outstanding as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004.

The replacement of GSE debt with non-GSE debt has increased our funding costs and, coupled with the rapid growth in Consolidation Loans, has put pressure on our student loan spread. We are actively managing these adverse effects by originating a higher percentage of student loans through our Preferred Channel and by increasing the percentage of Private Education Loans in our Managed portfolio. Absent changes to the spread through government legislation, see “OTHER RELATED EVENTS AND INFORMATION — Reauthorization and Budget Proposals,” we expect the Managed student loan spread to remain close to the 1.80 percent earned in the fourth quarter of 2004.

We depend on the debt capital markets to support our business plan. We have developed diverse funding sources to ensure continued access to the capital markets now that we can no longer access GSE funding. Our biggest funding challenge going forward is to maintain cost effective liquidity to fund the growth in the Managed portfolio of student loans as well as to refinance previously securitized loans when consolidated back on-balance sheet from our securitization trusts. At the same time, we must maintain earnings spreads and control interest rate risk to preserve earnings growth. Our main source of funding is student loan securitizations and we have built a highly liquid market for such financings, as evidenced by the $29.7 billion of student loans securitized in twelve term securitization transactions in 2004 and $30.1 billion in sixteen term securitization transactions in 2003. While securitizations provide the majority of our funding requirements, we also rely on unsecured debt obligations as a source of liquidity. In 2004, we issued $15 billion of SLM

Corporation, term, unsecured debt raising the total of such debt to $33.3 billion at December 31, 2004, a 64 percent increase over December 31, 2003. In addition, in 2004, we closed a $5 billion asset-backed commercial paper program and increased our revolving credit facility from $3 billion to $5 billion. We rely heavily on derivative transactions to economically hedge our interest rate risk between our assets and liabilities. Derivatives allow us to efficiently match floating rate assets with floating rate debt and also better match the underlying indices of the variable rate assets and liabilities.

Even though we believe our derivatives are economic hedges, changes in interest rates can cause volatility in our earnings for the market value of our derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment under SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.” Under SFAS No. 133, these changes in derivative market values are recorded through earnings with no consideration for the corresponding change in the fair value of the hedged item. As a result, our earnings are highly susceptible to changes in interest rates caused by these one-sided marks-to-market. Changes in interest rates can also have a material effect on the amount of Floor Income earned in our student loan portfolio and the valuation of our Retained Interest asset. Our earnings can also be materially affected by changes in our estimate of the rate at which loans may prepay in our portfolios as measured by the Constant Prepayment Rate (“CPR”). The value of the Retained Interests on FFELP Stafford securitizations is particularly affected by the level of Consolidation Loan activity. We face a number of other challenges and risks that can materially affect our future results such as changes in:

We completed two acquisitions in the Lending business segment in 2004 and two acquisitions in 2003. We accounted for these transactions under the purchase method of accounting as defined in SFAS No. 141, “Business Combinations,” and allocated the purchase price to the fair market value of the assets acquired, including identifiable intangible assets and goodwill.

On October 15, 2004, we completed our purchase of the outstanding stock of Southwest Student Services Corporation (“Southwest”), an originator, holder and servicer of student loans from the Helios Education Foundation for total consideration of approximately $533 million including cash of $525 million and restricted stock of $8 million. The transaction included Southwest’s $4.8 billion student loan portfolio (and the related funding), its Arizona-based loan origination and servicing center and its sales and marketing operations. In addition to increasing our student loan portfolio, the purchase has expanded our loan origination capability and broadened our market reach. Southwest is among the top 30 originators of federal student loans, issuing approximately $300 million in FFELP Stafford and PLUS loans and $1.5 billion in Consolidation Loans

On December 14, 2004, we closed the first step in a two step purchase of the secondary market and related businesses of Education Assistance Foundation (“EAF”) and its affiliate, Student Loan Finance Association (“SLFA”) for a purchase price of approximately $435 million. As specified in the purchase agreement, concurrent with the consummation of the transaction, the sellers used $391 million of the purchase price to defease the debt funding certain loans acquired by the Company as part of this transaction. SLFA is a Northwest regional leader in education loan funding and acquisition. The first step of the transaction included SLFA’s $1.8 billion student loan portfolio (and the related funding) and its origination franchise. In addition, as a part of this transaction, we entered into a full service guarantor servicing contract with EAF’s affiliate, Northwest Education Association (“NELA”), a guarantee agency for FFELP student loans that serves the Pacific Northwest. In a related transaction, NELA became an affiliate of USA Funds, the Company’s largest guarantor servicing client. The second step of the transaction is expected to close in 2005.

On November 17, 2003, the Company purchased all of the outstanding stock of Academic Management Services Corporation (“AMS”) for a purchase price of approximately $77 million including cash consideration and certain acquisition costs. We allocated the purchase price primarily to the $1.4 billion student loan portfolio and intangible assets including goodwill. In addition to the student loan portfolio, the purchase expanded our loan origination capability and enhanced our offerings to college and university business offices.

In our DMO business segment, we have traditionally provided portfolio management, debt collection and default prevention services on a contingency fee basis, concentrating primarily in the education finance marketplace. Our investment in AFS Holdings, LLC, the parent company of Arrow Financial Services (collectively, “AFS”), has expanded our capabilities such that we now purchase delinquent and defaulted receivables and earn revenues from collections on those portfolios.

The private sector collections industry is highly fragmented with few large public companies and a large number of small scale privately-held companies. The collections industry segments that provide third-party collections services for ED, FFELP guarantors and other federal holders of defaulted debt are highly competitive. Among the asset classes, credit card collections are the most competitive in both contingency collections and purchased paper activities.

In the education finance marketplace, we are subject to the political risks associated with the FFELP as they relate to guarantors, our primary customers. An example of this risk is the proposed reduction in collections revenues in the President’s proposed budget for Federal Fiscal Year (“FFY”) 2006. See “OTHER RELATED EVENTS AND INFORMATION — Reauthorization and Budget Proposals.”

On September 16, 2004, we acquired 64 percent of AFS, a full-service, accounts receivable management company that purchases charged-off debt, conducts contingency collection work and performs first-party receivables servicing across asset classes, for a purchase price of approximately $165 million including cash consideration and certain acquisition costs. Under the terms of the agreement, we have the option to purchase the remaining interest in AFS Holdings, LLC over a three-year period. The acquisition was accounted for under the purchase accounting method. AFS employs nearly 1,300 individuals at locations in Niles, Illinois; Gaithersburg, Maryland; San Diego, California; Whitewater, Wisconsin; and Rockville Centre, New York. It will retain its brand and senior management team.

