SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

~~Washington~~WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER

SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

x		QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
		For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003
OR
¨		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
		For the transition period from to

x	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003

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

For the transition period from _________ to _________

Commission File Number 001-31527

CONCORD EFS, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Delaware		04-2462252
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)
2525 Horizon Lake Drive, Suite 120, Memphis, Tennessee		38133
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)		(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (901) 371-8000

2525 Horizon Lake Drive, Suite 120, Memphis, Tennessee		38133
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)		(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(901) 371-8000

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 x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes x No ¨

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding as of ~~July~~October 31, 2003 was ~~486~~465,~~772~~122,~~912~~798.

CONCORD EFS, INC.

FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I—Financial Information
PART I - Financial Information
Item 1. Financial Statements (Unaudited)
Item 1.	Financial Statements (Unaudited)
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002	1
	Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002	1
Consolidated Statements of Income for Three Months and Six Months Ended June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2002	2
	Consolidated Statements of Income for Three Months and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2003 and September 30, 2002	2
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for Six Months Ended June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2002	3
	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for Nine Months Ended September 30, 2003 and September 30, 2002	3
~~Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements~~	4Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	4
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	18
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	25
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	28
Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	39
Item 4. Controls and Procedures	29
Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	40
PART II—Other Information
PART II - Other Information
Item 1. Legal Proceedings	30
Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	41
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders	32
Item 4.	Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders	46
Item 6. Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K	33
Item 6.	Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K	47
Signatures	35	49

PART I~~—FINANCIAL~~ ~~INFORMATION~~– Financial Information

Item 1.

Financial Statements (Unaudited)

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Unaudited)

	June 30,2003			December 31,2002
	September 30,2003				December 31,2002
	(in thousands)
Assets
ASSETS
Current assets
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$	1521,~~036,363~~747		$	~~471,825~~$	471,825
Securities available for sale		~~874~~801,~~245~~334			~~985,400~~	985,400
Accounts receivable, net		~~129~~133,~~331~~802			~~129,983~~	129,983
Settlement receivables, net		39,~~475~~912			~~24,958~~	24,958
Inventories		2224,~~519~~352			~~19,983~~	19,983
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		3227,~~229~~481			~~48,633~~	48,633
Deferred income taxes		815,~~938~~767			~~5,569~~	5,569
Total current assets		2,143,100			1,686,351
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS		1,564,395				1,686,351
Securities available for sale		~~133~~130,~~577~~800			~~139,092~~	139,092
Property and equipment, net		347,~~052~~639			~~338,558~~	338,558
Goodwill, net		265,040			~~265,460~~	265,460
Other intangible assets, net		5046,~~270~~853			~~57,073~~	57,073
Other assets, net		6284,~~245~~318			~~41,906~~	41,906
Total assets	$	3,001,284		$	2,528,440
TOTAL ASSETS	$	2,439,045			$	2,528,440
Liabilities and stockholders’ equity
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Accounts payable and other liabilities	$	2520,~~069~~960		$	~~25,252~~$	25,252
Settlement payables		~~506~~202,~~178~~572			~~165,349~~	165,349
Deposits		6427,~~643~~028			~~78,133~~	78,133
Accrued liabilities		6370,~~295~~439			~~53,617~~	53,617
Income taxes payable		2136,~~474~~523			~~16,527~~	16,527
Current maturities of long-term debt		3118,~~548~~951			~~58,940~~	58,940
Total current liabilities		712,207			397,818
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES		376,473				397,818
Long-term debt		~~133~~130,~~577~~800			~~139,092~~	139,092
Deferred income taxes		6365,~~798~~225			~~62,343~~	62,343
Other liabilities		87,~~141~~938			~~7,962~~	7,962
Total liabilities		917,723			607,215
TOTAL LIABILITIES		580,436				607,215
Commitments and contingent liabilities		—			—	—
Minority interest in subsidiary		5,~~614~~869			~~5,063~~	5,063
Stockholders’ equity
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Common stock, $0.33 1/3 par value; authorized 1,500,000 shares, issued and outstanding 486,771 at June 30, 2003 and 486,461 at December 31, 2002		162,257			162,154
Common stock, $0.33 1/3 par value; authorized 1,500,000 shares, issued and outstanding 465,121 at September 30, 2003 and 486,461 at December 31, 2002		155,040				162,154
Additional paid-in capital		~~989~~990,~~352~~547			~~986,416~~	986,416
Retained earnings		~~920~~713,~~438~~934			~~756,605~~	756,605
Accumulated other comprehensive income		5,900			10,987
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		(6,781	)			10,987
Total stockholders’ equity		2,077,947			1,916,162
TOTAL STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY		1,852,740				1,916,162
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	3,001,284		$	2,528,440
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY	$	2,439,045			$	2,528,440

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

- 1 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(Unaudited)

	Three months endedJune 30,					Six months ended June 30,
	Three months endedSeptember 30,						Nine months endedSeptember 30,
	2003		2002			~~2003~~	2003		~~2002~~	2002
	(in thousands, except per share data)
Revenue	$	~~570~~588,~~046~~486	$	~~488~~514,~~181~~389		$	~~1,089,905~~$	1,678,391	$	~~909,862~~$	1,424,251
Cost of operations		421,~~385~~922		~~331~~367,~~898~~179			~~798,846~~	1,220,768		~~613,817~~	980,996
Selling, general and administrative expenses		34,~~428~~139		3231,~~357~~233			~~66,254~~	100,393		~~57,139~~	88,372
Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges		59,~~562~~491		~~29,006~~—			~~7,949~~	17,440		~~76,506~~	76,506
Litigation settlement charges		—		20,761			—			20,761
Litigation settlement charges (credits)		—		(11,000	)			—			9,761
Operating income		108,671		74,159			216,856			141,639
OPERATING INCOME		122,934		126,977				339,790			268,616
Other income and expense:
Investment income		1412,~~553~~455		1920,~~498~~653			~~29,263~~	41,718		~~39,070~~	59,723
Interest expense		21,~~000~~890		23,~~656~~054			~~4,369~~	6,259		~~5,762~~	8,816
Other income, net		117,~~689~~166		61,~~388~~023			~~11,148~~	18,314		~~6,914~~	7,937
Income before taxes and minority interest		132,913		97,389			252,898			181,861
INCOME BEFORE TAXES AND MINORITY INTEREST		140,665		145,599				393,563			327,460
Income taxes		4647,~~519~~826		3450,~~086~~959			~~88,514~~	136,340		~~64,074~~	115,033
Income before minority interest		86,394		63,303			164,384			117,787
INCOME BEFORE MINORITY INTEREST		92,839		94,640				257,223			212,427
Minority interest in net income of subsidiary		~~278~~255		85311			~~551~~	806		~~360~~	671
Net income	$	86,116	$	63,218		$	163,833		$	117,427
NET INCOME	$	92,584	$	94,329			$	256,417		$	211,756
Per share data:
PER SHARE DATA:
Basic earnings per share	$	0.1819	$	0.1218		$	~~0.34~~$	0.53	$	~~0.23~~$	0.41
Diluted earnings per share	$	0.1719	$	0.1218		$	~~0.33~~$	0.52	$	~~0.22~~$	0.40
Average shares outstanding:
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING:
Basic shares		~~486~~475,~~642~~382		~~511~~512,~~673~~546			~~486,554~~	482,830		~~510,186~~	510,973
Diluted shares		~~498~~486,~~162~~749		~~532~~527,~~638~~856			~~496,660~~	493,356		~~531,455~~	530,255

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

- 2 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

	Six months ended June 30,
	Nine months endedSeptember 30,
	2003			2002
	(in thousands)
Operating activities
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net income	$	~~163~~256,~~833~~417		$	~~117~~211,~~427~~756
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Minority interest in subsidiary		~~551~~806			~~360~~671
Provision for losses on receivables and loans		1,224			116
Provision for (recovery of) losses on receivables and loans		2,572			(81	)
Depreciation and amortization		5381,~~753~~093			3964,~~612~~537
Deferred income taxes		~~826~~2,254			1114,~~979~~671
Net realized gain on sales of securities available for sale		(1320,~~073~~624	)		(12,~~013~~035	)
Restructuring charges		190			38,~~338~~339
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Settlement receivables and payables, net		~~325~~21,~~552~~359			(~~303~~32,~~577~~381	)
Accounts receivable		~~188~~(5,481	)		(2721,~~031~~794	)
Inventories		(24,~~536~~369	)		~~(843~~517	)
Prepaid expenses and other assets		(725,~~349~~279	)		(61,~~818~~268	)
Accounts payable and other liabilities		1533,~~624~~699			7941,~~714~~748
Other, net		23,~~115~~617			~~2,338~~(227	)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		540,898			(49,398	)
NET CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES		346,254			314,453
Investing activities
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Acquisition of securities available for sale		(~~458~~750,~~060~~249	)		(~~423~~665,~~762~~725	)
Proceeds from sales of securities available for sale		~~397~~702,~~578~~529			~~487~~558,~~336~~543
Proceeds from maturity of securities available for sale		~~180~~229,~~283~~747			85131,~~528~~483
Acquisition of alternative investments		—			(195,546	)
Purchases of loans		—			(17,716	)
Proceeds from sales of loans		~~263~~1,918			—53,534
Other net change in loans		32,~~161~~111			2541,~~281~~827
Acquisition of property and equipment		(5479,~~636~~118	)		(70100,~~904~~409	)
Purchase of merchant contracts		(1,~~008~~036	)		(1,~~045~~380	)
Business acquisitions, net		—			(17,240	)
Other investing activity		—			(12,398	)
NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) INVESTING ACTIVITIES		105,902			(212,629	)
Net cash provided by investing activities		67,581			55,080
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Financing activities
Net decrease in deposits		(51,105	)		(29,298	)
Net decrease in deposits		(13,490	)		(3,846	)
Proceeds from borrowings		41,400			149,900
Proceeds from borrowings		33,400			50,000
Payments on borrowings		(89,681	)		(52,118	)
Payments on borrowings		(66,307	)		(193	)
Purchase and retirement of common stock		(306,343	)		(68,365	)
Proceeds from exercise of stock options		23,~~456~~495			2122,~~445~~819
Payments on leases payable		—			(243	)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		(43,941	)		67,163
NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES		(402,234	)		22,695
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents		564,538			72,845
NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS		49,922			124,519
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year		471,825			682,906
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR		471,825			682,906
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	1,036,363		$	755,751
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT END OF PERIOD	$	521,747		$	807,425

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

- 3 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A— - Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation: The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring accruals, considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ended December 31, 2003. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Concord EFS, Inc. and Subsidiaries (Concord) annual report on Form 10-K filed March 27, 2003 for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Nature of Operations: Concord, an electronic transaction processor, provides the technology and network systems that make payments and other financial transactions faster, more efficient, and more secure than paper-based alternatives. As a vertically integrated service provider, Concord acquires, routes, authorizes, captures, and settles virtually all types of electronic payment and deposit access transactions for financial institutions and merchants nationwide. Concord’s primary activities consist of Network Services, which provides automated teller machine (ATM) processing, debit card processing, deposit risk management, and coast-to-coast debit network access principally for financial institutions, and Payment Services, which provides point of sale (POS) processing, settlement, and related services, with specialized systems focusing on supermarkets, major retailers, gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, and trucking companies.

Principles of Consolidation: The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Concord and its subsidiaries after elimination of all material intercompany balances and transactions.

Business Combinations: Transactions accounted for under the purchase method of accounting reflect the net assets of the acquired company at fair value on the date of acquisition, and the excess of the purchase price over fair value of the assets is recorded as goodwill. The results of operations of the purchased company are included in the consolidated results since the date of acquisition. Stock issued in a purchase transaction is valued at the average closing price of Concord’s stock for a period of a few days surrounding the announcement date of the purchase in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standard Board’s (FASB) Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue 99-12.

~~Use~~- of4 ~~Estimates: The preparation~~- of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Revenue Recognition: Revenue from credit card and other transaction processing activities is recorded when the service is provided. Network Services revenue is recorded gross of network fees and net of interchange fees. Payment Services revenue is recorded gross of network and interchange fees. For both Network Services and Payment Services network fees represent amounts charged to Concord by the card associations and debit networks and billed to its clients. In accordance with EITF 01-14, as discussed below, Concord recognizes these amounts as both a component of revenue and expense in its financial statements. Network Services interchange fees represent amounts paid to Concord from the card associations as the card issuer processor and subsequently paid by Concord to the card issuer. In accordance with EITF 02-16, as discussed below, Network Services revenue excludes this interchange fee. In contrast, Payment Services interchange fees are collected from

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

~~Concord’s~~Note ~~merchant~~A ~~clients,~~- ~~not~~Significant ~~the~~Accounting ~~card association or network vendor~~Policies, ~~and~~continued as a result is reported as both a component of revenue and expense. Payment Services interchange fees amounted to $266.4 million and $200.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Payment Services interchange fees amounted to $497.8 million and $360.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

InUse ~~January~~of ~~2003~~Estimates: ~~the~~The ~~EITF reached~~preparation aof ~~consensus~~the onconsolidated ~~Issue~~financial ~~02-16,~~statements ~~“Accounting~~in byconformity awith ~~Customer (including a Reseller) for Certain Consideration Received from a Vendor” (EITF 02-16). EITF 02-16 provides guidance on how a customer should account for cash consideration~~accounting ~~received~~principles ~~from~~generally aaccepted ~~vendor.~~in ~~The~~the ~~transition~~United ~~provisions~~States ~~apply~~requires ~~prospectively~~management to ~~arrangements~~make ~~entered~~estimates ~~into or modified subsequent to December 31, 2002~~ and ~~would~~assumptions ~~require~~that ~~all~~affect the amounts ~~received~~reported ~~from~~in ~~vendors to be accounted for as a reduction of~~ the ~~cost~~financial ofstatements ~~the products~~and oraccompanying ~~services purchased unless certain criteria are met~~notes. ~~Concord~~Actual ~~elected~~results tocould ~~early~~differ ~~adopt~~from ~~the~~those ~~provisions of EITF 02-16 in the fourth quarter of 2002~~estimates.

Revenue Recognition: Revenue from credit card and other transaction processing activities is recorded when the service is provided. Network Services revenue is recorded gross of network fees and net of interchange fees. Payment Services revenue is recorded gross of network and interchange fees. For both Network Services and Payment Services, network fees represent amounts charged to Concord by the card associations and debit networks and billed to its clients. In accordance with EITF 01-14, as discussed below, Concord recognizes these amounts as both a component of revenue and expense in its financial statements. Network Services interchange fees represent amounts paid to Concord from the card associations as the card issuer processor and subsequently paid by Concord to the card issuer. In accordance with EITF 02-16, as discussed below, Network Services revenue excludes this interchange fee. In contrast, Payment Services interchange fees are collected from Concord’s merchant clients, not the card association or network vendor, and as a result are reported as both a component of revenue and expense. Payment Services interchange fees amounted to $268.6 million and $220.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Payment Services interchange fees amounted to $766.4 million and $580.5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

In January 2003 the EITF reached a consensus on Issue 02-16, “Accounting by a Customer (including a Reseller) for Certain Consideration Received from a Vendor” (EITF 02-16). EITF 02-16 provides guidance on how a customer should account for cash consideration received from a vendor. The transition provisions apply prospectively to arrangements entered into or modified subsequent to December 31, 2002 and require all amounts received from vendors to be accounted for as a reduction of the cost of the products or services purchased unless certain criteria are met. Concord elected to early adopt the provisions of EITF 02-16 in the fourth quarter of 2002.

The application of EITF 02-16 resulted in a change in presentation of interchange fees received by Concord from card associations relating to signature debit card transactions processed by its Network Services segment. The interchange fee received reimburses Concord for similar amounts paid to signature debit card issuing financial institutions processed by its Network Services segment. These amounts received are presented as a reduction of segment cost of operations, which offset the amounts paid. Prior to the adoption of EITF 02-16, interchange received on signature debit card transactions was included in segment revenue. Prior interim periods presented herein have been reclassified to conform to this change. The adoption of EITF 02-16 had no effect on reported operating income, net income or cash flows for any periods presented.

- 5 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A - Significant Accounting Policies, continued

In January 2002 the EITF reached a consensus on Issue 01-14, “Income Statement Characterization of Reimbursements Received for ‘Out-of-Pocket’ Expenses Incurred” (EITF 01-14). EITF 01-14 concluded that reimbursements received for out-of-pocket expenses incurred should be characterized as revenue in the income statement. Concord adopted EITF 01-14 effective January 1, 2002. The adoption of EITF 01-14 had no material effect on Concord, as substantially all reimbursements governed by EITF 01-14 were previously reported in revenue. These expenses (certain telecommunications expenses and network fees) are billed to the customer separately or as part of a bundled rate including other Concord services.

Revenue from service contracts and product sales is recognized when the service is provided or title to the equipment ispasses to the customer. Concord changed its method of recognizing revenue for product sales in the third quarter of 2003. Prior to the third quarter, Concord had recognized revenue for product sales when the equipment was shipped. This change in accounting policy did not necessitate a restatement of the financial statements because the impact of the change was not material. Service contracts and related sales include all ~~revenue~~revenues under system service contracts, including revenue from sales of terminal hardware when the contract includes such sales.

Revenue from most Payment Services customers is collected daily from settlement funds due to Concord’s merchants or through an automated debit to the customer’s account in the next month. Transaction revenue from Network Services customers is recorded as a receivable at month end and collected through a debit to the customer’s account during the next month. In addition, Concord records an account receivable when revenue is recognized from sales of POS equipment to Payment Services customers.

Accounts and Settlement Receivables: Concord may incur losses from cardholder disputes in the case of merchant insolvency or bankruptcy for the full amount of the cardholder transaction. Based on historical losses, Concord believes its allowance for doubtful accounts is adequate. The allowance for doubtful accounts is established as losses are estimated to have occurred through a provision for bad debts charged to earnings. Losses are charged against the allowance when management confirms that a receivable balance is uncollectible. Subsequent recoveries, if any, are credited to the allowance.

5Cash Equivalents: Concord considers all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents consist of federal funds sold through Concord’s financial institution subsidiary and money market funds that invest in commercial paper, repurchase agreements, and instruments of domestic and foreign banks and other financial institutions.

- 6 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

~~Cash~~Note ~~Equivalents: Concord~~A ~~considers~~- ~~all~~Significant ~~highly~~Accounting liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents consist of federal funds sold through Concord’s financial institution subsidiary and money market funds that invest in commercial paperPolicies, ~~repurchase agreements,~~continued ~~and instruments of domestic and foreign banks and other financial institutions.~~

Securities Available for Sale: Management determines the appropriate classification of debt securities at the time of purchase and evaluates such designation as of each balance sheet date. Securities available for sale are stated at fair value, with the unrealized gains and losses, net of tax, reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in stockholders’ equity. The amortized cost of debt securities is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity or, in the case of mortgage-backed securities, over the estimated life of the security. Such amortization, interest, and dividends are included in investment income. The cost of securities sold is based on the specific identification method.