AFS primarily purchases and services defaulted consumer receivables from credit grantors or resellers and then focuses its collection efforts to cover its investment and earn a sufficient return from the purchased portfolio. AFS also collects on behalf of debt owners on a contingency fee basis and provides first-party delinquent and default receivables servicing.

The purchased receivables business has potential for greater profitability than the contingency fee business due in large part to the maturity of the contingency business and the pricing risks and rewards associated with purchasing delinquent or defaulted debt. Our acquisition of AFS was important for two main reasons. It has further diversified our DMO revenues outside of the education marketplace and provides a disciplined pricing framework and servicing platform as well as years of experience in the purchase of delinquent and defaulted receivables. The addition of AFS also enables us to offer the purchase of distress or defaulted debt to our partner schools as an additional method of enhancing their receivables management strategies.

In our Guarantor Servicing business unit, we provide a full complement of administrative services to FFELP guarantors including guarantee issuance, processing, account maintenance, and guarantee fulfillment. In our Loan Servicing business unit, we originate and service student loans on behalf of lenders who are unrelated to SLM Corporation. Such activities include processing correspondence and filing claims, originating and disbursing Consolidation Loans on behalf of the lender, and other administrative activities required by ED.

The MD&A discusses our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. The preparation of these financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting periods. We base our estimates and judgments on historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under varying assumptions or conditions. Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, “Significant Accounting Policies,” includes a summary of the significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

On an ongoing basis, management evaluates its estimates, particularly those that include the most difficult, subjective or complex judgments and are often about matters that are inherently uncertain. These estimates relate to the following accounting policies that are discussed in more detail below: securitization accounting and Retained Interests, loan effective interest method (premium/borrower benefits), provision for loan losses, and derivative accounting. Also, as part of our regular quarterly evaluation of the critical estimates used by the Company, we have updated a number of estimates to account for the increase in Consolidation Loan activity.

For both federally insured and Private Education Loans, we account for premiums paid, discounts received and certain origination costs incurred on the origination and acquisition of student loans in accordance with SFAS No. 91, “Accounting for Nonrefundable Fees and Costs Associated with Originating or Acquiring Loans and Initial Direct Costs of Leases.” The unamortized portion of the premiums and the discounts is included in the carrying value of the student loan on the consolidated balance sheet. We recognize income on our student loan portfolio based on the expected yield of the student loan after giving effect to the amortization and accretion of purchase premiums and student loan discounts, as well as the borrower benefit discount. In arriving at the expected yield, we must make a number of estimates that when changed must be reflected in the balance from the inception of the student loan. The most sensitive estimate for premium and discount amortization is the estimate of the CPR, which measures the rate at which loans in the portfolio pay before their stated maturity. The CPR is used in calculating the average life of the portfolio. A number of factors can affect the CPR estimate such as the rate of Consolidation Loan activity, securitization activity and default rates. Changes in CPR estimates are discussed in more detail below.

In addition to the CPR, the estimate of the borrower benefit discount is dependent on the estimate of the number of borrowers who will eventually qualify for these benefits. For competitive purposes, we frequently change the borrower benefit programs in both amount and qualification factors. These programmatic changes must be reflected in the estimate of the borrower benefit discount.

The combination of aggressive marketing in the student loan industry and the ability to obtain a long-term, fixed rate loan at low interest rates has led to continued high levels of Consolidation Loan volume, which, in turn, has had a significant effect on a number of accounting estimates in recent years. As long as interest rates remain at historically low levels, and absent any changes in the HEA, we expect the Consolidation Loan program to continue to be an attractive option for borrowers. We have updated our assumptions that are affected primarily by Consolidation Loan activity and updated the estimates used in developing the cash flows and effective yield calculations as they relate to the amortization of student loan premiums and discounts, borrower benefits, residual interest income and the valuation of the Residual Interest.

Loan consolidation activity affects each estimate differently depending on whether the original FFELP Stafford loans being consolidated were on-balance sheet or off-balance sheet and whether the resulting Consolidation Loan is retained by us or consolidated with a third party. When we consolidate a FFELP Stafford loan that was in our portfolio, the term of that loan is extended and the term of the amortization of

The estimate of the CPR also affects the estimate of the average life of securitized trusts and therefore affects the valuation estimate of the Residual Interest. Prepayments shorten the average life of the trust, and if all other factors remain equal, will reduce the value of the Residual Interest asset, the securitization gain on sale and the effective yield used to recognize interest income. Prepayments on student loans in securitized trusts are primarily driven by the rate at which securitized FFELP Stafford loans are consolidated. When a loan is consolidated from the trust either by us or a third party, the loan is treated as a prepayment. In cases where the loan is consolidated by us, it will be recorded as an on-balance sheet asset. We discuss the effects of changes in our CPR estimates in “RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — LENDING BUSINESS SEGMENT — Student Loans” and “RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES — Securitization Activities.”

We regularly engage in securitization transactions as part of our financing strategy. As described in more detail in “ RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES — Securitization Activities,” in a securitization we sell student loans to a trust that issues bonds backed by the student loans as part of the transaction. When our securitizations meet the sale criteria of SFAS No. 140, “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities — a Replacement of SFAS No. 125,” we record a gain on the sale of the student loans which is the difference between the allocated cost basis of the assets sold and the relative fair value of the assets received. The primary judgment in determining the fair value of the assets received is the valuation of the residual interest.

The Retained Interests in each of our securitizations are treated as available-for-sale securities in accordance with SFAS No. 115, “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities,” and therefore must be marked-to-market with temporary unrealized gains and losses recognized, net of tax, in accumulated other comprehensive income in stockholders’ equity. Since there are no quoted market prices for our Retained Interests, we estimate their fair value both initially and each subsequent quarter using the key assumptions listed below:

We recognize interest income and periodically evaluate our Retained Interests for other than temporary impairment in accordance with the Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 99-20 “Recognition of Interest Income and Impairment on Purchased and Retained Beneficial Interests in Securitized Financial Assets.” Under this standard, on a quarterly basis we estimate the cash flows to be received from our Retained Interests and these revised cash flows are used prospectively to calculate a yield for income recognition. In cases where our estimate of future cash flows results in a decrease in the yield used to recognize interest income compared to the prior quarter, the Retained Interest is written down to fair value, first to the extent of any unrealized gain in accumulated other comprehensive income, then through earnings as an other than temporary impairment. These estimates are the same as those used for the valuation of the Residual Interest discussed above.