Inventories: Inventories are stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out method) or market. Inventories consist of POS terminals and related equipment. Concord periodically reviews its inventories for obsolescence and slow-moving items.

Property and Equipment: Property and equipment are stated at cost. Costs associated with internally developed software are capitalized once technological feasibility of the software has been established. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets.

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets: Goodwill and other intangible assets are stated at cost. Concord adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” (SFAS 142), effective January 1, 2002. SFAS 142 prohibits the amortization of goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite useful lives and requires that these assets be reviewed for impairment at least annually. Intangible assets with finite useful lives will continue to be amortized over their estimated useful lives. Prior to the adoption of SFAS 142, amortization was computed using the straight-line method over an estimated useful life of 10 to 25 years for goodwill. The amortization of intangibles other than purchased merchant contracts, such as customer lists and trade names, is computed using the straight-line method over an estimated useful life of 5 to 15 years. Individual purchased merchant contracts are written off if the merchant has terminated its processing relationship. The remaining contracts are amortized using the straight-line method over an estimated useful life of nine years.

Other Assets: Other assets, net of accumulated amortization, include $4971.89 million as of ~~June~~ September 30, 2003 and $29.9 million as of December 31, 2002 for capitalized payments made to customers, which are amortized over the life of the customer contract and are recoverable on a pro-rata basis upon early termination. These payments represent reimbursement of customer costs to convert to Concord’s systems and contract renewal payments.

- 7 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A - Significant Accounting Policies, continued

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets: In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets,” effective January 1, 2002, long-lived assets are reviewed for impairment on an annual basis and whenever events indicate that their carrying amount may not be recoverable. In such reviews, estimated undiscounted future cash flows associated with these assets or operations are compared with their carrying value to determine if a write-down to fair value, normally measured by discounting estimated future cash flows, is required.

Income Taxes: Concord accounts for income taxes using the liability method. Concord’s overall tax rate was reduced to 34.0% for the three months ended September 30, 2003 from 35.0% for the six months ended June 30, 2003. This decrease was due to a reassessment of our effective tax rate based on filing our 2002 federal and state tax returns in the third quarter of 2003.

Stock-Based Compensation: Concord grants options to employees and directors for a fixed number of shares with an exercise price equal to the fair value of the shares at the date of the grant. These stock option grants are accounted for in accordance with Accounting Principles Board Opinion 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” (APB 25); accordingly, Concord recognizes no compensation expense for the stock option grants.

6- 8 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

~~grants~~Note ~~are~~A ~~accounted~~- ~~for~~Significant ~~in accordance with~~ Accounting ~~Principles Board Opinion 25~~Policies, ~~“Accounting~~continued ~~for Stock Issued to Employees” (APB 25); accordingly, Concord recognizes no compensation expense for the stock option grants.~~

The following table presents information regarding Concord’s use of the intrinsic value method under APB 25 of accounting for stock-based compensation and states pro forma net income and earnings per share, as required by SFAS 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” as if Concord had accounted for its stock options under the fair value method of that statement for the periods indicated (in thousands, except per share data):

	Three months endedJune 30,				Six months endedJune 30,
	Three months endedSeptember 30,				Nine months endedSeptember 30,
	2003		2002		2003		2002
Net income as reported	$	8692,~~116~~584	$	6394,~~218~~329	$	~~163~~256,~~833~~417	$	~~117~~211,~~427~~756
Basic earnings per share as reported	$	0.1819	$	0.1218	$	0.3453	$	0.2341
Diluted earnings per share as reported	$	0.1719	$	0.1218	$	0.3352	$	0.2240
Stock-based compensation cost, net of tax, included in the determination of net income as reported		—	$	~~4,844~~—		—	$	4,844
Stock-based compensation cost, net of tax, that would have been included in the determination of net income if the fair value method had been applied to all stock option grants	$	10,~~685~~679	$	10,~~736~~899	$	2031,~~974~~653	$	1930,~~224~~123
Pro forma net income	$	7581,~~431~~905	$	5283,~~482~~430	$	~~142~~224,~~859~~764	$	98181,~~203~~633
Pro forma basic earnings per share	$	0.1617	$	0.1016	$	0.2947	$	0.1936
Pro forma diluted earnings per share	$	0.1517	$	0.1016	$	0.2946	$	0.1834

Recent Pronouncements: In July 2002 the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 146, “Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities” (SFAS 146). SFAS 146 addresses financial accounting and reporting for costs associated with exit or disposal activities and nullifies EITF Issue 94-3. The principal difference between SFAS 146 and Issue 94-3 relates to SFAS 146’s requirements for recognition of a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity. SFAS 146 requires that a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized when the liability is incurred. Under Issue 94-3, a liability for an exit cost as generally defined in Issue 94-3 was recognized at the date of an entity’s commitment to an exit plan. The FASB concluded in SFAS 146 that an entity’s commitment to a plan, by itself, does not create an obligation that meets the definition of a liability. Therefore, SFAS 146 eliminates the definition and requirements for recognition of exit costs in Issue 94-3. SFAS 146 also establishes that fair value is the objective for initial measurement of the liability. The provisions of SFAS 146 are effective for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2002. The adoption of this statement may affect the timing of the recognition of exit costs, if any, in future periods.

In- ~~October~~9 ~~2002~~- the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 147, “Acquisitions of Certain Financial Institutions” (SFAS 147). SFAS 147 addresses the financial accounting and reporting for the acquisition of all or part of a financial institution and is effective for any such activities initiated after October 1, 2002. The adoption of this statement is not anticipated to have a material effect on Concord’s financial statements.

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

~~Others”~~Note ~~(FIN~~A ~~45).~~- ~~FIN~~Significant 45Accounting elaborates on the disclosures that must be made by a guarantor in its interim and annual financial statements about its obligations under certain guarantees. It also clarifies that a guarantor is required to recognizePolicies, atcontinued the inception of a guarantee, a liability for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the guarantee. The disclosure requirements of FIN 45 are effective for financial statements of interim or annual periods ending after December 15, 2002, and its recognition requirements are applicable for guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002. The adoption of this interpretation did not have a material effect on Concord’s financial statements.

In October 2002 the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 147, “Acquisitions of Certain Financial Institutions” (SFAS 147). SFAS 147 addresses the financial accounting and reporting for the acquisition of all or part of a financial institution and is effective for any such activities initiated after October 1, 2002. The adoption of this statement is not anticipated to have a material effect on Concord’s financial statements.

In November 2002 the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued FASB Interpretation 45, “Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others” (FIN 45). FIN 45 elaborates on the disclosures that must be made by a guarantor in its interim and annual financial statements about its obligations under certain guarantees. It also clarifies that a guarantor is required to recognize, at the inception of a guarantee, a liability for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the guarantee. The disclosure requirements of FIN 45 are effective for financial statements of interim or annual periods ending after December 15, 2002, and its recognition requirements are applicable for guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002. The adoption of this interpretation did not have a material effect on Concord’s financial statements.

In December 2002 the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation—Transition and Disclosure” (SFAS 148). SFAS 148 amends SFAS 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” to provide alternative methods of transition to SFAS 123’s fair value method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. SFAS 148 also amends the disclosure provisions of SFAS 123 and APB 28, “Interim Financial Reporting,” to require disclosure in the summary of significant accounting policies of the effects of an entity’s accounting policy with respect to stock-based employee compensation on reported net income and earnings per share in annual and interim financial statements. While SFAS 148 does not amend SFAS 123 to require companies to account for employee stock options using the fair value method, the disclosure provisions of SFAS 148 are applicable to all companies with stock-based employee compensation, regardless of whether they account for that compensation using the fair value method of SFAS 123 or the intrinsic value method of APB 25. Concord intends to continue to account for stock options under the provisions of APB 25.

In January 2003 the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued FASB Interpretation 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities” (FIN 46). In general, a variable interest entity is a corporation, partnership, trust, or any other legal structure used for business purposes that either (a) does not have equity investors with voting rights or (b) has equity investors that do not provide sufficient financial resources for the entity to support its activities. FIN 46 requires a variable interest entity to be consolidated by a company if that company is subject to a majority of the risk of loss from the variable interest entity’s activities or entitled to receive a majority of ~~the entity’s residual returns or both. The~~ consolidation requirements of FIN 46 apply immediately to variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003. The consolidation requirements apply to older entities in the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. Certain of the disclosure requirements apply in all financial statements issued after January 31, 2003 regardless of when the variable interest entity was established. Concord does not anticipate that the consolidation provisions of FIN 46 will have a material effect on its financial statements.

- 10 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A - Significant Accounting Policies, continued

the entity’s residual returns or both. The consolidation requirements of FIN 46 apply immediately to variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003. The consolidation requirements apply to older entities in the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. Certain of the disclosure requirements apply in all financial statements issued after January 31, 2003 regardless of when the variable interest entity was established. The consolidation provisions of FIN 46 did not have an effect on Concord’s financial statements.

Reclassification: Certain 2002 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2003 presentation.

Note B— - Business Combinations and Merger, Acquisition, Restructuring and Write-Off Charges

On April 1, 2003 First Data Corporation (First Data) and Concord entered into a definitive agreement to merge in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the transaction, the combined company is expected to have approximately $10.0 billion in annual revenues with more than 31,000 employees worldwide.

First Data will exchange 0.40 First Data common shares for every Concord common share. Upon completion of the transaction, based on the ~~current~~number of FDC and Concord shares and options outstanding on September 8, 2003, Concord stockholders are expected to own approximately 21% of the outstanding shares of First Data on a fully diluted basis. ~~The~~On ~~transaction~~October is28, ~~subject~~2003, toat ~~approval~~their byrespective special meetings, the stockholders of ~~Concord~~ ~~and~~ First Data and Concord approved of the agreement to merge. The transaction remains, however, subject to various regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. Currently a lawsuit filed by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of seven states and the District of Columbia is pending challenging the proposed merger. This case is set for trial on December 15, 2003.

8Professional fees and other costs of $9.5 million and $18.4 million related to the First Data merger were recorded during the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2003, respectively, and are included in merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges.

On May 17, 2002 Concord acquired Core Data Resources, Inc. (n/k/a Concord Processing, LP), an electronic transaction processor. Core Data’s ATM processing services are designed specifically for retailers and independent sales organizations and complement Concord’s existing ATM driving and monitoring services. The acquisition, for which Concord issued approximately 2.0 million shares of its common stock valued at $64.9 million, was accounted for as a purchase transaction and is immaterial to Concord’s results of operations. The allocation of the purchase price was based on a valuation study completed in the fourth quarter of 2002.

On March 1, 2002 Concord acquired The Logix Companies, LLC, an electronic transaction processor. Logix technology supplies new features to Concord’s check conversion and risk management services, and the Logix ATM driving business serves independent sales organizations. The acquisition, for which Concord issued approximately 0.9 million shares of its common stock valued at $28.8 million and paid approximately $6.3 million in cash, was

- 11 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

~~Professional~~Note ~~fees~~B of- ~~$6.1~~Business ~~million~~Combinations and ~~$8.9 million related to the First Data merger were recorded during the three months and six months ended June 30~~Merger, ~~2003~~Acquisition, ~~respectively,~~Restructuring and ~~are~~Write-Off ~~included in merger~~Charges, continued ~~acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges.~~

~~On May 17, 2002 Concord acquired Core Data Resources, Inc. (n/k/a Concord Processing, LP), an electronic transaction processor. Core Data’s ATM~~ processing services are designed specifically for retailers and independent sales organizations and complement Concord’s existing ATM driving and monitoring services. The acquisition, for which Concord issued approximately 2.0 million shares of its common stock valued at $64.9 million, was accounted for as a purchase transaction and is immaterial to Concord’s results of operations. The allocation of the purchase price was based on a valuation study completed in the fourth quarter of 2002.

On ~~March~~January 1, 2002 Concord acquired ~~The~~H ~~Logix~~& ~~Companies~~F Services, ~~LLC~~ Inc., an ~~electronic~~independent ~~transaction~~sales ~~processor.~~organization, ~~Logix~~for ~~technology~~$8.9 ~~supplies~~million ~~new~~in ~~features~~cash. Prior to ~~Concord’s~~the ~~check conversion and risk management services~~acquisition, ~~and~~Concord ~~the~~had ~~Logix~~purchased ~~ATM~~merchant ~~driving~~contracts ~~business~~from ~~serves~~H ~~independent~~& ~~sales~~F ~~organizations~~Services. The acquisition, ~~for~~was ~~which Concord~~intended ~~issued~~to ~~approximately~~establish ~~0.9~~control over ~~million~~this ~~shares~~sales ofchannel ~~its~~with ~~common~~product, ~~stock~~pricing, ~~valued~~compensation, ~~at $28.8 million~~ and ~~paid~~productivity ~~approximately $6~~initiatives.3 ~~million~~The inacquisition ~~cash,~~ was accounted for as a purchase transaction and is immaterial to Concord’s ~~results~~financial ~~of operations~~statements. The H & F Services stock purchase ~~allocation~~agreement ofcontains ~~the~~deferred purchase price ~~was~~payments ~~based~~through on2007 asubject ~~valuation~~to ~~study~~the ~~completed~~terms inand ~~the~~conditions ~~fourth~~contained ~~quarter~~therein. As of ~~2002~~September 30, 2003, the deferred payments amounted to $3.1 million.

OnDuring ~~January~~the 1,second quarter of 2002, ~~Concord~~management ~~acquired~~approved Ha &plan Fin ~~Services,~~conjunction ~~Inc.,~~with anthe ~~independent~~Core Data ~~sales~~acquisition ~~organization,~~and ~~for~~continued ~~$8.9~~consolidation ~~million~~initiatives into ~~cash.~~improve ~~Prior~~overall tooperating ~~the~~efficiencies. Merger, acquisition, ~~Concord~~ ~~had~~restructuring ~~purchased~~and ~~merchant~~write-off ~~contracts~~charges ~~from~~relating Hto &the Fsecond ~~Services~~quarter 2002 plan were $27.9 million. The ~~acquisition~~charge ~~was~~consisted ~~intended~~of to$16.2 million ~~establish~~for ~~control~~contract ~~over~~terminations, ~~this~~$3.8 ~~sales~~million ~~channel~~for ~~with~~exiting ~~product,~~a ~~pricing~~non-strategic business, ~~compensation~~$0.6 million for closing and consolidating certain facilities, and ~~productivity~~$0.9 ~~initiatives~~million for compensation and severance. ~~The~~In ~~acquisition~~addition, ~~was~~the ~~accounted~~charge ~~for~~included asstock acompensation ~~purchase~~charges ~~transaction~~of ~~and~~$4.8 ismillion ~~immaterial~~related to ~~Concord’s~~the ~~financial~~modification ~~statements.~~of ~~The~~stock Hoptions &of Fterminated ~~Services~~employees ~~stock~~and ~~purchase~~asset ~~agreement~~impairment ~~contains~~charges ~~deferred~~of ~~purchase~~$1.6 ~~price~~million ~~payments~~recorded ~~through~~as ~~2007~~an ~~subject~~adjustment to the ~~terms~~write-off ~~and~~of ~~conditions~~non-performing ~~contained~~purchased ~~therein~~merchant contracts. AsIn connection with the plan, Concord eliminated 24 positions as of June 30, 2003,. Compensation and severance costs paid and charged against the ~~deferred~~restructuring ~~payments~~charge ~~amounted~~accrual towere $30.15 million through September 30, 2003. As of September 30, 2003, $0.4 million of the charges were accrued but unpaid. Concord substantially completed the plan by June 30, 2003.

~~During~~The ~~the~~following ~~second~~table ~~quarter~~presents ~~of 2002, management approved~~ a ~~plan~~summary inof ~~conjunction~~current ~~with~~year ~~the~~activity ~~Core~~through ~~Data~~September ~~acquisition and continued consolidation initiatives to improve overall operating efficiencies. Merger~~30, ~~acquisition,~~2003 ~~restructuring~~related ~~and write-off charges relating~~ to the second quarter 2002 plan were $27.9 million. The charge consisted of $16.2 million for contract terminations, $3.8 million for exiting a non-strategic business, $0.6 million for closing and consolidating certain facilities, and $0.9 million for compensation and severance. In addition, the charge included stock compensation charges of $4.8 million related to the modification of stock options of terminated employees and asset impairment charges of $1.6 million recorded as an adjustment to the write-off of non-performing purchased merchant contracts. In connection with the plan, Concord eliminated 24 positions as of June 30, 2003. Compensation and severance costs paid and charged against the restructuring charge accrual ~~were~~(in ~~$0.3~~thousands): ~~million through June 30, 2003. As of June 30, 2003, $0.7 million of the charges were accrued but unpaid. Concord substantially completed the plan by June 30, 2003.~~

The following table presents a summary of current year activity through June 30, 2003 related to the second quarter 2002 restructuring charge accrual (in thousands):

Balance, December 31, 2002	$	3,876
Changes in estimate		(414	)
Cash outlays		(2,823	)
Non-cash writedowns and charges—asset impairment		(190	)

Balance, September 30, 2003	$	449

Balance, December 31, 2002	$	3,876
Changes in estimate		(414	)
Cash outlays		(2,608	)
Non-cash writedowns and charges—asset impairment		(190	)
Balance, June 30, 2003	$	664

- 12 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

Note B - Business Combinations and Merger, Acquisition, Restructuring and Write-Off Charges, continued

Substantially all of the changes in estimates noted above are attributable to actual costs to shut down ATM operating platforms of an existing subsidiary and convert to Core Data’s operating platforms being less than expected and lower than anticipated costs related to terminations of Concord contracts.

The following table presents a summary of the remaining components related to the second quarter 2002 restructuring charge accrual (in thousands):

Non-strategic business closures	$	5043
Facility closings and consolidations		50
Compensation and severance		406
Compensation and severance		564
Balance, September 30, 2003	$	449
Balance, June 30, 2003	$	664

During the first quarter of 2002, management approved a corporate consolidation plan initiated to continue improvements in overall operating efficiency and integrate recent acquisitions. Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges relating to the first quarter 2002 plan were $46.1 million. The charge consisted of $7.2 million for closing and consolidating certain facilities, $5.5 million for compensation and severance, and $3.0 million for exiting non-strategic businesses. In addition, asset impairment charges of $22.5 million were incurred for the write-off of non-performing purchased merchant contracts identified in the first quarter of 2002 and $7.9 million was incurred for the write-off of capitalized software and computer and communications equipment no longer in use. In connection with the plan, Concord eliminated approximately 165 positions as of March 31, 2003. Compensation and severance costs paid and charged against the restructuring charge accrual were $5.45 million through ~~June~~September 30, 2003. As of ~~June~~September 30, 2003, $3.94 million of the charges were accrued but unpaid. Concord substantially completed the consolidation plan by March 31, 2003.

The following table presents a summary of current year activity through ~~June~~September 30, 2003 related to the first quarter 2002 restructuring charge accrual (in thousands):

Balance, December 31, 2002	$	6,852
Changes in estimate		(563	)
Cash outlays		(2,~~405~~907	)
Balance, June 30, 2003	$	3,884
Balance, September 30, 2003	$	3,382

Substantially all of the changes in estimate related to the first quarter 2002 plan are attributable to lower compensation and severance costs than originally estimated.

- 13 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note B - Business Combinations and Merger, Acquisition, Restructuring and Write-Off Charges, continued

The following table presents a summary of the remaining components related to the first quarter 2002 restructuring charge accrual (in thousands):

Facility closings and consolidations (lease obligations)	$	3,~~764~~364
Compensation and severance		102
Non-strategic business closures		18
Balance, June 30, 2003	$	3,884
Balance, September 30, 2003	$	3,382

Note C— - Goodwill and Other ~~Intangible~~ Intangible Assets

The following table presents changes to unamortized goodwill by Concord’s reporting units (in thousands):

	NetworkServices		PaymentServices			Total
Balance, December 31, 2002	$	193,943	$	71,517		$	265,460
Purchase price adjustment		—		(420	)		(420	)
Balance, June 30, 2003	$	193,943	$	71,097		$	265,040
Balance, September 30, 2003	$	193,943	$	71,097		$	265,040

10The purchase price adjustment represents the reversal, recorded in the first quarter of 2003, of estimated accrued liabilities in connection with the acquisition of H & F Services.

Note D - Comprehensive Income

Total comprehensive income was $79.9 million and $100.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Total comprehensive income was $238.6 million and $229.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Comprehensive income includes net income and the change in the unrealized gain or loss on securities available for sale arising during the period.

Note E - Commitments and Contingencies

During the second quarter of 2003, Concord entered into amended and restated agreements for the financing, construction and leasing of a new corporate headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. These agreements amend the previous agreements entered into during the third quarter of 2002 for the Memphis facility to include leasing existing facilities in Wilmington, Delaware, and Marietta, Georgia that were covered under other leasing agreements. The agreements qualify for operating lease accounting treatment under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 13, “Accounting For Leases,” and, as such, the related assets and obligations are not recorded on Concord’s balance sheet. Upon completion of construction of the Memphis facility, which is

- 14 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

~~The~~Note ~~purchase~~E ~~price~~- ~~adjustment~~Commitments ~~represents~~and ~~the~~Contingencies, ~~reversal~~continued ~~of estimated accrued liabilities in connection with the acquisition of H & F Services.~~

~~Note~~ expected ~~D—Comprehensive~~in the fourth quarter of 2003, rent payments will begin and will be expensed in Concord’s statements of income. The minimum annual lease ~~Income~~payments under these agreements are not material to Concord. The following table summarizes certain aspects of these agreements:

Total comprehensive income was $83.7 million and $79.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Total comprehensive income was $158.7 million and $128.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Comprehensive income includes net income and the change in the unrealized gain or loss on securities available for sale arising during the period.

Property Location	Lease Expiration	Renewal Option at Expiration	Value Guaranteed at Expiration	Total Cost Financed
Wilmington, DE	Jan. 2010	One five-year term	$12.5 million	$15.0 million
Marietta, GA	Jan. 2010	One five-year term	$16.7 million	$20.0 million
Memphis, TN	Jan. 2010	One five-year term	$45.9 million	$55.0 million

~~Note~~The ~~E—Commitments~~renewals, including economic terms of the leases during the renewal term, are subject to the consent of the lessor and ~~Contingencies~~lenders. In addition to the renewal option, Concord also has the option of purchasing the related property for the lease balance or remarketing the property for the lessor at the end of the initial and any renewal term. Concord has guaranteed the value realizable from the sale of the property at the end of the lease term as indicated in the table above. Should Concord elect to market the property for the lessor at the end of the lease term, Concord would be responsible for the difference in the sale proceeds and the value guaranteed above. As of September 30, 2003, the fair value of the guarantee of $1.4 million was recorded as other assets and other liabilities on Concord’s balance sheet and will be amortized using the straight-line method over the lease term. Based on current market conditions, Concord does not expect to be required to make payments under these residual value guarantees.

~~During~~Concord ~~the~~is ~~second~~actively ~~quarter~~pursuing ofthe ~~2003,~~renewal ~~Concord~~of ~~entered~~its ~~into~~most ~~amended~~significant ~~and~~Network Services ~~restated~~customer ~~agreements~~contracts ~~for~~that ~~the financing~~would, ~~construction~~if ~~and~~not ~~leasing~~renewed, ofterminate aon ~~new~~December ~~corporate headquarters in Memphis~~31, ~~Tennessee~~2004. These ~~agreements~~contracts ~~amend~~accounted ~~the previous~~in ~~agreements entered into during the third quarter of~~ 2002 for ~~the~~less ~~Memphis~~than ~~facility~~$100.0 tomillion ~~include leasing existing facilities~~ in ~~Wilmington, Delaware, and Marietta, Georgia that were covered under other leasing agreements~~revenue. ~~The~~There ~~agreements~~can ~~qualify for~~be ~~operating~~no ~~lease~~assurance ~~accounting~~that ~~treatment under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 13, “Accounting For Leases,” and, as~~ such, ~~the~~customer ~~related~~contracts ~~assets~~will ~~and~~be ~~obligations~~renewed. ~~are not recorded on~~ Concord’s ~~balance~~may ~~sheet. Upon completion of~~be ~~construction~~required ofto ~~the~~make ~~Memphis~~material ~~facility,~~expenditures ~~which~~in isorder ~~expected~~to insecure the ~~fourth~~renewals. ~~quarter~~As ofnegotiations ~~2003, rent payments will begin and will be expensed in Concord’s statements~~ of ~~income.~~certain ~~The~~contract ~~minimum~~renewals ~~lease payments under these agreements~~ are ~~not~~ongoing, ~~material to~~ Concord. ~~The~~cannot ~~following~~currently ~~table~~predict ~~summarizes~~the ~~certain~~aggregate ~~aspects~~amount of ~~these~~such ~~agreements:~~expenditures.

PropertyLocation	LeaseExpiration	Renewal Optionat Expiration	Value Guaranteedat Expiration	Total CostFinanced
Wilmington, DE	Jan 2010	One five-year term	$12.5 million	$15.0 million
Marietta, GA	Jan 2010	One five-year term	$16.7 million	$20.0 million
Memphis, TN	Jan 2010	One five-year term	$45.9 million	$55.0 million

Pursuant to the terms of a change of control agreement with an unaffiliated third party, Concord will be required, upon the consummation of the proposed merger with First Data, to make a payment of $5.0 million to that party, plus an additional $5.0 million depending on the amount of certain revenues during the six-month period immediately preceding the merger.

The renewals, including economic terms of the leases during the renewal term, are subject to the consent of the lessor and lenders. In addition to the renewal option, Concord also has the option of purchasing the related property for the lease balance or remarketing the property for the lessor at the end of the initial and any renewal term. Concord has guaranteed the value realizable from the sale of the property at the end of the lease term as indicated in the table above. Should Concord elect to market the property for the lessor at the end of the lease term, Concord would be responsible for the difference in the sale proceeds and the value guaranteed above. As of June 30, 2003, the fair value of the guarantee of $1.5 million was recorded as other assets and other liabilities on Concord’s balance sheet and will be amortized using the straight-line method over the lease term. Based on current market conditions, Concord does not expect to be required to make payments under these residual value guarantees.

Concord is actively pursuing the renewal of its most significant Network Services customer contracts that would, if not renewed, terminate on December 31, 2004. These contracts accounted in 2002 for less than $100.0 million in revenue. There can be no assurance that such customer contracts will be renewed. Concord may be required to make material expenditures in order to secure the renewals. As negotiations of most of the renewals are in the early stages, Concord cannot currently predict the amount, if any, of such expenditures.

In the agreement and plan of merger with First Data, Concord is obligated to pay a termination fee of $210.0 million under certain terms and conditions in the event the agreement is terminated.

11- 15 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

Note E - Commitments and Contingencies, continued

On October 23, 2003 the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Texas and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the proposed merger of Concord and First Data. The complaint alleges that the merger would likely substantially lessen competition in the provision of PIN debit network services in violation of the Clayton Act. The complaint seeks an order permanently enjoining Concord and First Data from consummating the proposed merger, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief the court deems just and proper. This case has been set for trial on December 15, 2003.

As a result of this complaint, Concord may be unable to obtain the regulatory approvals required to complete the merger or, in order to obtain the necessary approval, the combined company may be required to comply with material restrictions or conditions. Denial or condition of such regulatory approvals could result in loss or disadvantage to Concord. Although this matter is in the preliminary stages, Concord believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against all claims.

Concord and certain of its current and former directors and officers have been named as defendants in a purported securities fraud class action lawsuit and two stockholder derivative actions which were filed in September 2002 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and in the Circuit Court for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis. The lawsuits raise allegations relating to Concord’s financial performance between March 2001 and September 2002, changes in the price of Concord’s common stock during that time, alleged failures to disclose material facts, and alleged insider trading and breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and certain directors. On April 21, 2003 the plaintiffs in the Tennessee state court derivative action filed a consolidated complaint which adds allegations that the defendants arranged the proposed merger with First Data at a below market price in return for indemnification against alleged prior wrong doing and for other benefits to them personally. The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. In addition, the Tennessee state court derivative action seeks an injunction against the proposed merger. Although these matters are in the preliminary stages, Concord believes that the claims against it and its directors and officers are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against all claims. Any losses incurred by Concord in connection with this litigation may be covered in part by Concord’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance.

On April 1, 2003 Concord filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed in the shareholder derivative litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. This motion was fully briefed as of May 30, 2003, but has yet to be ruled on by the court.

- 16 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note E - Commitments and Contingencies, continued

On May 2, 2003 Concord filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs in the purported securities fraud class action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. This motion was fully briefed as of June 25, 2003, but has yet to be ruled on by the court.

On June 20, 2003 Concord filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint filed in the shareholder derivative litigation pending in Tennessee state court. This motion has yet to be ruled on, but the court has permitted the plaintiffs to conduct limited, expedited discovery pertaining to the proposed merger. On October 27, 2003 the plaintiffs in this matter filed a motion to temporarily enjoin Concord’s shareholder vote on the proposed merger. This motion was denied by the court the same day.

On orJuly ~~about~~30, ~~April~~2003 ~~3 and 4~~Concord, ~~2003~~National ~~two~~Payment ~~purported~~Systems ~~class~~Inc., ~~action~~and ~~complaints~~Concord ~~were filed~~Payment inSystems ~~the~~(CPS) ~~Circuit~~were ~~Court~~named ofas ~~Tennessee~~defendants ~~for~~in ~~the~~a ~~Thirtieth~~lawsuit ~~Judicial~~in ~~District~~New atYork State ~~Memphis~~Supreme Court. The ~~defendants~~plaintiff inwas ~~these~~the ~~actions~~principal ~~are certain~~ of ~~Concord’s~~a ~~current~~business ~~and~~that ~~former~~had ~~officers~~contracted ~~and~~to ~~directors.~~have ~~The~~CPS ~~complaints~~provide ~~generally~~credit ~~allege~~card ~~breaches~~processing ofservices. ~~the defendants’~~CPS ~~duty~~has ofunsuccessfully ~~loyalty~~sought ~~and~~to ~~due~~collect ~~care~~$90,000 inof ~~connection with~~ the ~~defendants~~business’s ~~alleged~~unpaid ~~attempt~~obligations tofrom ~~sell Concord without maximizing~~ the plaintiff, ~~value~~based toupon ~~shareholders~~his inpersonal ~~order~~guaranty. toThe ~~advance~~complaint ~~the~~alleges ~~defendants’~~claims ~~alleged~~of ~~individual~~defamation ~~interests~~and intortious ~~obtaining indemnification~~interference, ~~agreements~~asserting ~~related~~that to the ~~securities~~plaintiff ~~and~~did ~~other~~not ~~derivative~~sign ~~litigation~~a ~~discussed~~guaranty ~~above.~~and ~~The~~that ~~complaints~~CPS ~~seek~~wrongfully ~~class~~reported ~~certification,~~his ~~injunctive~~failure ~~relief~~to ~~directing~~honor the ~~defendants’~~guaranty ~~conduct~~to incredit rating ~~connection~~agencies. ~~with~~The ancomplaint ~~alleged~~seeks ~~sale~~damages orin ~~auction~~excess of ~~Concord,~~ ~~reasonable~~$10.0 ~~attorneys’~~million ~~fees,~~and ~~experts’~~to ~~fees~~compel ~~and~~CPS ~~other~~to ~~costs~~withdraw ~~and~~its ~~relief~~report to the ~~court~~credit ~~deems~~rating ~~just and proper~~agencies. ~~These~~On ~~complaints~~October ~~were~~13, ~~consolidated~~2003 ~~into~~Concord ~~one action~~ and ~~transferred~~CPS toanswered the ~~division~~complaint, ofdenying the ~~Shelby~~allegations ~~County~~and ~~Circuit~~asserting counterclaims ~~Court~~against ~~in which~~ the ~~Tennessee consolidated state-court derivative action is pending~~plaintiff. Although ~~these~~this ~~matters~~matter ~~are~~is in the preliminary stages, Concord believes that the claims against ~~its~~it ~~officers and directors~~ are without merit and it intends to vigorously ~~contest~~defend ~~these~~ against all claims.

On ~~or about~~ April 230, 2003 CPS was named as a ~~purported~~defendant ~~class~~in ~~action complaint~~a ~~was~~lawsuit originally filed in ~~the~~August ~~Chancery~~2002 in ~~Court~~New ~~for~~York ~~Shelby~~State ~~County,~~Supreme ~~Tennessee~~Court. The ~~defendants~~plaintiffs ~~are~~allege ~~Concord,~~that ~~certain~~CPS ofengaged ~~its~~in ~~current~~unfair competition and ~~former~~tortious ~~officers~~interference ~~and~~by ~~directors,~~allegedly ~~and~~hiring ~~First~~a ~~Data.~~former ~~The~~employee ~~complaint~~of ~~contains~~one ~~allegations~~of ~~regarding~~ the ~~individual defendants’~~plaintiffs ~~alleged insider trading~~ and ~~alleged~~then ~~violations~~allegedly ofusing ~~securities~~trade ~~and~~secrets ~~other~~that ~~laws~~the ~~and~~employee misappropriated ~~asserts~~from that ~~this~~plaintiff. ~~alleged~~The ~~misconduct~~complaint ~~reduced~~seeks damages in the ~~consideration~~amount ~~offered~~of to$4.0 ~~Concord’s~~million ~~shareholders~~for inunspecified ~~the~~losses. ~~proposed~~On ~~merger~~July ~~between~~31, ~~Concord~~2003 ~~and~~CPS ~~First Data.~~answered ~~The~~the complaint, ~~seeks~~denying ~~class~~the ~~certification~~allegations, ~~attorneys’~~asserting ~~fees,~~that ~~expert~~it ~~fees,~~had ~~costs~~never ~~and~~hired ~~other~~or ~~relief~~otherwise ~~the~~had ~~court~~contact with ~~deems~~the ~~just~~individual ~~and~~in ~~proper~~question. ~~The~~Although ~~complaint~~this ~~seeks~~matter anis ~~order~~in ~~enjoining~~the ~~consummation~~preliminary ofstages, ~~the~~Concord ~~merger,~~believes ~~rescinding~~that the ~~merger~~claims ifare itwithout ismerit ~~consummated~~ and ~~setting~~ it intends to vigorously defend against all claims.

12On or about April 3 and 4, 2003 two purported class action complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis. The defendants in those actions were certain of Concord’s current and former officers and directors. The complaints generally alleged breaches of the defendants’ duty of loyalty and due care in connection with the defendants’ alleged attempt to sell Concord without maximizing the value to shareholders in

- 17 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

~~aside~~Note orE ~~awarding~~- ~~rescissory~~Commitments ~~damages to members of the putative class,~~ and ~~directing the defendants to account to the putative class members for unspecified damages. On June 25~~Contingencies, ~~2003~~continued this complaint was transferred to the Shelby County Circuit Court in which the now consolidated class actions filed April 3 and 4 are pending. This complaint is proceeding as a separate complaint from that consolidated complaint but has been consolidated with that complaint for pre-trial purposes. Although this matter is in the preliminary stages, Concord believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously contest these claims.

On order ~~April~~to 1,advance ~~2003~~the ~~First~~defendants’ ~~Data~~alleged ~~and~~individual ~~Concord~~interests ~~entered into a definitive agreement to merge~~ in anobtaining ~~all-stock~~indemnification ~~transaction.~~agreements ~~The~~related ~~transaction is subject~~ to ~~regulatory approval by~~ the ~~Antitrust~~securities ~~Division of the Department of Justice~~ and ~~certain~~other ~~state~~derivative litigation ~~Attorneys~~discussed ~~General~~above. ~~These~~The ~~agencies~~complaints ~~are~~sought ~~investigating~~class ~~the~~certification, ~~transaction~~injunctive ~~for~~relief ~~possible antitrust~~directing ~~concerns.~~the ~~The~~defendants’ ~~Department~~conduct ofin ~~Justice~~connection ~~issued~~with aan ~~Request~~alleged ~~for~~sale ~~Additional~~or ~~Information~~auction ~~and~~of ~~Documentary Materials to~~ Concord, onreasonable ~~June~~attorneys’ 12fees, ~~2003.~~experts’ ~~Concord~~fees isand ~~endeavoring~~other costs toand ~~comply~~relief ~~with~~the ~~that~~court ~~request~~deems asjust ~~quickly~~and ~~as possible~~proper. ~~First~~These ~~Data~~complaints ~~and~~were ~~Concord~~consolidated ~~may~~into ~~be unable~~one toaction ~~obtain~~and ~~the~~transferred ~~regulatory~~to ~~approvals~~the ~~required~~division toof ~~complete~~ the ~~merger~~Shelby ~~or,~~County inCircuit ~~order~~Court toin dowhich ~~so,~~ the ~~combined~~Tennessee ~~company~~consolidated ~~may~~state-court bederivative ~~required~~action tois ~~comply with material restrictions or conditions~~pending.

~~Although~~On or about April 2, 2003 an additional purported class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Court for Shelby County, Tennessee. The defendants were Concord, ~~anticipates~~certain ~~that~~of ~~antitrust~~its ~~regulatory~~current ~~clearance~~and ~~will~~former beofficers ~~achieved~~and ~~within~~directors, and First Data. This complaint contained allegations regarding the ~~second~~individual ~~half~~defendants’ alleged insider trading and alleged violations of securities and other laws and asserted that this ~~year,~~alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to Concord’s shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and First Data. The complaint ~~delay~~sought class certification, ~~denial~~attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, costs and other relief the court deems just and proper. Moreover, the complaint also sought an order enjoining consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is consummated and setting it aside or ~~condition~~awarding rescissory damages to members of ~~such~~the ~~clearance~~putative ~~could~~class, ~~result~~and directing the defendants to account to the putative class members for unspecified damages. On June 25, 2003 this complaint was transferred to the Shelby County Circuit Court in ~~loss~~which the now consolidated class actions filed April 3 and 4 are pending. Through a court-ordered second amended consolidated complaint filed September 19, 2003, this matter was consolidated with that matter. On October 15, 2003, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint similar to the previous complaints but also alleging that the proxy statement disclosures relating to the antitrust regulatory approval process were inadequate. On October 17, 2003 the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger and/or ~~disadvantage~~the merger itself. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on October 20, 2003 but ordered deposition discovery on an expedited basis. On October 27, 2003 the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to enjoin the shareholder vote, which was denied by the court the same day. Although this matter is in the preliminary stages, Concord believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously contest these claims.