The provision for loan losses represents the periodic expense of maintaining an allowance sufficient to absorb losses, net of recoveries, inherent in the student loan portfolios. The allowance for Private Education Loan losses is an estimate of probable losses in the portfolio at the balance sheet date that will be charged off in subsequent periods. We estimate our losses using historical data from our Private Education Loan portfolios, extrapolations of FFELP loan loss data, current trends and relevant industry information. As our Private Education Loan portfolios continue to mature, more reliance is placed on our own historic Private Education Loan charge-off and recovery data. Accordingly, during the third quarter of 2004, we updated our expected default assumptions to further align the allowance estimate with our collection experience and the terms and policies of the individual Private Education Loan programs. We use this data in internally developed models to estimate the amount of losses, net of subsequent collections, projected to occur in the Private Education Loan portfolios.

When calculating the Private Education Loan loss reserve, we divide the portfolio into categories of similar risk characteristics based on loan program type, underwriting criteria, existence or absence of a co-borrower, repayment begin date, repayment status, and aging. We then apply default and collection rate projections to each category. The repayment begin date indicates when the borrower is required to begin repaying their loan. Our career training Private Education Loan programs (13 percent of the Managed Private Education Loan portfolio at December 31, 2004) generally require the borrowers to start repaying their loans immediately. Our higher education Private Education Loan programs (87 percent of the Managed Private Education Loan portfolio at December 31, 2004) do not require the borrowers to begin repayment until six months after they have graduated or otherwise left school. Consequently, our loss estimates for these programs are minimal while the borrower is in school. At December 31, 2004, 45 percent of the principal balance in the higher education Managed Private Education Loan portfolio related to borrowers who are still in-school and not required to make payments. As the current portfolio ages, an increasing percentage of the borrowers will leave school and be required to begin payments on their loans. The allowance for losses will change accordingly with the percentage of borrowers in repayment.

Our loss estimates include losses to be incurred over the loss confirmation period, which is two years for career training loans beginning when the loan is originated and five years for higher education loans beginning when the borrower leaves school. Similar to the rules governing FFELP payment requirements, our collection policies allow for periods of nonpayment for borrowers requesting additional payment grace periods upon leaving school or experiencing temporary difficulty meeting payment obligations. This is referred to as forbearance status. The vast majority of forbearance occurs early in the repayment term when borrowers are starting their careers (see “RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — LENDING BUSINESS SEGMENT — Student Loans — Delinquencies”). At December 31, 2004, 4 percent of the Managed Private Education Loan portfolio was in forbearance status. The loss confirmation period is in alignment with our typical collection cycle and takes into account these periods of nonpayment.

Private Education Loan principal is charged off against the allowance at 212 days delinquency. Private Education Loans continue to accrue interest, including in periods of forbearance, until they are charged off and removed from the active portfolio, at which time the accrued interest is charged off against interest income. Recoveries on loans charged off are recorded directly to the allowance.

Effective for a renewable one-year period beginning on October 19, 2004, Sallie Mae, Inc.’s loan servicing division, Sallie Mae Servicing, was designated as an Exceptional Performer (“EP”) by ED in recognition of meeting certain performance standards set by ED in servicing FFELP loans. As a result of this designation, the Company receives 100 percent reimbursement on default claims on federally guaranteed student loans that are serviced by Sallie Mae Servicing for a period of at least 270 days before the date of default and will no longer be subject to the two percent Risk Sharing on these loans. The Company is entitled to receive this

benefit as long as the Company remains in compliance with the required servicing standards, which are assessed on an annual and quarterly basis through compliance audits and other criteria. The 100 percent reimbursement applies to all FFELP loans that are serviced by the Company as well as default claims on federally guaranteed student loans that the Company owns but are serviced by other service providers with the EP designation. At December 31, 2004, approximately 88 percent of the Company’s on-balance sheet federally insured loans are no longer subject to Risk Sharing. As a result of this designation, the Company has reduced the balance in the allowance for loan losses by $33 million.

We use interest rate swaps, foreign currency swaps, interest rate futures contracts, Floor Income Contracts and interest rate cap contracts as an integral part of our overall risk management strategy to manage interest rate risk arising from our fixed rate and floating rate financial instruments. We account for these instruments in accordance with SFAS No. 133 which requires that every derivative instrument, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, be recorded at fair value on the balance sheet as either an asset or liability. We determine the fair value for our derivative instruments using pricing models that consider current market values and the contractual terms of the derivative contracts. Pricing models and their underlying assumptions impact the amount and timing of unrealized gains and losses recognized; the use of different pricing models or assumptions could produce different financial results. As a matter of policy, we compare the fair values of our derivatives that we calculate to those provided by our counterparties on a monthly basis. Any significant differences are identified and resolved appropriately.

We make certain judgments in the application of hedge accounting under SFAS No. 133. The most significant judgment relates to the application of hedge accounting in connection with our forecasted debt issuances. Under SFAS No. 133, if the forecasted transaction is probable to occur then hedge accounting may be applied. We regularly update our probability assessment related to such forecasted debt issuances. This assessment includes analyzing prior debt issuances and assessing changes in our future funding strategies.

SFAS No. 133 requires that changes in the fair value of derivative instruments be recognized currently in earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria as specified by SFAS No. 133 are met. We believe that all of our derivatives are effective economic hedges and are a critical element of our interest rate risk management strategy. However, under SFAS No. 133, some of our derivatives, primarily Floor Income Contracts, certain Eurodollar futures contracts, certain basis swaps and equity forwards, do not qualify for “hedge treatment” under SFAS No. 133. Therefore, changes in market value along with the periodic net settlements must be recorded through the derivative market value adjustment in the income statement with no consideration for the corresponding change in fair value of the hedged item. The derivative market value adjustment is primarily caused by interest rate volatility and changing credit spreads during the period and the volume and term of derivatives not receiving hedge accounting treatment. See also “ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES — Derivative Accounting” for a detailed discussion of our accounting for derivatives.