In ~~June~~November 2002 Concord EFS National Bank, ~~Concord,~~was ~~and~~named ~~John~~one ~~Doe~~of ~~Corporations~~several ~~were named as~~ defendants in a ~~purported class action~~ lawsuit ~~filed~~ in the ~~United~~Superior ~~States District~~ Court ~~for the Western District~~ of ~~Tennessee. The plaintiffs allege that Concord changed fees and charges without providing the requisite notice~~California, ~~charged~~County ~~merchants~~of ~~for~~Santa ~~transactions that never occurred, and failed to route payments in accordance with the plaintiffs’ instructions~~Clara. The ~~plaintiffs~~ ~~allege~~plaintiff ~~fraud~~made several allegations, including breach of contract, ~~conversion,~~fraud and negligent ~~causes~~misrepresentation ofarising ~~action~~out ~~under~~of ~~the~~business ~~Tennessee~~transactions ~~Consumer~~between ~~Protection Act and~~ the ~~Racketeer~~plaintiff ~~Influenced~~ and ~~Corrupt~~Purchase ~~Organizations~~Plus ~~Act~~Buyers ~~(RICO).~~Group, ~~The~~an ~~class~~entity ~~plaintiffs~~which ~~seek~~formerly toprocessed ~~certify~~credit ~~consists~~card oftransactions ~~all merchant~~through ~~customers of~~ Concord EFS National Bank,. ~~Concord,~~This ~~or John Doe Corporations~~lawsuit, ~~who~~sought ~~were~~compensatory damages ~~subject~~in ~~to charges that were not fully disclosed on their statements, charges for transactions which~~ the ~~merchant~~amount ~~never~~of ~~undertook~~$55,000 and~~/or~~ ~~charges~~punitive damages in ~~excess of~~ the amount ~~agreed~~of ~~upon in their contracts~~$195.0 ~~The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief~~million. Concord ~~has~~EFS ~~moved~~National toBank ~~dismiss~~filed ~~all~~a ~~claims,~~demurrer ~~but~~seeking ~~the~~dismissal ~~court~~of ~~has not yet ruled on~~ the ~~motion. Although~~ ~~this matter is in the preliminary stages, Concord believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against all claims.~~

In- ~~November~~18 ~~2002~~- Concord EFS National Bank was named one of several defendants in a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The plaintiff makes several allegations, including breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising out of business transactions between the plaintiff and Purchase Plus Buyers Group, an entity which formerly processed credit card transactions through Concord EFS National Bank. This lawsuit, for which Concord EFS National Bank was recently served, seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $55,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $195.0 million. Although this matter is in the very preliminary stages, Concord believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously contest these claims.

In September 2002 Concord was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey state court. The plaintiff alleges that Concord wrongfully allowed and facilitated surcharges on electronic benefits transfer (EBT) withdrawals at ATMs within its network. The plaintiff’s four original claims were for violation of N.J.S.A. 44:10-75(c) (which concerns New Jersey’s EBT program), violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, negligence, and breach of contract (as an alleged third-party beneficiary). The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all New Jersey public assistance recipients participating in the New

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

~~Jersey~~Note ~~EBT~~E ~~program~~- ~~who,~~Commitments ~~since March 24, 1997, withdrew their cash benefits from ATMs serviced~~ and ~~processed by Concord and incurred a surcharge per EBT withdrawal. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages~~Contingencies, ~~attorneys’~~continued ~~fees, and injunctive and other relief.~~

~~Concord moved to dismiss all four claims~~ complaint. AtThe ~~a hearing on March 7, 2003, the~~ court ~~found~~granted ~~that~~ the ~~claim~~motion ~~for~~on ~~violation~~October ~~of N.J.S.A. 44:~~10~~-75(c)~~, ~~should~~2003 ~~be dismissed~~ with ~~prejudice~~leave ~~and that the claims for violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of contract should be dismissed without prejudice, but the court denied Concord’s motion~~ to ~~dismiss~~amend. asShould to the ~~negligence~~plaintiff ~~claim.~~file ~~On April 6, 2003~~ an ~~Amended~~amended ~~Complaint was filed alleging violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and negligence and seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages~~complaint, ~~attorneys’ fees, and injunctive and other relief. Although this matter is in the preliminary stages,~~ Concord ~~believes that the claims against it are without merit and~~ intends to vigorously ~~defend~~contest ~~against~~the ~~all~~plaintiff’s claims.

In ~~October~~September ~~1996~~2002 ~~Commonwealth~~Concord ~~Savings~~was named ~~Bank~~as ~~(Commonwealth)~~a ~~filed~~defendant in a ~~lawsuit~~purported ~~against~~class ~~CoreStates~~action ~~Financial~~lawsuit ~~Corp.~~filed ~~(CoreStates)~~ in ~~the~~New ~~Court~~Jersey ofstate ~~Common~~court. ~~Pleas~~The ~~of Chester~~plaintiff ~~County,~~alleges ~~Pennsylvania.~~that OnConcord ~~August~~wrongfully 6,allowed ~~1997~~and ~~Commonwealth~~facilitated ~~added~~surcharges ~~MONEY~~on ~~ACCESS~~electronic ~~SERVICE~~benefits ~~INC.~~transfer (~~MASI~~EBT), awithdrawals ~~Concord~~at ~~subsidiary,~~ATMs aswithin aits ~~defendant~~network. The ~~therein,~~plaintiff’s ~~alleging~~four ~~that~~original ~~MASI~~claims iswere ~~liable to Commonwealth~~ for anviolation ~~amount in excess~~ of $3N.6J.S.A. ~~million~~44:10-75(c) ~~based~~(which onconcerns ~~claims arising~~New ~~out~~Jersey’s ofEBT ~~alleged~~program), ~~errors~~violation ~~in the conversion~~ of ~~certain~~New ~~Meridian~~Jersey’s ~~Bank~~Consumer ~~branches~~Fraud toAct, ~~the~~negligence, ~~MAC network~~ and ~~MASI~~breach ~~processing~~of atcontract ~~the~~(as ~~time~~an ~~the~~alleged ~~branches were acquired by Commonwealth from CoreStates and CoreStates’ affiliates~~third-party beneficiary). ~~Discovery is complete.~~ The ~~court~~plaintiff ~~has~~seeks ~~struck~~certification ~~various~~of ~~reports~~a ~~and~~class ~~portions~~consisting of ~~reports~~all ~~submitted~~New byJersey ~~Commonwealth’s~~public ~~damages~~assistance ~~experts.~~recipients Atparticipating ~~a deposition~~ in ~~March~~the ~~2000,~~New ~~Commonwealth’s~~Jersey ~~expert~~EBT ~~testified~~program towho, asince ~~damages~~March ~~calculation~~24, ~~of $4.2 million. On November 15~~1997, ~~2002 CoreStates~~withdrew ~~and~~their ~~MASI~~cash ~~filed~~benefits ~~motions~~from ~~for~~ATMs ~~partial~~serviced ~~summary~~and ~~judgment~~processed by onConcord ~~all~~and ~~but~~incurred a ~~small~~surcharge ~~part~~per ofEBT ~~Commonwealth’s~~withdrawal. ~~remaining~~The ~~claim,~~lawsuit ~~which~~seeks ~~were~~unspecified ~~denied~~compensatory onand ~~April~~punitive 15damages, ~~2003.~~attorneys’ ~~This~~fees, ~~case~~and ~~has~~injunctive ~~been set for trial in February 2004. Concord believes that the claims against it are without merit~~ and ~~intends~~other ~~to continue to vigorously defend against all claims~~relief.

Concord moved to dismiss all four claims. On March 16, 2003, the court entered an order, finding that the claim for violation of N.J.S.A. 44:10-75(c) should be dismissed with prejudice and that the claims for violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of contract should be dismissed without prejudice, but the court denied Concord’s motion to dismiss as to the negligence claim. On April 16, 2003 a First Amended Complaint was filed alleging violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and negligence and seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive and other relief. Although this matter is in the preliminary stages, Concord believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against all claims.

In June 2002 Concord EFS National Bank, Concord, and John Doe Corporations were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs alleged that Concord changed fees and charges without providing the requisite notice, charged merchants for transactions that never occurred, and failed to route payments in accordance with the plaintiffs’ instructions. The plaintiffs alleged fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and causes of action under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The class plaintiffs sought to certify consisted of all merchant customers of Concord EFS National Bank, Concord, or John Doe Corporations, who were subject to charges that were not fully disclosed on their statements, charges for transactions which the merchant never undertook, and/or charges in excess of the amount agreed upon in their contracts. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. Concord moved to dismiss all claims, the motion was granted by the court on August 13, 2003 and judgment was entered in favor of Concord EFS National Bank and Concord on August 19, 2003. On September 11, 2003 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. No briefing schedule has yet been set. Concord intends to vigorously defend this appeal.

- 19 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note E - Commitments and Contingencies, continued

In October 1996 Commonwealth Savings Bank (Commonwealth) filed a lawsuit against CoreStates Financial Corp. (CoreStates) in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania. On August 6, 1997 Commonwealth added MONEY ACCESS SERVICE INC. (MASI), a Concord subsidiary, as a defendant therein, alleging that MASI is liable to Commonwealth for an amount in excess of $3.6 million based on claims arising out of alleged errors in the conversion of certain Meridian Bank branches to the MAC network and MASI processing at the time the branches were acquired by Commonwealth from CoreStates and CoreStates’ affiliates. Discovery is complete. The court has struck various reports and portions of reports submitted by Commonwealth’s damages experts. At a deposition in March 2000, Commonwealth’s expert testified to a damages calculation of $4.2 million. On November 15, 2002 CoreStates and MASI filed motions for partial summary judgment on all but a small part of Commonwealth’s remaining claim, which were denied on April 15, 2003. This case has been set for trial on February 2, 2004. On September 22, 2003, the court heard MASI’s motion in limine relating to expert testimony and requesting a Frye hearing but has not ruled on this motion. Concord believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against all claims.

Concord is also a party to various routine lawsuits arising out of the conduct of its business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect upon Concord’s financial condition or results of operations.

Note F— - Stockholders’ Equity

During the third and fourth quarters of 2002, Concord’s Board of Directors approved the repurchase of up to $500.0 million of its common stock. On July 29, 2003 Concord announced that its Board of Directors approved the repurchase of an additional $200.0 million of its common stock. Under the repurchase plan, Concord may buy back shares of its outstanding stock from time to time either on the open market or through privately negotiated transactions. The Board’s approvals bring the total potential repurchase to $700.0 million. As of ~~June~~September 30, 2003, a total of 2648.9 6 million shares at an aggregate cost of $~~393~~699.59 million had been purchased and retired pursuant to the repurchase plan since the plan was initiated. During the third quarter of 2003, a total of 21.8 million shares at an aggregate cost of $306.3 million were repurchased. All repurchases were made in the third and fourth quarters of 2002 and the third quarter of 2003 in the open market without the use of any derivative instruments. Due to the imposition of a blackout period during and following the negotiation and execution of the merger agreement with First Data and Concord’s fourth quarter 2002 earnings release, there were no shares repurchased during the ~~six~~first ~~months~~and ~~ended~~second ~~June~~quarters ~~30,~~of 2003. Concord immediately retires its common stock when purchased. Upon retirement, Concord reduces retained earnings for the excess of purchase price over par value.

14- 20 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

Note G— - Earnings Per Share

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share for the periods indicated (in thousands, except per share data):

	Three months endedJune 30,				Six months endedJune 30,
	Three months endedSeptember 30,				Nine months endedSeptember 30,
	2003		2002		2003		2002
Numerator:
Net income	$	8692,~~116~~584	$	6394,~~218~~329	$	~~163~~256,~~833~~417	$	~~117~~211,~~427~~756
Denominator:
Denominator for basic earnings per share, weighted-average shares		~~486~~475,~~642~~382		~~511~~512,~~673~~546		~~486~~482,~~554~~830		510,~~186~~973
Effect of dilutive stock options		11,~~520~~367		2015,~~965~~310		10,~~106~~526		2119,~~269~~282
Denominator for diluted earnings per share, weighted-average shares and assumed conversions		~~498~~486,~~162~~749		~~532~~527,~~638~~856		~~496~~493,~~660~~356		~~531~~530,~~455~~255
Basic earnings per share	$	0.1819	$	0.1218	$	0.3453	$	0.2341
Diluted earnings per share	$	0.1719	$	0.1218	$	0.3352	$	0.2240

The number of anti-dilutive stock options not included above was 14,~~720~~403,~~501~~701 shares and 714,~~043~~267,~~500~~401 shares for the three months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The number of anti-dilutive stock options not included above was 1615,~~768~~980,~~173~~015 shares and 6 9,~~790~~282,~~750~~967 shares for the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003, and 2002, respectively.

Note H— - Operations by Business Segment

Concord has two reportable segments: Network Services and Payment Services.

Network Services revenue consists of access and switching fees for network access, processing fees for driving and monitoring ATMs, and processing fees for managing debit card records, plus network fees charged to Concord by other networks and billed to its customers.

Revenue from Payment Services includes discount fees charged to merchants, which are a percentage of the dollar amount of each credit card or signature debit card transaction Concord processes, as well as a flat fee per transaction. These discount and flat fees constitute a bundled rate for the transaction authorization, processing, settlement, and funds transfer services Concord provides, plus the interchange fees charged to Concord by the card associations. Payment Services revenue also includes fees for debit card and EBT card transactions, check verification and authorization services, and sales of POS terminals from inventory. Debit card and EBT card transactions are similar to credit card transactions in that the bundled fee Concord charges to a merchant includes the transaction authorization, processing, settlement, and funds transfer ~~services Concord provides, plus the interchange and network fees charged to Concord by the debit networks.~~

~~Concord~~- ~~evaluates~~21 ~~performance~~- and allocates resources based on profit or loss from operations. Items classified as “Other” include amounts not identifiable with the two reported segments described above. The accounting policies of the reportable segments are the same as those described in “Note A—Significant Accounting Policies.”

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

Note H - Operations by Business Segment, continued

services Concord provides, plus the interchange and network fees charged to Concord by the debit networks.

Concord evaluates performance and allocates resources based on profit or loss from operations. Items classified as “Other” include amounts not identifiable with the two reported segments described above. The accounting policies of the reportable segments are the same as those described in “Note A - Significant Accounting Policies.”

Concord’s reportable segments are business units that are managed separately because they offer distinct products for different end users. No single customer of Concord accounts for a material portion of Concord’s revenue.

As previously disclosed, Concord had expected to organize a new segment during the 2003 fiscal year. The new Risk Management Services segment would provide software, information, and analysis to financial institutions, retailers, government service providers, and other businesses to assist in fraud prevention and reduction. In part as a result of Concord’s ~~recently announced~~ agreement and ~~plan~~ plan of merger with First Data, it has not yet determined when or if Concord will organize a Risk Management Services segment.

Business segment information for the three months and ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 and 2002 is presented as follows (in thousands):

Three months ended June 30, 2003

Three months ended September 30, 2003

NetworkServices

PaymentServices

Other

Total

Revenue

~~164~~169,~~127~~171

~~405~~419,~~919~~315

—

~~570~~588,~~046~~486

Cost of operations

6667,~~030~~229

~~355~~354,~~355~~693

—

421,~~385~~922

Selling, general and administrative expenses

—

34,~~428~~139

Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges

24,~~260~~450

35,~~302~~041

—

59,~~562~~491

Litigation settlement charges

—

Litigation settlement charges (credits)

—

Investment income

—

1412,~~553~~455

Interest expense

—

21,~~000~~890

Other income, net

—

117,~~689~~166

Income taxes

—

4647,~~519~~826

Minority interest in subsidiary

—

~~278~~255

Net income (loss)

9597,~~837~~492

4759,~~262~~581

(5664,~~983~~489

)

8692,~~116~~584

	Three months ended June 30, 2002
	NetworkServices		PaymentServices		Other			Total
Revenue	$	155,153	$	333,028	$	—		$	488,181
Cost of operations		58,954		272,944		—			331,898
Selling, general and administrative expenses		—		—		32,357			32,357
Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges		19,500		9,506		—			29,006
Litigation settlement charges		—		—		20,761			20,761
Investment income		—		—		19,498			19,498
Interest expense		—		—		2,656			2,656
Other income, net		—		—		6,388			6,388
Income taxes		—		—		34,086			34,086
Minority interest in subsidiary		—		—		85			85
Net income (loss)	$	76,699	$	50,578	$	(64,059	)	$	63,218

- 22 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS~~—(Continued)~~

(Unaudited)

	Six months ended June 30, 2003
	NetworkServices		PaymentServices		Other			Total
Revenue	$	319,173	$	770,732	$	—		$	1,089,905
Cost of operations		131,596		667,250		—			798,846
Selling, general and administrative expenses		—		—		66,254			66,254
Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges		3,704		4,245		—			7,949
Litigation settlement charges		—		—		—			—
Investment income		—		—		29,263			29,263
Interest expense		—		—		4,369			4,369
Other income, net		—		—		11,148			11,148
Income taxes		—		—		88,514			88,514
Minority interest in subsidiary		—		—		551			551
Net income (loss)	$	183,873	$	99,237	$	(119,277	)	$	163,833

Note H - Operations by Business Segment, continued

	Six months ended June 30, 2002
	Three months ended September 30, 2002
	NetworkServices		PaymentServices		Other			Total
Revenue	$	~~300~~155,~~348~~500	$	~~609~~358,~~514~~889	$	—		$	~~909~~514,~~862~~389
Cost of operations		~~113~~61,~~431~~222		~~500~~305,~~386~~957		—			~~613~~367,~~817~~179
Selling, general and administrative expenses		—		—		5731,~~139~~233			5731,~~139~~233
Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges		~~31,278~~—		~~45,228~~—		—			~~76,506~~—
Litigation settlement charges		—		—		20,761			20,761
Litigation settlement charges (credits)		—		—		(11,000	)		(11,000	)
Investment income		—		—		3920,~~070~~653			3920,~~070~~653
Interest expense		—		—		53,~~762~~054			53,~~762~~054
Other income, net		—		—		61,~~914~~023			61,~~914~~023
Income taxes		—		—		6450,~~074~~959			6450,~~074~~959
Minority interest in subsidiary		—		—		~~360~~311			~~360~~311
Net income (loss)	$	~~155~~94,~~639~~278	$	6352,~~900~~932	$	(~~102~~52,~~112~~881	)	$	~~117~~94,~~427~~329
	Nine months ended September 30, 2003
	NetworkServices		PaymentServices		Other			Total
Revenue	$	488,344	$	1,190,047	$	—		$	1,678,391
Cost of operations		198,825		1,021,943		—			1,220,768
Selling, general and administrative expenses		—		—		100,393			100,393
Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges		8,154		9,286		—			17,440
Litigation settlement charges (credits)		—		—		—			—
Investment income		—		—		41,718			41,718
Interest expense		—		—		6,259			6,259
Other income, net		—		—		18,314			18,314
Income taxes		—		—		136,340			136,340
Minority interest in subsidiary		—		—		806			806
Net income (loss)	$	281,365	$	158,818	$	(183,766	)	$	256,417

17- 23 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note H - Operations by Business Segment, continued

	Nine months ended September 30, 2002
	Network Services		Payment Services		Other			Total
Revenue	$	455,848	$	968,403	$	—		$	1,424,251
Cost of operations		174,653		806,343		—			980,996
Selling, general and administrative expenses		—		—		88,372			88,372
Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges		31,278		45,228		—			76,506
Litigation settlement charges (credits)		—		—		9,761			9,761
Investment income		—		—		59,723			59,723
Interest expense		—		—		8,816			8,816
Other income, net		—		—		7,937			7,937
Income taxes		—		—		115,033			115,033
Minority interest in subsidiary		—		—		671			671

Net income (loss)	$	249,917	$	116,832	$	(154,993	)	$	211,756

- 24 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Item 2.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

You should read the following discussion together with our consolidated financial statements and the notes to those financial statements, which are included in this report. This report may contain or incorporate by reference forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements reflect management’s expectations, estimates, and assumptions, based on information available at the time of the statement or, with respect to any document incorporated by reference, available at the time that such document was prepared. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding future events, plans, goals, objectives, and expectations. The words “anticipate,” “ believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “plan,” “intent,” “likely,” “will,” “should,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties, and other factors, including those set forth below, which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by those statements.