As discussed in detail above in the “OVERVIEW” section, we have two primary business segments, Lending and DMO, plus a Corporate and Other business segment. Since these business segments operate in distinct business environments, after a general discussion of the consolidated results of operations, the discussion herein of the results of our operations is primarily presented on a segment basis. The Lending business segment includes all discussion of income and related expenses associated with net interest margin, student loan spread and its components, securitization gains and the ongoing servicing and securitization income, derivative market value gains and losses, and other fees earned on our Managed portfolio of student loans.

The DMO business segment reflects the fees earned and expenses incurred to operate our DMO business. Our Corporate and Other business segment includes our ancillary fee businesses and other corporate expenses that do not pertain directly to the primary segments identified above. Unless otherwise noted, the financial information contained herein is in accordance with GAAP. We also present financial information for our reportable operating segments in Note 18 to our consolidated financial statements, “Segment Reporting,” which reflects “core cash” measures. “Core cash” measures are discussed in detail below in “ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES.”

The main drivers of our net income are the growth in our Managed student loan portfolio, which drives net interest income and securitization transactions, market value gains and losses on derivatives that do not receive hedge accounting treatment, the timing and size of securitization gains, growth in our fee-based business and expense control.

For the year ended December 31, 2004, our net income was $1.9 billion ($4.04 diluted earnings per share) versus net income of $1.5 billion ($3.18 diluted earnings per share) in 2003. The increase in net income from 2003 to 2004 is due to several factors. The principal driver of the growth in net income was a $1.1 billion pre-tax increase in the derivative market value adjustment. The derivative market value gain can primarily be attributed to the positive effect that the increase in forward interest rates had on the valuation of our Floor Income Contracts and to gains on our equity forward contracts caused by the increase in the market value of our common stock. In 2004, other income (which includes guarantor servicing fees, debt management fees and collections revenue, and other fee-based income) increased by 18 percent to $749 million versus 2003. This increase can mainly be attributed to an increase in revenue from our DMO segment, late and other borrower fees and to termination fees from Bank One. In 2003, other income benefited from a $40 million gain on the sale of our prior headquarters building. The year-over-year increases in other income were offset by $369 million in lower securitization gains due to 2004 Consolidation Loan securitizations not qualifying for off-balance sheet treatment and $106 million in lower servicing and securitization revenue due to primarily lower Embedded Floor Income.

Net income in 2004 was also negatively impacted by a $221 million pre-tax loss related to the repurchase and defeasance of $3.0 billion of GSE debt in connection with the GSE Wind-Down and a 13 percent increase in other operating expenses to $895 million versus 2003. This increase can be attributed to acquisitions and increased servicing and debt management expenses consistent with the growth in borrowers and the growth in the debt management business. Also, in 2004, net interest income after provision for loan losses was relatively flat versus 2003 caused by two offsetting factors: the increase in net interest income, driven by an $11 billion increase in our average balance of on-balance sheet student loans, and offset by the reduction in Floor Income caused by higher interest rates.

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2003 was $1.5 billion ($3.18 diluted earnings per share) versus $792 million ($1.64 diluted earnings per share) in 2002. The increase in net income from 2002 to 2003 is mainly due to an increase in securitization gains, a pre-tax $844 million reduction in the loss on the derivative market value adjustment, an increase in fee-based income, and a $130 million unrealized gain on our equity forward positions, which was reflected as a cumulative effect of accounting change for the adoption of SFAS No. 150, “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity.” These increases were offset by decreases in student loan income, decreases in servicing and securitization revenue resulting from changes in accounting estimates in the fourth quarter of 2003, reduced levels of Floor Income, an increase in operating expenses due to the acquisitions, and increases in debt management and servicing expenses consistent with the growth in the debt management business.

For the year ended December 31, 2003, managed student loans increased 14 percent in 2003 to $88.8 billion at December 31, 2003. In 2003, we acquired $20.7 billion of student loans, a 25 percent increase over the $16.5 billion acquired in 2002. Of the student loans acquired, we originated $15.2 billion through our Preferred Channel, an increase of 23 percent over the $12.4 billion originated in 2002.

Net interest income, including interest income and interest expense, is derived primarily from our portfolio of student loans that remain on-balance sheet and to a lesser extent from other loans, cash and investments. The “Taxable Equivalent Net Interest Income” analysis below is designed to facilitate a comparison of non-taxable asset yields to taxable yields on a similar basis. Additional information regarding the return on our student loan portfolio is set forth under “Student Loans — Student Loan Spread Analysis.” Information regarding the provision for losses is contained in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements, “Allowance for Student Loan Losses.”

The following table reflects the rates earned on interest earning assets and paid on interest bearing liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002. This table reflects the net interest margin for the entire Company on a consolidated basis. It is included in the Lending segment discussion because that segment includes substantially all interest earning assets and interest bearing liabilities.

The decrease in the net interest margin from the year ended December 31, 2003 to the year ended December 31, 2004 was primarily due to the decrease in Floor Income and other student loan spread related items as discussed under “Student Loans — Student Loan Spread Analysis.” The decrease in the net interest margin was also due to the effect of the GSE Wind-Down. Without the low funding cost provided by the GSE, the margin on our highly liquid, short-term investments turns negative. Also, we have replaced short-term GSE financing with longer term more expensive non-GSE financing.

For both federally insured student loans and Private Education Loans, we account for premiums paid, discounts received and certain origination costs incurred on the origination and acquisition of student loans in accordance with SFAS No. 91. The unamortized portion of the premiums and discounts are included in the carrying value of the student loan on the consolidated balance sheet. We recognize income on our student loan portfolio based on the expected yield of the student loan after giving effect to the amortization of purchase premiums and the accretion of student loan discounts, as well as the discount expected to be earned through borrower benefit programs. Discounts on Private Education Loans are deferred and accreted to income over the lives of the student loans. In the table below, this accretion of discounts is netted with the amortization of the premiums.