Important factors that could cause our actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by those statements include, but are not limited to: (i) the failure to successfully execute our corporate consolidation plans, (ii) the loss of key personnel or inability to attract additional qualified personnel, (iii) the loss of key customers or renewal of customer contracts on less favorable terms, (iv) increasing competition and its effect on our margins, (v) changes in card association rules and practices, (vi) the inability to remain current with rapid technological change, (vii) risks related to acquisitions, (viii) the imposition of additional state taxes, (ix) continued consolidation in the banking and retail industries, (x) business cycles and the credit risk of our merchant customers, (xi) the outcome of litigation involving VISA and MasterCard, (xii) utility and system interruptions or processing errors, (xiii) information theft, (xiv) susceptibility to merchant fraud and credit and fraud risk of entities we sponsor into networks, (xv) changes in card association fees or products, (xvi) automated teller machine market saturation or restrictions on surcharging, (xvii) rules and regulations governing financial institutions and other networks and changes in such rules and regulations, (xviii) the timing and extent of changes in interest rates, (xix) volatility of the price of our common stock, (xx) litigation risks, and (xxi) the receipt of regulatory ~~and shareholder~~ approvals required for the planned merger with First Data Corporation, as well as the timing of the anticipated completion and possible conditions of the planned merger and their consequences.

- 25 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events, or changes to future results over time. See the cautionary statements included as Exhibit 99.1 to this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for a more detailed discussion of certain of the factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those included in the forward-looking statements.

Overview

Concord EFS, Inc. (Concord), an electronic transaction processor, provides the technology and network systems that make payments and other financial transactions faster, more efficient, and more secure than paper-based alternatives. As a vertically integrated service provider, we acquire, route, authorize, capture, and settle virtually all types of electronic payment and deposit access transactions for financial institutions and merchants nationwide.

18First Data will exchange 0.40 First Data common shares for every Concord common share. Upon completion of the transaction, based on the number of FDC and Concord shares and options outstanding on September 8, 2003, Concord stockholders are expected to own approximately 21% of the outstanding shares of First Data on a fully diluted basis. On October 28, 2003, at their respective special meetings, the stockholders of First Data and Concord approved of the agreement to merge. The transaction remains, however, subject to various regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. Currently a lawsuit filed by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of seven states and the District of Columbia is pending challenging the proposed merger. This case is set for trial on December 15, 2003.

We organize our business into two segments based upon the different products and services that we offer to the different industries we serve. Our reportable business segments are Network Services, which provides automated teller machine (ATM) processing, debit card processing, deposit risk management, and coast-to-coast debit network access principally for financial institutions, and Payment Services, which provides point of sale (POS) processing, settlement, and related services, with specialized systems focusing on supermarkets, major retailers, gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, and trucking companies.

- 26 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

First Data will exchange 0.40 First Data common shares for every Concord common share. Upon completion of the transaction, based on the current shares outstanding, Concord stockholders are expected to own approximately 21% of the outstanding shares of First Data. The transaction is subject to approval by stockholders of Concord and First Data, various regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions.

Network Services

Network Services provides the systems and processing that allow financial institutions to offer their customers access to their deposit accounts at ATMs and POS locations. Our network access services include transaction switching and settlement, plus related support services to our customers. We operate the network switch for the combined STAR_sm, MAC_^®, and Cash Station^{^®} debit networks that connects over 1.2 million ATMs and POS locations that accept debit cards issued by our member financial institutions. In addition, we provide ATM processing and monitoring, transaction routing and authorization via credit card associations and debit networks, deposit risk management, and card management, authorization, and fraud protection for PIN-secured debit and signature debit cards.

We are actively pursuing the renewal of our most significant Network Services customer contracts that would, if not renewed, terminate on December 31, 2004. These contracts accounted in 2002 for less than $100.0 million in revenue. There can be no assurance that such customer contracts will be renewed. We may be required to make material expenditures in order to secure the renewals. As negotiations of ~~most~~certain ofcontract ~~the~~ renewals are ~~in the early stages~~ongoing, we cannot currently predict the aggregate amount, ~~if any,~~ of such expenditures.

Payment Services

Payment Services provides the systems and processing that allow retail clients to accept virtually any type of electronic payment, including all card types— – credit, debit, electronic benefits transfer (EBT), prepaid, and proprietary cards— – as well as a variety of check-based options. We provide POS processing, settlement, and related services, with specialized systems focusing on supermarkets, major retailers, gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, and trucking companies. Our services are generally turn-key, providing merchants with POS terminal equipment, transaction routing and authorization, settlement, funds movement, and sponsorship into all credit card associations (such as VISA and MasterCard) and debit networks (such as STAR, Pulse, and NYCE).

As previously disclosed, we had expected to organize a new segment during the 2003 fiscal year. Our new Risk Management Services segment would provide software, information, and analysis to financial institutions, retailers, government service providers, and other businesses to assist in fraud prevention and reduction. In part as a result of our ~~recently announced~~ agreement and plan of merger with First Data, we have not yet determined when or if we will organize a Risk Management Services segment.

19- 27 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

Consolidation Plans

In the second quarter of 2002 we initiated a consolidation plan and continued our consolidation initiatives to improve overall operating efficiencies. This plan includes contract terminations, exiting a non-strategic business, closing and consolidating certain facilities, and eliminating 24 positions. We incurred charges of $27.9 million related to this plan. The consolidation activities that were initiated in the second quarter of 2002 were substantially completed by June 30, 2003.

In the first quarter of 2002 we initiated a consolidation plan to continue improvements in overall operating efficiency and integrate recent acquisitions. This plan includes closing and consolidating certain facilities, exiting several non-strategic businesses, and eliminating approximately 165 positions. We incurred charges of $46.1 million related to this consolidation plan. The consolidation activities that were initiated in the first quarter of 2002 were substantially completed by March 31, 2003.

Components of Revenue and Expenses

Network Services and Payment Services are our two reportable business segments. These business units are managed separately because they offer distinct products for different end users. All of our revenue is generated and all of our assets are located in the United States, and no single customer accounts for a material portion of our revenue. The majority of our revenue is tied to contracts with initial terms of between three and five years.

A principal component of our revenue is derived from Network Services (28.87% and 3130.82% in the three months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 and 2002, and 29.31% and 33 32.0% in the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 and 2002). Network Services revenue consists of access and switching fees for network access, processing fees for driving and monitoring ATMs, and processing fees for managing debit card records, plus network fees charged to us by other networks and billed to our customers. We recognize this revenue at the time of the transaction.

The majority of our revenue (71.23% and 6869.28% in the three months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 and 2002, and 70.79% and 6768.0% in the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 and 2002) is derived from transaction fees and other income related to Payment Services. Revenue from Payment Services includes discount fees charged to merchants, which are a percentage of the dollar amount of each credit card or signature debit card transaction we process, as well as a flat fee per transaction. These discount and flat fees constitute a bundled rate for the transaction authorization, processing, settlement, and funds transfer services we provide, plus the interchange fees charged to us by the card associations. The fee structure for smaller merchants includes the flat fee per transaction and a discount rate generally greater than the card association interchange rate. The fee structure for larger merchants includes the flat fee per transaction and a discount rate generally equal to the card association interchange rate. One result of having revenue partially based on a percentage of the transaction dollar amount is that lower ticket size causes a reduction in revenue. However, net income is not always correspondingly affected because transactions with large merchants, where the discount rate is generally equal to the card association interchange rate, have a direct dollar for dollar decrease in revenue and cost of operations.

~~Payment~~- ~~Services~~28 ~~revenue~~- also includes fees for debit card and EBT card transactions, check verification and authorization services, and sales of POS terminals from inventory. Debit card and EBT transactions are similar to credit card transactions in that the bundled fee we charge to a merchant includes the transaction authorization, processing, settlement, and funds transfer services we provide, plus the interchange and network fees charged to us by the debit networks. We recognize this revenue at the time of the transaction.

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

discount rate generally equal to the card association interchange rate. One result of having revenue partially based on a percentage of the transaction dollar amount is that lower average ticket size causes a reduction in revenue. However, net income is not always correspondingly affected because transactions with large merchants, where the discount rate is generally equal to the card association interchange rate, have a direct dollar for dollar decrease in revenue and cost of operations.

Payment Services revenue also includes fees for debit card and EBT card transactions, check verification and authorization services, and sales of POS terminals from inventory. Debit card and EBT transactions are similar to credit card transactions in that the bundled fee we charge to a merchant includes the transaction authorization, processing, settlement, and funds transfer services we provide, plus the interchange and network fees charged to us by the debit networks. We recognize this revenue at the time of the transaction.

The following table lists revenue by segment for the periods indicated (in millions):

	Three months endedJune 30,				Six months endedJune 30,
	Three months endedSeptember 30,				Nine months endedSeptember 30,
	2003		2002		2003		2002
Network Services	$	~~164~~169.12	$	155.25	$	~~319~~488.24	$	~~300~~455.49
Payment Services		~~405~~419.93		~~333~~358.09		~~770~~1,190.70		~~609~~968.54
Total	$	~~570~~588.05	$	~~488~~514.24	$	1,~~089~~678.94	$	~~909~~1,424.93

Payment Services revenue, net of interchange fees, is an alternative generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) revenue recognition method that Concord believes is useful to investors because it enables comparison with certain industry peers. The following table provides the impact of interchange fees on our reported revenue for the periods indicated (in millions):

	Three months ended June 30, 2003
	Three months ended September 30, 2003
	NetworkServices		PaymentServices		Total
	Network Services		PaymentServices		Total
Revenue per the income statement	$	~~164~~169.12	$	~~405~~419.93	$	~~570~~588.05
Interchange fees included in revenue		—		~~266~~268.46		~~266~~268.46
Revenue, net of interchange fees	$	~~164~~169.12	$	~~139~~150.57	$	~~303~~319.69
	Three months ended June 30, 2002
	NetworkServices		PaymentServices		Total
Revenue per the income statement	$	155.2	$	333.0	$	488.2
Interchange fees included in revenue		—		200.5		200.5
Revenue, net of interchange fees	$	155.2	$	132.5	$	287.7
	Six months ended June 30, 2003
	NetworkServices		PaymentServices		Total
Revenue per the income statement	$	319.2	$	770.7	$	1,089.9
Interchange fees included in revenue		—		497.8		497.8
Revenue, net of interchange fees	$	319.2	$	272.9	$	592.1
	Six months ended June 30, 2002
	NetworkServices		PaymentServices		Total
Revenue per the income statement	$	300.4	$	609.5	$	909.9
Interchange fees included in revenue		—		360.4		360.4
Revenue, net of interchange fees	$	300.4	$	249.1	$	549.5

~~Cost~~- of29 ~~operations includes~~- all costs directly attributable to our providing services to our customers. In Payment Services the most significant component of cost of operations is interchange fees, which amounted to $266.4 million and $200.5 million in the three months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, and $497.8 million and

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

$360.4 million in the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002. In most instances, the interchange fee is a percentage of the transaction amount and is charged to us by the credit card associations and debit networks. Cost of operations in both Network Services and Payment Services also includes telecommunications costs, personnel costs, occupancy costs, depreciation, and the cost of equipment leased and sold.

	Three months ended September 30, 2002
	Network Services		Payment Services		Total
Revenue per the income statement	$	155.5	$	358.9	$	514.4
Interchange fees included in revenue		—		220.1		220.1

Revenue, net of interchange fees	$	155.5	$	138.8	$	294.3


	Nine months ended September 30, 2003
	Network Services		Payment Services		Total
Revenue per the income statement	$	488.4	$	1,190.0	$	1,678.4
Interchange fees included in revenue		—		766.4		766.4

Revenue, net of interchange fees	$	488.4	$	423.6	$	912.0


	Nine months ended September 30, 2002
	Network Services		Payment Services		Total
Revenue per the income statement	$	455.9	$	968.4	$	1,424.3
Interchange fees included in revenue		—		580.5		580.5

Revenue, net of interchange fees	$	455.9	$	387.9	$	843.8

Cost of operations includes all costs directly attributable to our providing services to our customers. In Payment Services the most significant component of cost of operations is interchange fees, which amounted to $268.6 million and $220.1 million in the three months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, and $766.4 million and $580.5 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002. In most instances, the interchange fee is a percentage of the transaction amount and is charged to us by the credit card associations and debit networks. Cost of operations in both Network Services and Payment Services also includes telecommunications costs, personnel costs, occupancy costs, depreciation, and the cost of equipment leased and sold.

- 30 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following table lists cost of operations by segment for the periods indicated (in millions):

	Three months endedJune 30,				Six months endedJune 30,
	Three months endedSeptember 30,				Nine months endedSeptember 30,
	2003		2002		2003		2002
Network Services	$	6667.02	$	5961.02	$	~~131~~198.68	$	~~113~~174.47
Payment Services		~~355~~354.47		~~272~~306.90		~~667~~1,022.20		~~500~~806.43
Total	$	421.49	$	~~331~~367.92	$	~~798~~1,220.8	$	~~613~~981.80

Our selling, general and administrative expenses include certain salaries, sales commissions, and other general administrative expenses, including legal fees, accounting fees, advertising, and marketing expenses. These costs are not allocated to the reportable segments.

Information regarding our business segments is included under the caption “Note H— – Operations by Business Segment” in the notes to our consolidated financial statements and is incorporated herein by reference.

Results of Operations

The following table shows the percentage of revenue represented by certain items on our consolidated statements of income for the periods indicated:

	Three months endedJune 30,				Six months endedJune 30,
	Three months endedSeptember 30,				Nine months endedSeptember 30,
	2003		2002		2003		2002
Revenue	100.0	%	100.0	%	100.0	%	100.0	%
Cost of operations	7371.97		6871.04		7372.37		6768.59
Selling, general and administrative expenses	65.08		6.61		6.10		6.32
Merger, acquisition, restructuring and write-off charges	1.06		~~5.9~~—		01.71		85.4
Litigation settlement charges	—		4.3		—		2.3
Litigation settlement charges (credits)	—		(2.1	)	—		0.7
Operating income	1920.19		1524.26		1920.92		1518.58
Net investment income	21.28		3.4		2.31		3.76
Other income, net	21.02		10.32		1.01		0.76
Income before taxes	23.39		1928.92		23.24		1923.90
Income taxes	8.2		79.09		8.21		78.01
Net income	15.17	%	1218.93	%	15.03	%	1214.9	%

~~Second~~- ~~Quarter~~31 ~~2003~~- ~~Compared to 2002~~

Revenue increased 16.8% to $570.0 million in the second quarter of 2003 from $488.2 million in the same period of 2002. In the second quarter of 2003 Network Services accounted for 28.8% of revenue, and Payment Services accounted for 71.2%. Network Services revenue increased 5.8% over the same period in 2002. This

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

~~increase~~Third ~~was~~Quarter attributable to a 7.0% increase in transaction volumes that was offset by increased amortization of capitalized customer payments and reduced non-transaction processing fees. The increased transaction volumes from new and existing network and processing customers resulted from a 16.3% increase in STAR network POS transactions. Revenue from Payment Services increased 21.9% over the same period in 2002, due to interchange fee price increases and a 28.6% increase in transaction volumes, offset by price compression. Interchange fees in the second quarter of 2003 ~~increased~~Compared ~~32.9% or $65.9 million. Payment Services revenue, net of interchange fees, increased 5.3% or $7.0 million during this period due~~ to ~~transaction~~2002 growth from the addition of large lower margin merchants and the expansion of relationships with existing lower margin merchants. Payment Services revenue, net of interchange fees, is an alternative GAAP revenue recognition method that Concord believes is useful to investors because it enables comparison with certain industry peers. The transaction volume increase is the weighted average of a 29.8% increase in PIN-debit card transactions, a 34.4% increase in EBT card transactions, a 24.4% increase in credit card and signature debit transactions, and a 90.9% increase in other card transactions at new and existing merchants.

~~Cost~~Revenue ofincreased ~~operations~~14.4% ~~increased~~to $588.5 million in the ~~second~~third quarter of 2003 tofrom 73$514.9%4 ~~of revenue~~million ~~compared to 68.0%~~ in the same period inof 2002. ~~Overall,~~In ~~cost~~the third quarter of ~~operations~~2003 ~~increased~~Network toServices ~~$421.4~~accounted ~~million~~for in28.7% ~~the~~of ~~second~~revenue, ~~quarter~~and ofPayment ~~2003~~Services ~~from~~accounted ~~$331~~for 71.93%. ~~million~~Network inServices revenue increased 8.8% over the same period in 2002. This increase was ~~due~~attributable to ~~increased~~a ~~depreciation~~9.3% increase in transaction volumes and ~~amortization~~increased non-transaction processing fees, ~~the~~offset ~~write-off~~by increased amortization of ~~excess~~capitalized ~~supplies~~customer ~~inventory,~~payments. ~~and~~The increased transaction volumes ~~that~~from new and existing network and processing customers resulted from a 15.6% increase in STAR network POS transactions. Revenue from Payment Services increased ~~interchange~~16.8% over the same period in 2002, due to a 22.6% increase in transaction volumes, offset by price compression. Interchange fees in the third quarter of 2003 increased 22.0% or $48.5 million. Payment Services. ~~The~~revenue, ~~increased~~net of interchange fees, asincreased a8.6% ~~percentage~~or of$11.9 ~~revenue~~million ~~resulted~~during this period due to transaction growth from the addition of large lower margin merchants, and the expansion of relationships with existing ~~large~~ lower margin merchants. Payment Services revenue, ~~and~~net ~~price~~of ~~increases~~interchange ~~instituted~~fees, byis ~~the~~an alternative GAAP revenue recognition method that Concord believes is useful to investors because it enables comparison with certain industry peers. The transaction volume increase includes a 20.5% increase in PIN-debit card transactions, a 36.0% increase in EBT card transactions, and an 18.9% increase in credit ~~networks~~card and signature debit transactions at new and existing merchants.