The following table analyzes the reported earnings from student loans both on-balance sheet and those off-balance sheet in securitization trusts. For student loans off-balance sheet, we will continue to earn securitization and servicing fee revenues over the life of the securitized loan portfolios. The off-balance sheet information is discussed in more detail in “LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES — Securitization Activities — Servicing and Securitization Revenue” where we analyze the on-going servicing revenue and Residual Interest earned on the securitized portfolios of student loans. For an analysis of our student loan

The primary driver of fluctuations in our on-balance sheet student loan spread is the level of Floor Income earned in the period. In 2004, 2003 and 2002, we earned gross Floor Income of $408 million (73 basis points), $554 million (123 basis points) and $636 million (148 basis points), respectively. The reduction in Floor Income is due to the increase in short-term interest rates in 2004. We believe that we have economically hedged most of the Floor Income through the sale of Floor Income Contracts. When we sell a Floor Income Contract we receive an upfront fee and agree to pay the counterparty the Floor Income earned on a notional amount of student loans. These contracts do not qualify for accounting hedge treatment and as a result are excluded from net interest income and from the above student loan spread analysis. Instead, payments of Floor Income under these contracts are required to be reported with other cumulative realized and unrealized gains and losses in the derivative market value adjustment line in the income statement. For the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, net Floor Income for on-balance sheet student loans was $40 million (7 basis points), $146 million (32 basis points) and $219 million (51 basis points), respectively. Payments on Floor Income Contracts associated with on-balance sheet student loans for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 totaled $368 million (66 basis points), $408 million (91 basis points) and $417 million (97 basis points), respectively.

In addition to Floor Income Contracts, we also extensively use basis swaps to manage our basis risk associated with interest rate sensitive assets and liabilities. These swaps also do not qualify as accounting hedges and are likewise required to be accounted for in the derivative market value adjustment and not part of the cost of funds in the above table. Had net settlements of these swaps been included with the associated debt, our on-balance sheet cost of funds would have been 2.02 percent, 1.65 percent and 2.31 percent, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.

As discussed in detail and summarized in a table under “CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES,” we periodically update our estimates for changes in the student loan portfolio. Under SFAS No. 91, these changes in estimates must be reflected in the balance of the student loan from inception. We have also updated our estimates to reflect programmatic changes in our borrower benefit and Private Education Loan programs and have made modeling refinements to better reflect current and future conditions. The effects of the changes in estimates on the student loan spread are summarized in the table below:

In 2004, based on our ongoing analysis of our Private Education Loan portfolio, we determined that the portfolio was repaying slower than previously estimated, and in response we increased the period for which we amortize student loan discounts resulting in an increase to the unamortized student loan discount balance of $8 million during 2004. In response to the continued high rate of Consolidation Loan activity, we lowered our estimate of the number of Stafford borrowers who will eventually qualify for borrower benefits and revised the term over which benefits are expected to be realized. As a result, we recorded a $5 million reduction in the liability for borrower benefits. The net effect of these updates to our estimates in 2004 was a $3 million or 1 basis point reduction in the student loan spread.

In 2003, we updated our estimates to reflect the increase in Consolidation Loan activity. We decreased the CPR for FFELP Stafford loans to reflect the extension of the term of these loans when consolidated into a Sallie Mae Consolidation Loan, which results in an increase to the unamortized student loan premium. At the same time, we increased the CPR for the Consolidation Loan portfolio, which had the opposite effect on the premium balance and premium amortization. The net effect of these changes was a $19 million adjustment to decrease the unamortized student loan premium and increase current period amortization expense. We also decreased our estimate of the CPR associated with our Private Education Loan program to reflect slower than anticipated repayments resulting in a $23 million increase in the unamortized student loan discount. Also, in 2003, we reduced our estimate of the number of borrowers who eventually qualify for FFELP Stafford borrower benefits resulting in a $10 million estimate adjustment to reduce the estimated borrower benefit liability and increase student loan income. The net effect of these updates to our estimates in 2003 was a $32 million or 7 basis point reduction in the student loan spread.

The decrease in the 2004 student loan spread versus the prior year is primarily due to the higher average balance of Consolidation Loans as a percentage of the on-balance sheet portfolio. Consolidation Loans have lower spreads than other FFELP loans due to the 105 basis point Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee, more robust borrower benefits, and higher funding costs due to their longer terms. These negative effects are partially offset by lower student loan premium amortization due to the extended term and a higher SAP yield. The average

Other factors that negatively impacted the student loan spread are lower Floor Income due to higher average interest rates, higher spreads on our debt funding student loans as a result of the GSE Wind-Down, and higher borrower benefit costs. These negative factors were partially offset by the absence of Offset Fees on GSE financed loans and higher student loan yields. The increase in funding costs is due to the replacement of lower cost, primarily short-term GSE funding with longer term, higher cost non-GSE funding. In 2004, GSE liabilities were heavily weighted to short term in anticipation of the GSE Wind-Down. The increase in borrower benefit costs can be attributable to an increase in the estimate of borrowers qualifying for the benefit and to changes to certain programs that shorten the periods required to qualify, primarily as they relate to Consolidation Loans. These changes had a greater effect on the on-balance sheet student loan spread due to the higher percentage of Consolidation Loans. These negative effects were partially offset by the increase in Private Education Loans in the on-balance sheet student loan portfolio and lower net premium/ discount amortization.

In addition to the effects of estimate adjustments, the student loan spread decreased by 32 basis points from 2002 to 2003. This decrease was primarily due to the higher average balance of Consolidation Loans, lower Floor Income and higher funding spreads on the debt. These negative effects were partially offset by the increase in Private Education Loans in the on-balance sheet student loan portfolio.

The following table analyzes the earnings from our portfolio of Managed student loans on a “core cash” basis (see “ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES”). This analysis includes both on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet loans in securitization trusts and derivatives economically hedging these line items and excludes Floor Income while including the amortization of upfront payments on Floor Income Contracts.

As discussed in detail and summarized in a table at “CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES,” we periodically update our estimates for changes in the student loan portfolio. Under SFAS No. 91, these changes in estimates must be reflected in the balance from inception of the student loan. We have also updated our estimates to reflect programmatic changes in our borrower benefit and Private

In 2004, we updated our estimates of average life associated with our FFELP Stafford and Consolidation Loan programs. The net effect of these changes was a $36 million adjustment to increase the unamortized student loan premium. The difference between the effect for on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet was primarily due to a refinement in our estimates for off-balance sheet loans that did not have the same effect on-balance sheet and to the different mix of FFELP Stafford and Consolidation Loans on-balance sheet versus the mix on a Managed Basis.