~~Selling,~~Cost ~~general~~of ~~and~~operations ~~administrative~~increased ~~expenses~~in ~~decreased~~the asthird aquarter ~~percentage~~ of ~~revenue~~2003 to 671.07% ~~in the second quarter~~ of ~~2003~~revenue ~~from~~compared to 671.64% in the same period in 2002. Overall, ~~selling,~~cost ~~general~~of ~~and~~operations ~~administrative expenses~~ increased to $34421.49 million in the ~~second~~third quarter of 2003 from $32367.42 million in the same period in 2002. This increase was ~~attributable~~due to increased ~~sales~~transaction volumes that resulted in ~~commissions~~increased interchange fees of $48.5 million in Payment Services and ~~professional~~increased salary, benefits and depreciation. The increased interchange fees ~~offset~~as a percentage of revenue resulted from the addition of large lower margin merchants, the expansion of relationships with existing large lower margin merchants, and price increases instituted by ~~reduced~~the ~~marketing~~debit ~~expenses~~and credit networks.

~~Merger~~Selling, ~~acquisition,~~general ~~restructuring~~ and ~~write-off~~administrative ~~charges~~expenses decreased as a percentage of revenue to $5.68% ~~million~~ in the ~~second~~third quarter of 2003 from ~~$29~~6.01% ~~million~~ in the same period in 2002. ~~The~~Overall, selling, ~~charges~~general ~~incurred~~and inadministrative ~~the~~expenses ~~second~~increased ~~quarter~~to ~~of 2003 included~~ $634.1 million ~~representing~~ ~~professional~~in ~~fees related to~~ the ~~First~~third ~~Data~~quarter ~~merger~~of ~~offset~~2003 byfrom a $031.52 million ~~change~~ in ~~estimate related to our first and second quarter 2002 consolidation plans. The charges incurred in~~ the same period in 2002 ~~included $16~~.8 ~~million~~This ~~for contract~~increase ~~terminations,~~was ~~$4.1~~attributable ~~million~~to ~~for~~increased ~~exiting~~salary ~~a non-strategic business,~~ and ~~$8.1~~sales ~~million~~commissions ~~for~~offset ~~other~~by ~~activities~~reduced marketing expenses.

~~There~~Merger, ~~were~~acquisition, norestructuring ~~litigation~~and ~~settlement~~write-off charges were $9.5 million in the ~~second~~third quarter of 2003. ~~Such~~There were no such charges in the same period in 2002 ~~amounted to $20~~.8 ~~million~~The ~~and~~charges ~~represent credits~~incurred ~~and payments to merchants and former merchants, legal expenses, and claims administration expenses~~ in ~~connection~~the ~~with~~third aquarter ~~settlement~~of ~~agreement~~2003 ~~relating~~represent toprofessional afees ~~purported class action lawsuit alleging that certain rate~~ and ~~fee~~other ~~charges~~costs ~~were improper~~related ~~under Tennessee law due~~ to ~~allegedly~~the ~~deficient~~First ~~notice~~Data merger.

~~Operating~~- ~~income~~32 as a percentage of revenue increased to 19.1% in the second quarter of 2003 from 15.2% in the same period in 2002. This increase was due to a decrease of $23.4 million in merger, acquisition, restructuring, and write-~~off charges~~ ~~and a decrease of $20.8 million in litigation settlement charges, offset by the addition of lower margin revenue from large merchants.~~

Net investment income decreased as a percentage of revenue to 2.2% in the second quarter of 2003 from 3.4% in the same period in 2002. Overall, net investment income decreased 25.5% to $12.6 million in the second

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

There were no litigation settlement charges in the third quarter of 2003. ~~compared~~We toreduced our litigation settlement charges by $1611.80 million in the ~~same~~third ~~period~~quarter inof 2002. ~~This~~The ~~decrease~~charges ~~resulted~~represent ~~from~~credits ~~lower~~and ~~rates~~payments ofto ~~return~~merchants and ~~less~~former ~~cash~~merchants, ~~available~~legal ~~for investment~~expenses, ~~due~~and claims administration expenses in connection with a settlement agreement relating to ~~the~~a ~~repurchase~~purported class ~~during~~action ~~the~~lawsuit ~~third~~alleging that certain rate and ~~fourth~~fee ~~quarters~~charges inwere ~~2002~~improper ofunder ~~$393.5~~Tennessee ~~million~~law ofdue ~~our~~to ~~common~~allegedly ~~stock~~deficient notice.

~~Other~~Operating income ~~increased~~ as a percentage of revenue decreased to 220.09% in the ~~second~~third quarter of 2003 from 124.36% in the same period in 2002. This ~~increase~~decrease was due to an increase of ~~increased~~$9.5 ~~gain~~million onin 2003 merger, acquisition, restructuring, and write-off charges and the ~~sale~~reversal of ~~securities~~$11.0 million in ~~the~~litigation ~~second~~settlement ~~quarter~~charges ofin ~~2003~~2002.

~~Our~~Net ~~overall~~investment ~~tax~~income ~~rate~~decreased ~~was~~as 35a percentage of revenue to 1.8% in the third quarter of 2003 from 3.4% in the same period in 2002. Overall, net investment income decreased 40.0% to $10.6 million in the ~~second~~third quarter of ~~both~~2003 compared to $17.6 million in the same period in 2002. This decrease resulted from lower rates of return and less cash available for investment due to the repurchase of our common stock during the third quarter in 2003 of $306.3 million and during the third and fourth quarters in 2002 of $393.5 million.

~~Net~~Other income increased as a percentage of revenue ~~increased~~ to ~~15.~~1.2% in the ~~second~~third quarter of 2003 from 120.92% in the same period in 2002. ~~The~~This ~~components~~increase was due to increased gain on the sale of ~~this~~securities ~~increase~~in ~~are~~the ~~explained~~third ~~above~~quarter of 2003.

~~Six~~Our ~~months~~overall ~~ended~~tax ~~June~~rate ~~30,~~was 34.0% in the third quarter of 2003 compared to 35.0% in 2002. This decrease was due to a reassessment of our effective tax rate based on filing our 2002 federal and state tax returns in the third quarter of 2003.

~~Revenue~~Net ~~increased~~income ~~19.8%~~as toa ~~$1.1~~percentage ~~billion in the six months ended June 30, 2003 from $909.9 million in the same period~~ of ~~2002. In the six months ended June 30, 2003 Network Services accounted for 29.3% of~~ revenue, ~~and~~decreased ~~Payment~~to ~~Services accounted for 70~~15.7%. ~~Network~~in ~~Services revenue increased 6.3% over~~ the ~~same~~third ~~period~~quarter ~~in 2002. This increase was attributable to a 10.8% increase in transaction volumes that was offset by increased amortization~~ of ~~capitalized~~2003 ~~customer payments and favorable buyout and other fees in the six months ended June 30, 2002. The increased transaction volumes~~ from ~~new and existing network and processing customers resulted from a 19~~ 18.13% ~~increase~~ in ~~STAR network POS transactions. Revenue from Payment Services increased 26.5% over~~ the same period in 2002~~, due to interchange fee price increases and a 30~~.1% ~~increase~~The incomponents ~~transaction volumes, offset by price compression. Interchange fees in the six months ended June 30, 2003 increased 38.1% or $137.4 million. Payment Services revenue, net~~ of ~~interchange fees, increased 9.6% or $23.8 million during~~ this ~~period~~decrease ~~due~~are toexplained ~~transaction growth from the addition of large lower margin merchants and the expansion of relationships with existing lower margin merchants~~above. Payment Services revenue, net of interchange fees, is an alternative GAAP revenue recognition method that Concord believes is useful to investors because it enables comparison with certain industry peers. The transaction volume increase is the weighted average of a 30.6% increase in PIN-debit card transactions, a 31.5% increase in EBT card transactions, a 26.6% increase in credit card and signature debit transactions, and a 91.4% increase in other card transactions at new and existing merchants.

~~Cost~~Nine ~~of operations increased in the six~~ months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 ~~to 73.3% of revenue~~ compared to ~~67.5% in the same period in~~ 2002. Overall, cost of operations increased to $798.8 million in the six months ended June 30, 2003 from $613.8 million in the same period in 2002. This increase was due to increased depreciation and amortization, the write-off of excess supplies inventory, and increased transaction volumes that resulted in increased interchange fees in Payment Services. The increased interchange fees as a percentage of revenue resulted from the addition of large lower margin merchants, the expansion of relationships with existing large lower margin merchants, and price increases instituted by the debit and credit networks.

~~Selling,~~Revenue increased ~~general~~17.8% ~~and~~to ~~administrative~~$1,678.4 ~~expenses~~million ~~decreased~~in asthe anine ~~percentage~~months ofended ~~revenue~~September to30, 6.2003 from $1%,424.3 million in the ~~six~~same period of 2002. In the nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 ~~from~~Network 6Services accounted for 29.31% inof revenue, and Payment Services accounted for 70.9%. Network Services revenue increased 7.1% over the same period in 2002. ~~Overall~~This increase was attributable to an 11.7% increase in transaction volumes, ~~selling~~the full year impact of prior year acquisitions, ~~general~~increased ~~and~~non-transaction processing ~~administrative~~fees, ~~expenses~~offset by increased toamortization ~~$66~~of capitalized customer payments.3 ~~million~~The inincreased ~~the~~transaction ~~six~~volumes ~~months~~from ~~ended~~new ~~June~~and ~~30,~~existing ~~2003~~network and processing customers resulted from ~~$57~~a 17.18% ~~million~~increase in STAR network POS transactions. Revenue from Payment Services increased 22.9% over the same period in 2002., ~~This~~due ~~increase was attributable~~ to ~~increased~~interchange ~~sales~~fee ~~commissions~~price increases and ~~professional~~ ~~fees~~a 27.4% increase in transaction volumes, offset by price

~~Merger,~~- ~~acquisition,~~33 ~~restructuring and write~~-~~off~~ ~~charges decreased to $7.9 million in the six months ended June 30, 2003 from $76.5 million in the same period in 2002. The charges incurred in the six months ended~~

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

~~June~~ compression. Interchange fees in the nine months ended September 30, 2003 ~~included~~increased 32.0% or $8185.9 million. ~~representing~~Payment ~~professional~~Services revenue, net of interchange fees, ~~related~~increased 9.2% or $35.7 million during this period due to transaction growth from the ~~First~~addition ~~Data~~of ~~merger~~large ~~offset~~lower bymargin amerchants $1and the expansion of relationships with existing lower margin merchants.0 ~~million~~Payment ~~change~~Services inrevenue, ~~estimate~~net ~~related~~of tointerchange ~~our~~fees, ~~first~~is ~~and~~an ~~second~~alternative ~~quarter~~GAAP ~~2002~~revenue ~~consolidation~~recognition ~~plans.~~method ~~The~~that ~~charges~~Concord ~~incurred~~believes inis ~~the~~useful ~~same~~to ~~period~~investors inbecause ~~2002~~it ~~included~~enables ~~$24.1~~comparison ~~million~~with ~~for~~certain ~~the~~industry ~~write-off~~peers. ofThe ~~non-performing~~transaction ~~purchased~~volume ~~merchant~~increase ~~contracts,~~includes ~~$16~~a 26.8% ~~million~~increase ~~for~~in ~~contract~~PIN-debit ~~terminations~~card transactions, $7a 33.91% ~~million for~~increase ~~the~~in ~~write-off~~EBT ofcard ~~capitalized~~transactions, ~~software~~ and ~~equipment~~a no23.8% ~~longer~~increase in ~~use,~~credit card and ~~$27.7~~signature ~~million~~debit ~~for~~transactions ~~other~~at ~~activities~~new and existing merchants.

~~There~~Cost ~~were~~of nooperations ~~litigation~~increased ~~settlement charges~~ in the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 to 72.7% ~~Such~~of ~~charges~~revenue compared to 68.9% in the same period in 2002. ~~amounted~~Overall, cost of operations increased to $201,220.8 million ~~and represent~~in ~~credits~~the ~~and~~nine ~~payments~~months ended September 30, 2003 from $981.0 million in the same period in 2002. This increase was due to ~~merchants~~increased transaction volumes that resulted in increased interchange fees of $185.9 million in Payment Services, increased depreciation, increased assessments and ~~former~~other ~~merchants~~pass through fees, ~~legal~~increased ~~expenses~~salary and benefits, and ~~claims~~the ~~administration~~write-off ~~expenses~~of inexcess ~~connection~~supplies ~~with~~inventory. aThe ~~settlement~~increased ~~agreement~~interchange ~~relating~~fees toas a ~~purported~~percentage ~~class~~of ~~action~~revenue ~~lawsuit~~resulted ~~alleging~~from ~~that~~the ~~certain~~addition of ~~rate~~large ~~and~~lower ~~fee~~margin ~~charges were~~merchants, ~~improper~~the ~~under~~expansion ~~Tennessee~~of ~~law~~relationships ~~due~~with toexisting ~~allegedly~~large ~~deficient~~lower ~~notice~~margin merchants, and price increases instituted by the debit and credit networks.

~~Operating~~Selling, ~~income~~general and administrative expenses decreased as a percentage of revenue ~~increased~~ to 196.90% in the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 from 15 6.52% in the same period in 2002. ~~This~~Overall, ~~increase~~selling, ~~was~~general ~~due~~and toadministrative aexpenses ~~decrease~~increased ofto $68100.64 million in ~~merger,~~the ~~acquisition,~~nine ~~restructuring,~~months ~~and write-off~~ended ~~charges~~September ~~and~~30, a2003 ~~decrease~~from of $2088.84 million in ~~litigation~~the ~~settlement~~same ~~charges,~~period ~~offset~~in by2002. ~~the~~This ~~addition~~increase ofwas ~~lower~~attributable ~~margin~~to ~~revenue~~increased salary, ~~from~~sales ~~large~~commissions ~~merchants~~and professional fees, offset by reduced marketing expenses.

~~Net~~Merger, ~~investment~~acquisition, ~~income~~restructuring ~~decreased~~and aswrite-off acharges ~~percentage~~decreased ~~of revenue~~ to 2$17.3%4 million in the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 from 3$76.7%5 million in the same period in 2002. ~~Overall,~~The charges incurred in the nine months ~~net~~ended ~~investment~~September ~~income~~30, ~~decreased~~2003 25included $18.3%4 million representing professional fees and other costs related to the First Data merger offset by a $241.90 million change in ~~the~~estimate ~~six~~related ~~months~~to ~~ended~~our ~~June~~first ~~30,~~and ~~2003~~second ~~compared~~quarter to2002 ~~$33~~consolidation plans.3 ~~million~~The charges incurred in the same period in 2002. ~~This~~included ~~decrease~~$24.1 ~~resulted~~million ~~from~~for ~~lower~~the ~~rates~~write-off of ~~return~~non-performing ~~and~~purchased ~~less~~merchant ~~cash~~contracts, ~~available~~$16.8 million for ~~investment~~contract ~~due~~terminations, to$7.9 ~~the repurchase~~million ~~during~~for the ~~third~~write-off of capitalized software and ~~fourth~~equipment ~~quarters~~no longer in use, ~~2002~~and of $~~393~~27.57 million offor ~~our~~other ~~common stock~~activities.

~~Other~~There ~~income~~were ~~increased~~no aslitigation settlement acharges ~~percentage of revenue to 1.0%~~ in the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003. ~~from~~Such ~~0.7%~~charges in the same period in 2002 amounted to $9.8 ~~This~~million ~~increase~~and ~~was~~represent ~~due~~credits and payments to ~~increased~~merchants ~~gain~~and onformer ~~the~~merchants, ~~sale~~legal ofexpenses, ~~securities~~and claims administration expenses in ~~the~~connection ~~six~~with ~~months ended~~a ~~June~~settlement ~~30,~~agreement ~~2003.~~relating to a purported class action lawsuit alleging that

~~Our~~- ~~overall~~34 ~~tax~~- ~~rate decreased to 35.0% in the six months ended June 30, 2003 compared to 35.2% in the same period in 2002.~~

NetTable income as a percentage of revenue increased to 15.0% in the six months ended June 30, 2003 from 12.9% in the same period in 2002. The components of this increase are explained above. Contents

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

certain rate and fee charges were improper under Tennessee law due to allegedly deficient notice.

Operating income as a percentage of revenue increased to 20.2% in the nine months ended September 30, 2003 from 18.8% in the same period in 2002. This increase was due to a decrease of $59.1 million in merger, acquisition, restructuring, and write-off charges and a decrease of $9.8 million in litigation settlement charges, offset by the addition of lower margin revenue from large merchants.

Net investment income decreased as a percentage of revenue to 2.1% in the nine months ended September 30, 2003 from 3.6% in the same period in 2002. Overall, net investment income decreased 30.4% to $35.5 million in the nine months ended September 30, 2003 compared to $50.9 million in the same period in 2002. This decrease resulted from lower rates of return and less cash available for investment due to the repurchase of our common stock during the third quarter in 2003 of $306.3 million and during the third and fourth quarters in 2002 of $393.5 million.

Other income increased as a percentage of revenue to 1.1% in the nine months ended September 30, 2003 from 0.6% in the same period in 2002. This increase was due to increased gain on the sale of securities in the nine months ended September 30, 2003.

Our overall tax rate decreased to 34.6% in the nine months ended September 30, 2003 compared to 35.1% in the same period in 2002.

Net income as a percentage of revenue increased to 15.3% in the nine months ended September 30, 2003 from 14.9% in the same period in 2002. The components of this increase are explained above.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

In the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 we generated cash of $~~540~~346.93 million from operating activities. Included in this amount is $~~325~~21.64 million from the change in settlement receivables and payables. Fluctuations in settlement receivable and payable balances are affected by the timing of settlements. If the end of a reporting period occurs on a Saturday or Sunday, we are due cash from the credit card associations that is payable to our merchants. If the end of a reporting period occurs on a Monday, we hold multiple days of cash that is payable to our merchants. This may inflate the period-end cash balance and cash provided by operating activities on our cash flow statement. Conversely, cash provided by operating activities may be adversely affected for the next reporting period depending on what day of the week the reporting period ends. All settlement cash balances are cleared in one or two business days. Inclusion of settlement in GAAP cash flows is not indicative of cash provided by operating activities unless settlement receivable and payable amounts are consistent from period to period.

We- ~~generally hold~~35 a- ~~significant amount of cash and securities because of the capital requirements of banking regulators and because of the liquidity requirements associated with conducting settlement operations~~

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

We generally hold a significant amount of cash and securities because of the capital requirements of banking regulators and because of the liquidity requirements associated with conducting settlement operations and owning ATM machines. During the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003, we liquidated $~~119~~182.80 million in securities available for sale, net of acquisitions due to market conditions and the repurchase of our common stock. As of ~~June~~ September 30, 2003, we held securities with a market value of $1932.01 ~~billion~~million, including $~~172~~184.92 million pledged as collateral for Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) advances. We invested $5479.61 million in the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 in capital expenditures, which were for capitalized and purchased software and computer facilities and equipment.

We have historically financed our operations through net cash provided by operating activities, the issuance of equity, and the exercise of stock options. Our last public offering of common stock occurred in June 2001 when we received $420.6 million, net of underwriting and other expenses, for the 17.8 million shares of common stock we issued and sold. Proceeds from the exercise of stock options has decreased from historical amounts due to the per share market value of our common stock.

As of ~~June~~September 30, 2003, we had a line of credit with a financial institution totaling $20.0 million and no amounts were outstanding on this line of credit. ~~This line of credit expired on July 1, 2003.~~ As of ~~June~~September 30, 2003, we had $~~165~~149.18 million of advances outstanding to, and $1018.72 million in unused lines of credit with, the FHLB. In the ~~six~~nine months ended ~~June~~September 30, 2003 we paid $3248.93 million on FHLB advances, net of proceeds.

During the third and fourth quarters of 2002, we announced that our Board of Directors approved the repurchase of up to $500.0 million of our common stock. On July 29, 2003 we announced that our Board of Directors approved the repurchase of an additional $200.0 million of our common stock. Under the repurchase plan, we may buy back shares of our outstanding stock from time to time either on the open market or through privately negotiated transactions. The Board’s approvals bring the total approved repurchase to $700.0 million. Due to the imposition of a ~~blackout~~ blackout period during and following the negotiation and execution of the merger agreement with First Data and our fourth quarter 2002 earnings release, there were no shares repurchased during the ~~six~~first ~~months~~and ~~ended~~second ~~June~~quarters ~~30,~~of 2003. During the third quarter of 2003, we repurchased a total of 21.8 million shares at an aggregate cost of $306.3 million.

During the second quarter of 2003, we entered into amended and restated agreements for the financing, construction and leasing of a new corporate headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. These agreements amend the previous agreements entered into during the third quarter of 2002 for the Memphis facility to include leasing existing facilities in Wilmington, Delaware, and Marietta, Georgia that were covered under other leasing agreements. The agreements qualify for operating lease accounting treatment under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 13, “Accounting For Leases,” and, as such, the related assets and obligations are not recorded on our balance sheet. Upon completion of construction of the Memphis facility, which is expected in ~~the fourth quarter of 2003, rent payments will begin and will be expensed in our statements of income. The~~ minimum lease payments under these agreements are not material to us. At the end of the lease term, we have options that include the renewal of the leases and fixed-price purchase options on the land and facilities. We have guaranteed the residual value of the land and facilities at the end of the lease term to the owner / lessor for each facility. Under these guarantees, we would be responsible for a decline in fair value during the lease term up to an estimated maximum amount if we do not exercise our option to acquire the land and facilities at the end of the term of the leases. The following table summarizes the guarantees and certain aspects of the agreements:

PropertyLocation	LeaseExpiration	Renewal Optionat Expiration	Value Guaranteedat Expiration	Total CostFinanced
Wilmington, DE	Jan 2010	One five-year term	$12.5 million	$15.0 million
Marietta, GA	Jan 2010	One five-year term	$16.7 million	$20.0 million
Memphis, TN	Jan 2010	One five-year term	$45.9 million	$55.0 million

- 36 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

the fourth quarter of 2003, rent payments will begin and will be expensed in our statements of income. The minimum annual lease payments under these agreements are not material to us. At the end of the lease term, we have options that include the renewal of the leases and fixed-price purchase options on the land and facilities. We have guaranteed the residual value of the land and facilities at the end of the lease term to the owner / lessor for each facility. Under these guarantees, we would be responsible for a decline in fair value during the lease term up to an estimated maximum amount if we do not exercise our option to acquire the land and facilities at the end of the term of the leases. The following table summarizes the guarantees and certain aspects of the agreements:

Property Location	Lease Expiration	Renewal Option at Expiration	Value Guaranteed at Expiration	Total Cost Financed
Wilmington, DE	Jan. 2010	One five-year term	$12.5 million	$15.0 million
Marietta, GA	Jan. 2010	One five-year term	$16.7 million	$20.0 million
Memphis, TN	Jan. 2010	One five-year term	$45.9 million	$55.0 million

Based on current market conditions, we do not expect to be required to make payments under these residual value guarantees.

26We are actively pursuing the renewal of our most significant Network Services customer contracts that would, if not renewed, terminate on December 31, 2004. These contracts accounted in 2002 for less than $100.0 million in revenue. There can be no assurance that such customer contracts will be renewed. We may be required to make material expenditures in order to secure the renewals. As negotiations of certain contract renewals are ongoing, we cannot currently predict the aggregate amount of such expenditures.

We and certain of our directors and certain of our officers have been named as defendants in a number of securities fraud class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions. In addition, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of seven states and the District of Columbia have filed a complaint challenging our proposed merger with First Data. We are also party to lawsuits in the normal course of our business. Litigation can be expensive, lengthy, and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict. An unfavorable resolution or settlement of a particular lawsuit could have an adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition.

Pursuant to the terms of a change of control agreement with an unaffiliated third party, we will be required, upon the consummation of the proposed merger with First Data, to make a payment of $5.0 million to that party, plus an additional $5.0 million depending on the amount of certain revenues during the six-month period immediately preceding the merger.

- 37 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS~~—(Continued)~~

We are actively pursuing the renewal of our most significant Network Services customer contracts that would, if not renewed, terminate on December 31, 2004. These contracts accounted in 2002 for less than $100.0 million in revenue. There can be no assurance that such customer contracts will be renewed. We may be required to make material expenditures in order to secure the renewals. As negotiations of most of the renewals are in the early stages, we cannot currently predict the amount, if any, of such expenditures.

We and certain of our directors and certain of our officers have been named as defendants in a number of securities fraud class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions. Also, we are party to lawsuits in the normal course of our business. Litigation can be expensive, lengthy, and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict. An unfavorable resolution or settlement of a particular lawsuit could have an adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition.

In our agreement and plan of merger with First Data, we are obligated to pay a termination fee of $210.0 million under certain terms and conditions in the event the agreement is terminated.

We believe that our cash and cash equivalents, securities, available credit (unused lines of credit with the FHLB and the line of credit with a financial institution), and cash generated from operations are adequate to meet our capital and operating needs. Concord EFS National Bank, our wholly owned financial institution subsidiary, exceeded all required regulatory capital ratios as of ~~June~~September 30, 2003.

Effects of Inflation

Our assets are monetary, consisting of cash, assets convertible into cash, securities, and receivables. Because of their liquidity, these assets are not significantly affected by inflation; however, earnings and asset values are impacted by the interest rate environment. We believe that anticipated replacement costs of software, facilities, and equipment will not materially affect operations. However, the rate of inflation affects our expenses, such as those for employee compensation and telecommunications, which may not be readily recoverable in the price of our services.

27- 38 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

Item 3.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

As of ~~June~~September 30, 2003, there were no changes with regard to market risk that would require further quantitative or qualitative disclosure. For our quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, refer to Exhibit 13 to our annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 27, 2003.

28- 39 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Item 4.

Controls and Procedures

Based on their evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, our Co-Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) are effective. There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) identified in connection with the evaluation required by Rule 13a-15(d) of the Exchange Act that occurred during the period covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

29- 40 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time we are involved in various litigation matters arising out of the conduct of our business. Previously pending matters that are material to us were reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 filed on March 27, 2003, ~~and~~ our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 filed on May 9, 2003., and our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 filed on August 11, 2003. There were no material developments in the litigation matters previously disclosed except for the developments discussed below.

AsOn ~~previously~~October ~~disclosed~~23, ~~a purported~~2003 ~~securities~~the ~~class~~Antitrust ~~action~~Division of the Department of Justice and ~~two~~the ~~purported~~Attorneys ~~stockholder~~General ~~derivative~~of ~~actions~~the ~~are~~states ~~pending~~of ~~against~~Connecticut, usIllinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Texas and ~~certain~~the District of ~~our~~Columbia ~~current~~filed ~~and~~a ~~former~~complaint ~~officers~~in ~~and~~the ~~directors,~~United asStates ~~well~~District asCourt ~~other~~for ~~defendants~~the District of Columbia challenging the proposed merger of Concord and First Data. The ~~following~~complaint ~~table~~alleges ~~lists~~that ~~certain~~the ~~information~~merger ~~with~~would likely ~~respect~~substantially tolessen ~~these~~competition ~~actions,~~in asthe provision of ~~July~~PIN 22debit network services in violation of the Clayton Act. The complaint seeks an order permanently enjoining Concord and First Data from consummating the proposed merger, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief the court deems just and proper. This case has been set for trial on December 15, 2003:.

Name of Proceeding	Filing Date†	Type of Case
In re Concord EFS, Inc. Derivative Litigation	September 9, 2002*	Derivative
In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation	September 6, 2002**	Securities Fraud
In re Concord EFS, Inc. Derivative Litigation	September 13, 2002**	Derivative

As a result of this complaint, we may be unable to obtain the regulatory approvals required to complete the merger or, in order to obtain the necessary approval, the combined company may be required to comply with material restrictions or conditions. Denial or condition of such regulatory approvals could result in loss or disadvantage to us. Although this matter is in the preliminary stages, we believe that the claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against all claims.

†As ~~For~~previously ~~consolidated matters~~disclosed, ~~the~~a ~~filing~~purported ~~date~~securities ~~represents~~class ~~the~~action ~~date~~and ontwo ~~which~~purported ~~the~~stockholder ~~first~~derivative ~~component~~actions ~~case~~are ~~was~~pending ~~filed~~against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors, as well as other defendants. The following table lists certain information with respect to these actions, as of October 23, 2003:

Name of Proceeding	Filing Date +	Type of Case
In re Concord EFS, Inc. Derivative Litigation	September 9, 2002 *	Derivative
In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation	September 6, 2002 **	Securities Fraud
In re Concord EFS, Inc. Derivative Litigation	September 13, 2002 **	Derivative

+	For consolidated matters, the filing date represents the date on which the first component case was filed.

*	Pending in Tennessee state court in Memphis (Circuit Court)

**	Pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

- 41 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.

Legal Proceedings, continued

All of the above lawsuits raise allegations relating to our financial performance between March 2001 and September 2002, changes in the price of our common stock during that time, alleged failures to disclose material facts, and alleged insider trading and breaches of fiduciary duties by certain officers and certain directors. On April 21, 2003 the plaintiffs in the Tennessee state court derivative action filed a consolidated complaint which adds allegations that the defendants arranged the proposed merger with First Data at a below market price in return for indemnification against alleged prior wrong doing and for other benefits to them personally. The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief. In addition, the Tennessee state court derivative action seeks an injunction against the proposed merger.

On April 1, 2003 we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed in federal court in In re Concord EFS, Inc. Derivative Litigation. This motion was fully briefed as of May 30, 2003, but has yet to be ruled on by the court.

On May 2, 2003 we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the lead plaintiffs in In re Concord EFS, Inc. Securities Litigation. This motion was fully briefed as of June 25, 2003, but has yet to be ruled on by the court.

On June 20, 2003 we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint filed in Tennessee state court in In re Concord EFS, Inc. Derivative Litigation. This motion has yet to be ruled on, but the court has permitted the plaintiffs to conduct limited, expedited discovery pertaining to the proposed merger. On October 27, 2003 the plaintiffs in this matter filed a motion to temporarily enjoin our shareholder vote on the proposed merger. This motion was denied by the court the same day.

Although these matters are in the preliminary stages, we believe that the claims against us and our directors and officers are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against all claims.

On orJuly ~~about~~30, ~~April~~2003 3John ~~and~~D’Eri 4,filed ~~2003~~a ~~two~~lawsuit ~~purported~~against ~~class~~Concord, ~~action~~National ~~complaints~~Payment ~~were~~Systems ~~filed~~Inc., and Concord Payment Systems (CPS) in ~~the~~New ~~Circuit~~York State Supreme Court. ofThe ~~Tennessee~~plaintiff ~~for~~was the ~~Thirtieth~~principal ~~Judicial~~of ~~District~~a atbusiness ~~Memphis~~that byhad ~~Charles~~contracted ~~Reed~~to ~~and~~have ~~Coralyn~~CPS ~~Stransky~~provide credit card processing services. ~~The~~CPS ~~defendants~~has inunsuccessfully ~~these~~sought ~~actions~~to ~~are~~collect ~~certain~~$90,000 of ~~our~~the business’s ~~current~~unpaid ~~and~~obligations ~~former~~from ~~officers~~the ~~and~~plaintiff, ~~directors~~based upon his personal guaranty. The ~~complaints~~complaint ~~generally allege~~alleges ~~breaches~~claims of defamation and tortious interference, asserting that the ~~defendants’~~plaintiff ~~duty~~did ofnot ~~loyalty~~sign a guaranty and ~~due~~that ~~care~~CPS inwrongfully ~~connection~~reported ~~with~~his failure to honor the ~~defendants’~~guaranty ~~alleged~~to ~~attempt~~credit rating agencies. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $10.0 million and to compel CPS to withdraw its report to the credit rating agencies. On October 13, 2003 we answered the complaint, denying the allegations and asserting

30- 42 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION~~—(Continued)~~

~~sell~~Item Concord without maximizing the value to shareholders in order to advance the defendants’ alleged individual interests in obtaining indemnification agreements related to the securities and other derivative litigation discussed above1. ~~The~~Legal ~~complaints seek class certification~~Proceedings, injunctive relief directing the defendants’ conduct in connection with an alleged sale or auction of Concord, reasonable attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and other costs and relief the court deems just and proper. These complaints were consolidated into one action (In Re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholder Litigation) and transferred to the division of the Shelby County Circuit Court in which the Tennessee consolidated state-court derivative action (In Re Concord EFS, Inc. Derivative Litigation, filed September 9, 2002) is pending. Although these matters are in the preliminary stages, we believe that the claims against our officers and directors are without merit and we intend to vigorously contest these claims. continued

~~On or about April 2, 2003 a purported class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, by Barton K. O’Brien. The~~ ~~defendants~~counterclaims ~~are~~against ~~Concord, certain of our current and former officers and directors, and First Data. The complaint contains allegations regarding~~ the individual defendants’ alleged insider trading and alleged violations of securities and other laws and asserts that this alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to our shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and First Dataplaintiff. The complaint seeks class certification, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs and other relief the court deems just and proper. The complaint seeks an order enjoining consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is consummated and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to members of the putative class, and directing the defendants to account to the putative class members for unspecified damages. On June 25, 2003 this complaint was transferred to the Shelby County Circuit Court in which In Re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholder Litigation is pending. This complaint is proceeding as a separate complaint from In re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholder Litigation but has been consolidated with that case for pre-trial purposes. Although this matter is in the preliminary stages, we believe that the claims against us are without merit and we intend to vigorously ~~contest~~defend ~~these~~against all claims.

~~As previously~~On ~~disclosed, on~~ April 130, 2003 weGlobal ~~entered~~Marketing, LLC ~~into~~(Global) aand ~~definitive~~Martin ~~agreement~~Fischer ~~with~~filed ~~First Data to merge in~~ an ~~all-stock~~amended ~~transaction.~~complaint ~~The~~naming ~~transaction~~CPS isas ~~subject~~a todefendant ~~regulatory~~in ~~approval~~a bylawsuit ~~the~~first ~~Antitrust~~filed ~~Division~~on ofAugust ~~the~~28, ~~Department~~2002 ofin ~~Justice~~New ~~and~~York ~~certain state~~State ~~Attorneys~~Supreme ~~General~~Court. ~~These~~The ~~agencies~~plaintiffs ~~are~~allege ~~investigating~~that ~~the~~CPS ~~transaction~~engaged ~~for~~in ~~possible~~unfair ~~antitrust~~competition ~~concerns.~~and ~~The~~tortious ~~Department~~interference by ofallegedly ~~Justice~~hiring ~~issued~~ a ~~Request~~former ~~for~~employee ~~Additional~~of ~~Information~~Global and ~~Documentary~~then ~~Materials~~allegedly tousing ustrade onsecrets ~~June~~that ~~12,~~the ~~2003.~~employee Wemisappropriated ~~are~~from ~~endeavoring~~Global. ~~to comply~~The ~~with~~complaint ~~that~~seeks ~~request~~damages asin ~~quickly~~the asamount ~~possible~~of $4.0 Wemillion ~~may~~for beunspecified ~~unable~~losses. toOn ~~obtain~~July ~~the~~31, ~~regulatory~~2003 ~~approvals~~CPS ~~required~~answered tothe complaint, ~~complete~~denying the ~~merger or~~allegations, inasserting ~~order~~that toit dohad ~~so,~~never ~~the~~hired ~~combined~~or ~~company~~otherwise ~~may~~had becontact ~~required to comply~~ with ~~material~~the ~~restrictions~~individual orin ~~conditions~~question. Although wethis ~~anticipate~~matter ~~that~~is ~~antitrust~~in ~~regulatory clearance will be achieved within~~ the ~~second~~preliminary ~~half of this year~~stages, ~~delay,~~we ~~denial~~believe orthat ~~condition~~the ofclaims ~~such~~are ~~clearance~~without ~~could~~merit ~~result~~and inwe ~~loss~~intend orto vigorously ~~disadvantage~~defend toagainst usall claims.