In 2004, based on our ongoing analysis of our Managed Private Education Loan portfolio, we determined that the portfolio was repaying at a slower rate than previously estimated. In response, we increased the period for which we amortize student loan discounts resulting in an increase to the unamortized student loan discount balance of $24 million during 2004.

Additionally, the continued high rate of Consolidation Loan activity results in fewer Stafford borrowers qualifying for borrower benefits. In response to this trend, we lowered our estimate of the number of Stafford borrowers who will eventually qualify for borrower benefits and revised the term over which benefits are expected to be realized. As a result, we recorded a $22 million reduction in the liability for borrower benefits during 2004. The net effect of these updates to our estimates in 2004 was a $34 million or 3 basis point increase in the Managed student loan spread.

In 2003, we made similar updates to our estimates of the CPR to reflect the effect of the increase in Consolidation Loan activity on our FFELP Stafford and Consolidation Loan portfolios. The net effect of these changes was a $51 million adjustment to increase the unamortized student loan premium and decrease current period amortization expense. We also updated our estimate of the CPR associated with our Private Education Loan program which resulted in a $23 million adjustment to increase the unamortized student loan discount and decrease current period discount amortization. Also, in 2003, we reduced our estimate of the number of borrowers who eventually qualify for FFELP Stafford borrower benefits resulting in a $39 million adjustment to reduce the estimated borrower benefit liability and increase student loan income. The net effect of these updates to our estimates in 2003 was a $67 million or 8 basis point increase in the student loan spread.

The decrease in the 2004 student loan spread versus 2003, in addition to the changes in estimates disclosed above, is primarily due to the higher average balance of Consolidation Loans as a percentage of the Managed portfolio. Consolidation Loans have lower spreads than other FFELP loans due to the 105 basis point Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee, higher qualification rates for borrower benefits, and higher funding costs due to their longer terms. These negative effects are partially offset by lower student loan premium amortization due to the extended term and a higher SAP yield. The average balance of Consolidation Loans

Our student loan spread was negatively impacted by higher spreads on our debt funding student loans, which was partially offset by the absence of Offset Fees on GSE financed loans. The increase in funding costs is due to the replacement of lower cost primarily short-term GSE funding with longer term, higher cost non-GSE funding in connection with the GSE Wind-Down.

The 2004 student loan spread benefited from the increase in the average balance of Managed Private Education Loans as a percentage of the average Managed student loan portfolio from 9 percent in 2003 to 11 percent in 2004. Private Education Loans are subject to credit risk and therefore earn higher spreads which averaged 4.29 percent for the year ended December 31, 2004 versus a spread of 1.59 percent for the Managed guaranteed student loan portfolio.

In addition to the estimate adjustments discussed above, the increase in the 2003 student loan spread versus 2002 was due to the increase in the percentage of Private Education Loans in the Managed student loan portfolio partially offset by the higher credit spreads on the debt funding student loans due to the GSE Wind-Down, and the increase of Consolidation Loans as a percentage of the total portfolio.

For on-balance sheet student loans, gross Floor Income is included in student loan income whereas payments on Floor Income Contracts are included in the derivative market value adjustment line in other income. The following table summarizes the components of Floor Income from on-balance sheet student loans, net of payments under Floor Income Contracts, for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.

The decrease in net Floor Income for the year ended December 31, 2004 versus the prior year is due to higher interest rates reducing gross Floor Income and a higher percentage of Floor Income eligible student loans economically hedged through Floor Income Contracts offsetting the increase in Consolidation Loans eligible to earn fixed rate Floor Income.

As discussed in more detail under “LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES — Securitization Activities,” when we securitize a portfolio of student loans, we estimate the future Fixed Rate Embedded Floor Income earned on off-balance sheet student loans using a discounted cash flow option pricing model and recognize the fair value of such cash flows in the initial gain on sale and subsequent valuations of the Residual Interest. Variable Rate Embedded Floor Income is recognized as earned in servicing and securitization revenue.

The decrease in Variable Rate Floor Income in 2003 versus 2002 is primarily due to the decline in Treasury bill and commercial paper rates from the July 1, 2001 reset of borrower rates, which resulted in $106 million of Variable Rate Floor Income earned in the first half of 2002. Treasury bill and commercial paper rates did not decline as steeply in the second half of 2002 or in 2003. The increase in Fixed Rate Floor


(Mark One)
þ		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

		For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004

or

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

		For the transition period from to


Delaware		52-2013874
(State of Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, Virginia (Address of Principal Executive Offices)		20190 (Zip Code)


Fixed Borrower Rate:	3.375	%
SAP Spread over Commercial Paper Rate:	(2.640	)%

Floor Strike Rate⁽¹⁾	0.735	%


	•	our Preferred Channel;

	•	Consolidation Loans; and

	•	strategic acquisitions.


	•	guarantee issuance — the initial approval of loan terms and guarantee eligibility;

	•	account maintenance — maintaining and updating of records on guaranteed loans; and

	•	guarantee fulfillment — review and processing of guarantee claims.


⁽¹⁾	The interest rate at which the underlying index (Treasury bill or commercial paper) plus the fixed SAP spread equals the fixed borrower rate. Floor Income is earned anytime the interest rate of the underlying index declines below this rate.


	•	the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act;

	•	the Fair Credit Reporting Act;

	•	the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, including the Financial Privacy Rule and the Safeguard Rule; and

	•	the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.


		Approximate
Location	Function	Square Feet

Reston, VA	Headquarters		240,000
Fishers, IN	Loan Servicing and Data Center		450,000
Wilkes Barre, PA	Loan Servicing Center		135,000
Killeen, TX	Loan Servicing Center		136,000
Lynn Haven, FL	Loan Servicing Center		133,000
Castleton, IN	Loan Servicing Center		100,000
Marianna, FL	Back-up/Disaster Recovery Facility for Loan Servicing		94,000
Big Flats, NY	Debt Management and Collections Center		60,000
Gilbert, AZ	Southwest Student Services Headquarters		60,000
Swansea, MA	AMS Headquarters		36,000
Arcade, NY	Debt Management and Collections Center		34,000
Perry, NY	Debt Management and Collections Center		20,000


Item 4.	Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders


Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities


		1st Quarter		2nd Quarter		3rd Quarter		4th Quarter

2004	High	$	43.00	$	42.49	$	44.75	$	54.44
	Low		36.79		36.80		36.43		41.60
2003	High	$	37.72	$	42.92	$	42.42	$	40.11
	Low		33.73		36.32		37.88		35.70