On ~~November~~or 5,about ~~2002~~April ~~Richard~~3 R.and ~~Sutherland~~4, ~~filed~~2003 atwo purported ~~lawsuit~~class ~~against~~action acomplaints ~~number~~were ~~of defendants,~~filed ~~including~~in ~~Concord~~the ~~EFS~~Circuit ~~National~~Court ~~Bank~~of inTennessee for the ~~Superior~~Thirtieth ~~Court~~Judicial ofDistrict ~~California,~~at ~~County~~Memphis ofby ~~Santa~~Charles ~~Clara~~Reed and Coralyn Stransky. The ~~plaintiff~~defendants ~~makes~~in ~~several~~those ~~allegations,~~actions ~~including~~were ~~breach~~certain of ~~contract,~~our ~~fraud~~current and ~~negligent~~former ~~misrepresentation~~officers ~~arising~~and directors. ~~out~~The ofcomplaints ~~business transactions~~generally ~~between~~alleged breaches of the ~~plaintiff~~defendants’ ~~and~~duty ~~Purchase~~of ~~Plus~~loyalty ~~Buyers~~and ~~Group,~~due ancare ~~entity~~in ~~which~~connection ~~formerly~~with ~~processed~~the ~~credit~~defendants’ ~~card~~alleged ~~transactions~~attempt ~~through~~to sell Concord ~~EFS~~without ~~National~~maximizing ~~Bank.~~the ~~This~~value ~~lawsuit,~~to ~~for~~shareholders ~~which~~in weorder ~~were~~to ~~recently~~advance ~~served,~~the defendants’ ~~seeks~~alleged ~~compensatory~~individual ~~damages~~interests in obtaining indemnification agreements related to the securities and other derivative litigation discussed above. The complaints sought class certification, injunctive relief directing the ~~amount~~defendants’ conduct in connection with an alleged sale or auction of ~~$55~~Concord,~~000~~ reasonable attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and ~~punitive~~other ~~damages~~costs inand relief the ~~amount~~court ofdeems ~~$195~~just and proper.0 ~~million~~These complaints were consolidated into one action (In re Concord EFS, Inc. ~~Although~~Shareholder ~~this~~Litigation) ~~matter~~and istransferred into the ~~very~~division ~~preliminary~~of ~~stages,~~the weShelby ~~believe~~County ~~that~~Circuit Court in which the ~~claims~~Tennessee ~~are~~consolidated ~~without~~state-court ~~merit~~derivative ~~and~~action we(In ~~intend~~re toConcord ~~vigorously~~EFS, ~~contest~~Inc. ~~these~~Derivative ~~claims~~Litigation, filed September 9, 2002) is pending.

On ~~September~~or ~~30,~~about ~~2002~~April ~~Nancy~~2, ~~Canning~~2003 ~~filed~~an aadditional purported class action ~~lawsuit against~~complaint ~~Concord~~was filed in ~~New~~the ~~Jersey~~Chancery ~~state~~Court ~~court~~for Shelby County, Tennessee, by Barton K. O’Brien. The ~~plaintiff~~defendants ~~alleges~~were ~~that~~Concord, wecertain ~~wrongfully~~of ~~allowed~~our current and ~~facilitated~~former ~~surcharges~~officers onand ~~EBT~~directors, ~~withdrawals~~and atFirst ~~ATMs~~Data. ~~within~~This ~~our~~complaint ~~network.~~contained allegations ~~The~~regarding ~~plaintiff~~the individual defendants’s ~~four~~alleged ~~original~~insider ~~claims~~trading ~~were~~and ~~for~~alleged ~~violation~~violations of ~~N.J.S.A.~~securities and other laws and asserted that this alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to our shareholders in the proposed merger ~~44:10-75(c)~~between ~~(which~~Concord ~~concerns~~and ~~New~~First ~~Jersey~~Data. The complaint sought class certification, attorneys’s ~~EBT~~fees, ~~program)~~experts’ fees, ~~violation~~costs ofand ~~New~~other ~~Jersey’s~~relief ~~Consumer~~the ~~Fraud~~court ~~Act~~deems just and proper. Moreover, the complaint also sought an order enjoining consummation of the merger, rescinding the

31- 43 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION~~—(Continued)~~

~~negligence,~~Item ~~and breach of contract (as an alleged third-party beneficiary)~~1. ~~The~~Legal ~~plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all New Jersey public assistance recipients participating in the New Jersey EBT program who~~Proceedings, since March 24, 1997, withdrew their cash benefits from ATMs serviced and processed by Concord and incurred a surcharge per EBT withdrawal. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive and other relief. We moved to dismiss all four claims. At a hearing on March 7, 2003, the court found that the claim for violation of N.J.S.A. 44:10-75(c) should be dismissed with prejudice and that the claims for violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and breach of contract should be dismissed without prejudice, but the court denied our motion to dismiss as to the negligence claim. On April 6, 2003 Ms. Canning and Danielle Thomas filed an Amended Complaint alleging violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and negligence and seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive and other relief. Although this matter is in the preliminary stages, we believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against all claims. continued

On merger ~~October~~if ~~31,~~it ~~1996~~is ~~Commonwealth~~consummated ~~Savings~~and ~~Bank~~setting ~~(Commonwealth)~~it ~~filed~~aside aor ~~lawsuit~~awarding ~~against~~rescissory ~~CoreStates~~damages ~~Financial~~to ~~Corp.~~members ~~(CoreStates)~~of inthe putative class, and directing the ~~Court~~defendants ofto ~~Common~~account to ~~Pleas~~the ofputative ~~Chester~~class ~~County,~~members ~~Pennsylvania~~for unspecified damages. On ~~August~~June 625, ~~1997~~2003 ~~Commonwealth~~this ~~added~~complaint ~~MONEY~~was ~~ACCESS~~transferred ~~SERVICE~~to ~~INC.~~the ~~(MASI),~~Shelby aCounty ~~subsidiary~~Circuit ofCourt ~~ours,~~in aswhich aIn ~~defendant~~re ~~therein~~Concord EFS, ~~alleging~~Inc. ~~that~~Shareholder ~~MASI~~Litigation is ~~liable~~pending. toThrough ~~Commonwealth~~a ~~for~~court-ordered ansecond ~~amount~~amended consolidated incomplaint ~~excess~~filed ofSeptember ~~$3.6~~19, ~~million~~2003, ~~based~~this ~~on claims~~matter ~~arising~~was ~~out~~consolidated ofwith ~~alleged~~that ~~errors~~matter. inOn ~~the~~October ~~conversion~~15, of2003, ~~certain~~the ~~Meridian~~plaintiffs ~~Bank~~moved ~~branches~~for leave to ~~the~~file ~~MAC~~a ~~network~~third ~~and~~amended ~~MASI~~consolidated ~~processing~~complaint atsimilar to the ~~time~~previous complaints but also alleging that the ~~branches~~proxy ~~were~~statement ~~acquired~~disclosures byrelating ~~Commonwealth~~to ~~from~~the ~~CoreStates~~antitrust ~~and~~regulatory ~~CoreStates’~~approval ~~affiliates.~~process ~~Discovery~~were ~~is complete~~inadequate. ~~The~~On ~~court~~October ~~has~~17, ~~struck~~2003, ~~various~~the ~~reports~~plaintiffs ~~and~~filed ~~portions~~a ofmotion ~~reports~~for ~~submitted~~preliminary byinjunction ~~Commonwealth’s~~to ~~damages~~enjoin ~~experts.~~the Atshareholder avote ~~deposition~~on inthe ~~March~~proposed ~~2000,~~merger ~~Commonwealth’s~~and/or the ~~expert~~merger ~~testified~~itself. toThe acourt ~~damages~~denied ~~calculation~~the ofplaintiffs’ ~~$4.2~~motion ~~million.~~on OnOctober ~~November 15~~20, ~~2002~~ ~~CoreStates~~2003 ~~and~~but ~~MASI~~ordered ~~filed~~deposition ~~motions~~discovery ~~for~~on ~~partial~~an ~~summary~~expedited ~~judgment~~basis. onOn ~~all~~October ~~but~~27, 2003 the plaintiffs filed a ~~small~~renewed ~~part~~motion ofto ~~Commonwealth’s~~enjoin ~~remaining~~the ~~claim~~shareholder vote, which ~~were~~was denied onby the ~~April~~court ~~15,~~the ~~2003~~same day. ~~This~~Although ~~case~~this ~~has~~consolidated ~~been~~matter ~~set~~is ~~for~~still ~~trial~~ in ~~February~~the ~~2004.~~preliminary Westages, we believe that the claims ~~against~~ us are without merit and we intend to ~~continue to~~ vigorously ~~defend~~contest ~~against~~these ~~all~~ claims.

On November 5, 2002 Richard R. Sutherland filed a lawsuit against a number of defendants, including Concord EFS National Bank, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The plaintiff made several allegations, including breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation arising out of business transactions between the plaintiff and Purchase Plus Buyers Group, an entity which formerly processed credit card transactions through Concord EFS National Bank. This lawsuit sought compensatory damages in the amount of $55,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $195.0 million. Concord EFS National Bank filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the complaint. The court granted the motion on October 10, 2003 with leave to amend. Should the plaintiff file an amended complaint, we intend to vigorously contest the plaintiff’s claims.

On June 11, 2002 Walter E. Ryan and Ryco Development, Inc. filed a purported class action lawsuit against Concord EFS National Bank, Concord, and John Doe Corporations in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs alleged that we changed fees and charges without providing the requisite notice, charged merchants for transactions that never occurred, and failed to route payments in accordance with the plaintiffs’ instructions. The plaintiffs alleged fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and causes of action under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The class plaintiffs sought to certify consisted of all merchant customers of Concord EFS National Bank, Concord, or John Doe Corporations, who were subject to charges that were not fully disclosed on their statements, charges for transactions which the merchant never

- 44 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.

Legal Proceedings, continued

undertook, and/or charges in excess of the amount agreed upon in their contracts. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. We moved to dismiss all claims, the motion was granted by the court on August 13, 2003 and judgment was entered in favor of Concord EFS National Bank and Concord on August 19, 2003. On September 11, 2003 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. No briefing schedule has yet been set. We intend to vigorously defend this appeal.

On October 31, 1996 Commonwealth Savings Bank (Commonwealth) filed a lawsuit against CoreStates Financial Corp. (CoreStates) in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania. On August 6, 1997 Commonwealth added MONEY ACCESS SERVICE INC. (MASI), a subsidiary of ours, as a defendant therein, alleging that MASI is liable to Commonwealth for an amount in excess of $3.6 million based on claims arising out of alleged errors in the conversion of certain Meridian Bank branches to the MAC network and MASI processing at the time the branches were acquired by Commonwealth from CoreStates and CoreStates’ affiliates. Discovery is complete. The court has struck various reports and portions of reports submitted by Commonwealth’s damages experts. At a deposition in March 2000, Commonwealth’s expert testified to a damages calculation of $4.2 million. On November 15, 2002 CoreStates and MASI filed motions for partial summary judgment on all but a small part of Commonwealth’s remaining claim, which were denied on April 15, 2003. This case has been set for trial on February 2, 2004. On September 22, 2003, the court heard our motion in limine relating to expert testimony and requesting a Frye hearing but has not ruled on this motion. We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend against all claims.

We are also a party to various routine lawsuits arising out of the conduct of our business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition or results of operations.

- 45 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION

Item 4.

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

At ~~the~~a ~~annual~~special meeting of our ~~stockholders~~shareholders held on ~~May~~October 2228, 2003, our ~~stockholders~~shareholders elected to adopt the ~~following~~Agreement ~~nominees~~and toPlan ~~our~~of ~~Board~~Merger, dated as of ~~Directors~~April 1, 2003, among First Data Corporation, Monaco Subsidiary Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Data, and Concord EFS, Inc., with votes cast as follows: 294,532,600 shares for, 1,749,882 shares against, 2,749,971 abstentions, and no broker non-votes.

·- ~~Douglas~~46 C.- ~~Altenbern—392,944,256 shares for and 26,049,169 abstentions;~~

· J. Richard Buchignani—392,064,988 shares for and 26,928,437 abstentions;

· Richard M. Harter—387,801,562 shares for and 31,191,863 abstentions;

· Bond R. Isaacson—391,784,972 shares for and 27,208,453 abstentions;

· Richard P. Kiphart—329,518,211 shares for and 89,475,214 abstentions;

· Edward A. Labry III—395,535,637 shares for and 23,457,788 abstentions;

· Jerry D. Mooney—390,787,804 shares for and 28,205,621 abstentions;

· Dan M. Palmer—313,097,769 shares for and 105,895,391 abstentions;

· Shirley C. Raines—393,763,699 shares for and 25,229,726 abstentions;

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION~~—(Continued)~~

· George F. Raymond—393,692,318 shares for and 25,301,107 abstentions;

· Arthur N. Seessel III—390,801,626 shares for and 28,191,799 abstentions; and

· Paul L. Whittington—390,817,146 shares for and 28,176,279 abstentions.

There were no votes cast against any nominee, and there were no broker non-votes with respect to any nominee.

Item 6.

Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K

(a) Exhibits

ExhibitNo.		Description
Exhibit No.		Description
2.1		Agreement and Plan of Merger among Concord EFS, Inc., First Data Corporation and Monaco Subsidiary Corporation, dated as of April 1, 2003, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Concord’s current report on Form 8-K (File No. 001-31527), filed on April 2, 2003.
3.1		Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Concord EFS, Inc. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Concord’s registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-90678), filed on June 18, 2002.
3.2		Amended and Restated Bylaws of Concord EFS, Inc. are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Concord’s registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-74215), filed on March 10, 1999.
10.1		Employment Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2003, by and between Concord EFS, Inc. and Dan M. Palmer, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Concord’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q (File No. 001-31527), filed on May 9, 2003.
31.1		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
10.2		Employment Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2003, by and between Concord EFS, Inc. and Edward Labry, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Concord’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q (File No. 001-31527), filed on May 9, 2003.
31.2		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
10.3		Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated May 29, 2003, by and between Concord EFS, Inc. and Edward T. Haslam
31.3		Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
10.4		Amended and Restated Master Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, among Concord EFS, Inc., Concord Corporate Services, Inc. and certain other subsidiaries of Concord EFS, Inc. that may thereafter become party thereto, SunTrust Equity Funding, LLC, certain financial institutions parties thereto, and SunTrust Bank
32.1		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
10.5		Amended and Restated Master Lease Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, between SunTrust Equity Funding, LLC, and Concord EFS, Inc., Concord Corporate Services, Inc. and certain other subsidiaries of Concord EFS, Inc.
32.2		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
10.6		Amended and Restated Construction Agency Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, between SunTrust Equity Funding, LLC and Concord EFS, Inc.
32.3		Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
10.7		Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, among SunTrust Equity Funding, LLC, the financial institutions party thereto and SunTrust Bank
99.1		Cautionary Statements
10.8		Amended and Restated Guaranty Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, from Concord EFS, Inc.

33- 47 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

PART II

OTHER INFORMATION~~—(Continued)~~

ExhibitNo.		Description
10.9		Amended and Restated Subsidiary Guaranty Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, from Concord Corporate Services, Inc., Star Systems, LLC and the other entities that are signatories thereto as a Guarantor
31.1		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
31.2		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
31.3		Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
32.1		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
32.2		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
32.3		Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
99.1		Cautionary Statements

Item 6.

Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K, continued

(b) Reports on Form 8-K

On April 2, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to file, under Item 5 of that form, our agreement and plan of merger with First Data and the related press release.

On April 29, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to furnish, under Item 12 of that form, our press release containing earnings information for our first quarter of 2003 ended March 31, 2003.

On July 29, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to furnish, under Item 12 of that form, our press release containing earnings information for our second quarter of 2003 ended June 30, 2003.

34On October 23, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to furnish, under Item 12 of that form, our press release containing earnings information for our third quarter of 2003 ended September 30, 2003.

On October 23, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to file, under Item 5 of that form, our press release regarding the proposed merger with First Data Corporation.

On October 24, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to file, under Item 5 of that form, a press release issued by First Data Corporation and Concord EFS, Inc. regarding the complaint filed by the United States Department of Justice, seven states and the District of Columbia seeking to block the proposed merger of First Data Corporation and Concord EFS, Inc.

On October 24, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to file, under Item 5 of that form, the complaint filed on October 23, 2003 by the United States Department of Justice, seven states and the District of Columbia seeking to block the proposed merger of First Data Corporation and Concord EFS, Inc.

On October 24, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to file, under Item 5 of that form, our financial results for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2003.

On October 28, 2003 we filed a current report on Form 8-K to furnish, under Item 9 of that form, a press release announcing that our shareholders had approved a proposal to adopt the merger agreement entered into between Concord EFS, Inc., First Data Corporation and Monaco Subsidiary Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation.

- 48 -

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

	~~CONCORD EFS, INC.~~	CONCORD EFS, INC.
Date: August 11, 2003:	By:	/s/ DAN M. PALMER
Date: November 7, 2003		By:	/s/ DAN M. PALMER
		~~Dan M. Palmer Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)~~	Dan M. Palmer Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: August 11, 2003:	By:	/s/ BOND R. ISAACSON
Date: November 7, 2003		By:	/s/ BOND R. ISAACSON
		~~Bond R. Isaacson Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)~~	Bond R. Isaacson Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: August 11, 2003:	By:	/s/ EDWARD T. HASLAM
Date: November 7, 2003		By:	/s/ EDWARD T. HASLAM
		~~Edward T. Haslam Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)~~	Edward T. Haslam Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

35- 49 -

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

FORM 10-Q LISTING OF EXHIBITS

ExhibitNo.		Description
Exhibit No.		Description
2.1		Agreement and Plan of Merger among Concord EFS, Inc., First Data Corporation and Monaco Subsidiary Corporation, dated as of April 1, 2003, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Concord’s current report on Form 8-K (File No. 001-31527), filed on April 2, 2003.
3.1		Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Concord EFS, Inc. is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Concord’s registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-90678), filed on June 18, 2002.
3.2		Amended and Restated Bylaws of Concord EFS, Inc. are incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Concord’s registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-74215), filed on March 10, 1999.
10.1		Employment Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2003, by and between Concord EFS, Inc. and Dan M. Palmer, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Concord’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q (File No. 001-31527), filed on May 9, 2003.
10.2		Employment Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2003, by and between Concord EFS, Inc. and Edward Labry, is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Concord’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q (File No. 001-31527), filed on May 9, 2003.
10.3		Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated May 29, 2003, between Concord EFS, Inc. and Edward T. Haslam
10.4		Amended and Restated Master Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, among Concord EFS, Inc., Concord Corporate Services, Inc. and certain other subsidiaries of Concord EFS, Inc. that may thereafter become party thereto, SunTrust Equity Funding, LLC, certain financial institutions parties thereto, and SunTrust Bank
10.5		Amended and Restated Master Lease Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, between SunTrust Equity Funding, LLC, and Concord EFS, Inc., Concord Corporate Services, Inc. and certain other subsidiaries of Concord EFS, Inc.
10.6		Amended and Restated Construction Agency Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, between SunTrust Equity Funding, LLC and Concord EFS, Inc.
10.7		Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, among SunTrust Equity Funding, LLC, the financial institutions party thereto and SunTrust Bank
10.8		Amended and Restated Guaranty Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, from Concord EFS, Inc.
10.9		Amended and Restated Subsidiary Guaranty Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2003, from Concord Corporate Services, Inc., Star Systems LLC and the other entities that are signatories thereto as a Guarantor
31.1		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
31.2		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
31.3		Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
32.1		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
32.2		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
32.3		Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
99.1		Cautionary Statements

CONCORD EFS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

FORM 10-Q LISTING OF EXHIBITS—(Continued)

ExhibitNo.		Description
32.2		Certification of Co-Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
32.3		Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
99.1		Cautionary Statements

NetTable income as a percentage of revenue increased to 15.0% in the six months ended June 30, 2003 from 12.9% in the same period in 2002. The components of this increase are explained above. Contents

Table of Contents

Filing Compare · CONCORD EFS INC