						Total Number of		Maximum Number
						Shares Purchased		of Shares that May
		Total Number				as Part of Publicly		Yet Be Purchased
		of Shares		Average Price		Announced Plans		Under the Plans
(Common shares in millions)		Purchased⁽¹⁾		Paid per Share		or Programs		or Programs⁽²⁾

Period:
January 1 – March 31, 2004			8.6	$	31.26		7.9		34.2
April 1 – June 30, 2004			6.2		38.08		6.1		20.7
July 1 – September 30, 2004			11.5		38.91		11.4		8.4

October 1 – October 31, 2004			—	$	—		—		36.1
November 1 – November 30, 2004			8.4		43.71		7.9		35.8
December 1 – December 31, 2004			—		—		—		35.8

	Total fourth quarter		8.4	$	43.71		7.9


Year ended December 31, 2004			34.7	$	38.03		33.3


⁽¹⁾	The total number of shares purchased includes: i) shares purchased under the stock repurchase program discussed above, and ii) shares purchased in connection with the exercise of stock options and vesting of performance stock to satisfy minimum statutory tax withholding obligations and shares tendered by employees to satisfy option exercise costs (which combined totaled 1.4 million shares for 2004).

⁽²⁾	Reduced by outstanding equity forward contracts.


	2004			2003			2002			2001			2000

Operating Data:
Net interest income	$	1,299		$	1,326		$	1,425		$	1,126		$	642
Net income		1,914			1,534			792			384			465
Basic earnings per common share, before cumulative effect of accounting change		4.36			3.08			1.69			.78			.95
Basic earnings per common share, after cumulative effect of accounting change		4.36			3.37			1.69			.78			.95
Diluted earnings per common share, before cumulative effect of accounting change		4.04			2.91			1.64			.76			.92
Diluted earnings per common share, after cumulative effect of accounting change		4.04			3.18			1.64			.76			.92
Dividends per common share		.74			.59			.28			.24			.22
Return on common stockholders’ equity		73	%		66	%		46	%		30	%		49	%
Net interest margin		1.92			2.53			2.92			2.33			1.52
Return on assets		2.80			2.89			1.60			.78			1.06
Dividend payout ratio		18			19			17			32			24
Average equity/average assets		3.73			4.19			3.44			2.66			2.34
Balance Sheet Data:
Student loans, net	$	65,981		$	50,047		$	42,339		$	41,001		$	37,647
Total assets		84,094			64,611			53,175			52,874			48,792
Total borrowings		78,122			58,543			47,861			48,350			45,375
Stockholders’ equity		3,102			2,630			1,998			1,672			1,415
Book value per common share		6.93			5.51			4.00			3.23			2.54
Other Data:
Off-balance sheet securitized student loans, net	$	41,457		$	38,742		$	35,785		$	30,725		$	29,868


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


Item 1.	Business


Item 2.	Properties


Item 3.	Legal Proceedings


Item 6.	Selected Financial Data


	•	the mix of student loans in the portfolio, with Consolidation Loans having the lowest spread and Private Education Loans having the highest spread;

	•	the premiums paid and capitalized costs incurred to acquire student loans which negatively impact the spread through subsequent amortization;

	•	the type and level of borrower benefit programs;

	•	the level of Floor Income; and

	•	funding and hedging costs.


	•	applicable laws and regulations, which may change the volume, average term, effective yields and refinancing options of student loans under the FFELP or provide advantages to competing FEELP and non-FFELP loan providers;

	•	demand and competition for education financing;

	•	financing preferences of students and their families;

	•	borrower default rates on Private Education Loans;

	•	continued access to the capital markets for funding at favorable spreads particularly for our non-federally insured Private Education Loan portfolio; and

	•	our operating execution and efficiencies, including errors, omissions, and effectiveness of internal control.


	*Recent Developments — Acquisitions in the Lending Business Segment*



	Consolidating
Estimate	Lender	Effect on Estimate	CPR	Accounting Effect

Premium	Sallie Mae	Term extension	Decrease	Estimate Adjustment⁽¹⁾ — increase unamortized balance of premium. Reduced annual amortization expense going forward.
Premium	Other lenders	Stafford loan prepaid	Increase	Estimate Adjustment⁽¹⁾ — decrease unamortized balance of premium or accelerated amortization of premium.
Borrower Benefits	Sallie Mae	Term extension	N/A	Original Stafford loan expected benefit expense reversed — new Consolidation Loan benefit amortized over a longer term. ⁽²⁾
Borrower Benefits	Other lenders	Stafford loan prepaid	N/A	Borrower benefit reserve reversed into income.⁽²⁾


⁽¹⁾	As estimates are updated, in accordance with SFAS No. 91, the premium balance must be adjusted from inception to reflect the new expected term of the loan.

⁽²⁾	Consolidation estimates also affect the estimates of borrowers who will eventually qualify for borrower benefits.


	•	the projected net interest yield from the underlying securitized loans, which can be impacted by the forward yield curve;

	•	the calculation of the Embedded Floor Income associated with the securitized loan portfolio;

	•	the CPR;

	•	the discount rate used, which is intended to be commensurate with the risks involved; and

	•	the expected credit losses from the underlying securitized loan portfolio.


										Increase (decrease)

	Years Ended December 31,									2004 vs. 2003						2003 vs. 2002

	2004			2003			2002			$			%			$			%

Net interest income	$	1,299		$	1,326		$	1,425		$	(27	)		(2	)%	$	(99	)		(7	)%
Less: provision for losses		111			147			117			(36	)		(24	)		30			26

Net interest income after provision for losses		1,188			1,179			1,308			9			1			(129	)		(10	)
Gains on student loan securitizations		375			744			338			(369	)		(50	)		406			120
Servicing and securitization revenue		561			667			839			(106	)		(16	)		(172	)		(21	)
Losses on securities, net		(49	)		(10	)		(2	)		(39	)		(390	)		(8	)		(400	)
Derivative market value adjustment		849			(238	)		(1,082	)		1,087			457			844			78
Guarantor servicing fees		120			128			106			(8	)		(6	)		22			21
Debt management fees and collections revenue		340			259			186			81			31			73			39
Other income		289			249			220			40			16			29			13
Operating expenses		895			795			690			100			13			105			15
Loss on GSE debt extinguishment and defeasance		221			—			—			221			100			—			—
Income taxes		642			779			431			(137	)		(18	)		348			81
Minority interest in net earnings of subsidiaries		1			—			—			1			100			—			—
Cumulative effect of accounting change		—			130			—			(130	)		(100	)		130			—

Net income		1,914			1,534			792			380			25			742			94
Preferred stock dividends		12			12			12			—			—			—			—

Net income attributable to common stock	$	1,902		$	1,522		$	780		$	380			25	%	$	742			95	%

Basic earnings per common share, before cumulative effect of accounting change	$	4.36		$	3.08		$	1.69		$	1.28			42	%	$	1.39			82	%

Basic earnings per common share, after cumulative effect of accounting change	$	4.36		$	3.37		$	1.69		$	.99			29	%	$	1.68			99	%

Diluted earnings per common share, before cumulative effect of accounting change	$	4.04		$	2.91		$	1.64		$	1.13			39	%	$	1.27			77	%

Diluted earnings per common share, after cumulative effect of accounting change	$	4.04		$	3.18		$	1.64		$	.86			27	%	$	1.54			94	%

Dividends per common share	$	.74		$	.59		$	.28		$	.15			25	%	$	.31			111	%


					Increase (decrease)

	December 31,				2004 vs. 2003						2003 vs. 2002

	2004		2003		$			%			$			%

Assets
Federally insured student loans, net	$	60,561	$	45,577	$	14,984			33	%	$	8,413			23	%
Private Education Loans, net		5,420		4,470		950			21			(705	)		(14	)
Academic facilities financings and other loans, net		1,048		1,031		17			2			(171	)		(14	)
Cash and investments		6,975		6,896		79			1			2,382			53
Restricted cash and investments		2,211		1,106		1,105			100			630			132
Retained Interest in securitized receivables		2,316		2,476		(160	)		(6	)		330			15
Goodwill and acquired intangible assets		1,066		592		474			80			6			1
Other assets		4,497		2,463		2,034			83			551			29

Total assets	$	84,094	$	64,611	$	19,483			30	%	$	11,436			22	%


Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Short-term borrowings	$	2,207	$	18,735	$	(16,528	)		(88	)%	$	(6,884	)		(27	)%
Long-term notes		75,915		39,808		36,107			91			17,566			79
Other liabilities		2,798		3,438		(640	)		(19	)		122			4

Total liabilities		80,920		61,981		18,939			31			10,804			21

Minority interest in subsidiaries		72		—		72			100
Stockholders’ equity before treasury stock		5,129		3,180		1,949			61			(1,523	)		(32	)
Common stock held in treasury at cost		2,027		550		1,477			269			(2,155	)		(80	)

Total stockholders’ equity		3,102		2,630		472			18			632			32

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	84,094	$	64,611	$	19,483			30	%	$	11,436			22	%


	Year Ended December 31,						% Increase (Decrease)

	2004		2003		2002		2004 vs. 2003			2003 vs. 2002

Net interest income	$	1,299	$	1,326	$	1,425		(2	)%		(7	)%
Less: provision for loan losses		111		147		117		(25	)		26

Net interest income after provision for loan losses		1,188		1,179		1,308		1			(10	)
Other income, net		1,899		1,289		203		47			535
Operating expenses		681		431		367		58			17

Income before income taxes and cumulative effect of accounting change		2,406		2,037		1,144		18			78
Income taxes		585		729		403		(20	)		81

Income before cumulative effect of accounting change		1,821		1,308		741		39			77
Cumulative effect of accounting change		—		130		—		(100	)		100

Net income	$	1,821	$	1,438	$	741		27	%		94	%


⁽¹⁾	Investments include cash and cash equivalents, short and long term investments, restricted cash and investments, leveraged leases, and municipal bonds.

⁽²⁾	Other assets include accrued interest receivable, goodwill and acquired intangible assets and other non-interest earning assets.


				Increase
				(decrease)
	Taxable			attributable to
	equivalent			change in
	increase
	(decrease)			Rate			Volume

2004 vs. 2003
Taxable equivalent interest income	$	378		$	(201	)	$	579
Interest expense		412			(16	)		428

Taxable equivalent net interest income	$	(34	)	$	(185	)	$	151

2003 vs. 2002
Taxable equivalent interest income	$	(288	)	$	(409	)	$	121
Interest expense		(188	)		(358	)		170

Taxable equivalent net interest income	$	(100	)	$	(51	)	$	(49	)


	Discussion of the Year-over-Year Effect of Changes in Accounting Estimates on the On-Balance Sheet Student Loan Spread


	Discussion of Year-over-Year Fluctuations in On-Balance Sheet Student Loan Spread in Addition to Changes in Accounting Estimates


		December 31, 2004								December 31, 2003

		Fixed			Variable					Fixed			Variable
		borrower			borrower					borrower			borrower
(Dollars in billions)		Rate			Rate		Total			Rate			Rate		Total

Student loans eligible to earn Floor Income:
	On-balance sheet student loans	$	40.5		$	14.0	$	54.5		$	26.7		$	12.5	$	39.2
	Off-balance sheet student loans		7.4			24.6		32.0			8.1			23.5		31.6

Managed student loans eligible to earn Floor Income			47.9			38.6		86.5			34.8			36.0		70.8
Less: Economically hedged Floor Income			(27.8	)		—		(27.8	)		(14.7	)		—		(14.7	)

Net Managed student loans eligible to earn Floor Income		$	20.1		$	38.6	$	58.7		$	20.1		$	36.0	$	56.1

Net Managed student loans earning Floor Income		$	2.4		$	—	$	2.4		$	16.6		$	31.2	$	47.8


(Dollars in billions)	2005		2006		2007		2008

Average balance of Consolidation Loans whose Floor Income is economically hedged (Managed Basis)	$	26	$	24	$	9	$	8


	*Activity in the Allowance for Private Education Loan Losses*


	Activity in Allowance for Private Education Loan Losses

	On-Balance Sheet						Off-Balance Sheet						Managed Basis

	Years Ended December 31,						Years Ended December 31,						Years Ended December 31,

	2004		2003		2002		2004		2003		2002		2004		2003	2002

Allowance at beginning of year	$	166	$	181	$	194	$	93	$	13	$	—	$	2