LINCOLN NATIONAL CORP

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

1. Nature of Operations and Basis of Presentation

Nature of Operations

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries (“LNC” or the “Company,” which also may be referred to as “we,” “our” or “us”) operate multiple insurance businesses through four business segments: Annuities, Life Insurance, Group Protection and Retirement Plan Services. In addition, we include financial results for operations that are not directly related to our business segments in Other Operations. The collective group of businesses uses “Lincoln Financial” as its marketing identity. Through our business segments, we sell a wide range of wealth accumulation, wealth protection, group protection and retirement products and solutions. These products primarily include variable annuities, fixed annuities (including indexed), registered index-linked annuities (“RILA”), universal life insurance (“UL”), variable universal life insurance (“VUL”), linked-benefit UL and VUL, indexed universal life insurance (“IUL”), term life insurance, group life, disability and dental and employer-sponsored retirement plans and services. For more information on our segments and the products and solutions we provide, see Note 16.

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with United States of America generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, including Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. The information contained in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 (“2024 Form 10-K”), should be read in connection with the reading of these interim unaudited consolidated financial statements.

Certain GAAP policies, which significantly affect the determination of financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, are summarized in our 2024 Form 10-K.

In the opinion of management, these statements include all normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s results. Interim results for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full year ending December 31, 2025. All material inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Certain amounts reported in prior period consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the presentation adopted in the current period. Effective in the third quarter of 2025, we reclassified the investments in company-owned life insurance from other assets to other investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and the associated income statement activity from other revenues to net investment income on the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income (Loss), which had no impact to total assets, total stockholders’ equity, total net income (loss) or net cash provided by (used in) investing activities in any such prior period.

We present disaggregated disclosures in the Notes below for long-duration insurance balances, applying the level of aggregation by business segment as follows:

The variable annuities level of aggregation includes RILA products, which are indexed variable annuities. The fixed annuities level of aggregation represents deferred fixed annuities. We have excluded amounts reported in Other Operations from our disaggregated disclosures that are attributable to the indemnity reinsurance agreements with Protective Life Insurance Company (“Protective”) and Swiss Re Life & Health America, Inc (“Swiss Re”) as these contracts are fully reinsured, run-off institutional pension business in the form of group annuity and the results of certain disability income business.

2. New Accounting Standards

Adoption of Accounting Standards

The following table provides a description of current period adoptions of Accounting Standards Updates (“ASUs”).

Future Adoption of Accounting Standards

The following table provides a description of future adoptions of ASUs that may have an impact on the consolidated financial statements when adopted. ASUs not listed below were assessed and determined to be either not applicable or insignificant in presentation or amount.

3. Investments

Fixed Maturity AFS Securities

The amortized cost, gross unrealized gains and losses, allowance for credit losses and fair value of fixed maturity available-for-sale (“AFS”) securities (in millions) were as follows:

The amortized cost and fair value of fixed maturity AFS securities by contractual maturities (in millions) as of September 30, 2025, were as follows:

Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because issuers may have the right to call or pre-pay obligations.

The fair value and gross unrealized losses of fixed maturity AFS securities (dollars in millions) for which an allowance for credit losses has not been recorded, aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position, were as follows:

(1)As of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, we recognized $20 million and $23 million of gross unrealized losses, respectively, in other comprehensive income (loss) (“OCI”) for fixed maturity AFS securities for which an allowance for credit losses has been recorded.

The fair value, gross unrealized losses (in millions) and number of fixed maturity AFS securities where the fair value had declined and remained below amortized cost by greater than 20% were as follows:

(1)We may reflect a security in more than one aging category based on various purchase dates.

Our gross unrealized losses on fixed maturity AFS securities decreased by $2.0 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2025. As discussed further below, we do not believe the unrealized loss position as of September 30, 2025, required an impairment recognized in earnings as: (i) we did not intend to sell these fixed maturity AFS securities; (ii) it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell the fixed maturity AFS securities before recovery of their amortized cost basis; and (iii) the difference in the fair value compared to the amortized cost was due to factors other than credit loss. Based upon this evaluation as of September 30, 2025, management believes we have the ability to generate adequate amounts of cash from our normal operations (e.g., insurance premiums, fee income and investment income) to meet cash requirements with a prudent margin of safety without requiring the sale of our impaired securities.

As of September 30, 2025, the unrealized losses associated with our corporate bond, U.S. government bond, state and municipal bond and foreign government bond securities were attributable primarily to rising interest rates and widening credit spreads since purchase. We performed a detailed analysis of the financial performance of the underlying issuers and determined that we expected to recover the entire amortized cost of each impaired security.

Credit ratings express opinions about the credit quality of a security. Securities rated investment grade (those rated BBB- or higher by S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”) or Baa3 or higher by Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”)) are generally considered by the rating agencies and market participants to be low credit risk. As of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024,96% of the fair value of our corporate bond portfolio was rated investment grade. As of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, the portion of our corporate bond portfolio rated below investment grade had an amortized cost of $3.0 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively, and a fair value of $2.8 billion. Based upon the analysis discussed above, we believe that as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, we would have recovered the amortized cost of each corporate bond.

As of September 30, 2025, the unrealized losses associated with our mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) and asset-backed securities (“ABS”) were attributable primarily to rising interest rates and widening credit spreads since purchase. We assessed for credit impairment using a cash flow model that incorporates key assumptions including default rates, severities and prepayment rates. We estimated losses for a security by forecasting the underlying loans in each transaction. The forecasted loan performance was used to project cash flows to the various tranches in the structure, as applicable. Our forecasted cash flows also considered, as applicable, independent industry analyst reports and forecasts and other independent market data. Based upon our assessment of the expected credit losses of the security given the performance of the underlying collateral compared to our subordination or other credit enhancement, we expected to recover the entire amortized cost of each impaired security.

As of September 30, 2025, the unrealized losses associated with our hybrid and redeemable preferred securities were attributable primarily to wider credit spreads caused by illiquidity in the market and subordination within the capital structure, as well as credit risk of underlying issuers. For our hybrid and redeemable preferred securities, we evaluated the financial performance of the underlying issuers based upon credit performance and investment ratings and determined that we expected to recover the entire amortized cost of each impaired security.

Credit Loss Impairment on Fixed Maturity AFS Securities

We regularly review our fixed maturity AFS securities for declines in fair value that we determine to be impairment-related, including those attributable to credit risk factors that may require an allowance for credit losses. Changes in the allowance for credit losses on fixed maturity AFS securities (in millions), aggregated by investment category, were as follows:

(1)Represents purchased credit-deteriorated (“PCD”) fixed maturity AFS securities.

(2)As of September 30, 2025 and 2024, accrued investment income on fixed maturity AFS securities totaled $920 million and $927 million, respectively, and was excluded from the estimate of credit losses.

Losses from loan modifications were $3 million and less than $1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and $21 million and $3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, reported in realized gain (loss) on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

The following provides the current and past due composition of our mortgage loans on real estate (in millions):

(1)Represents the mark-to-market on certain mortgage loans on real estate that support our modified coinsurance agreements, where the investment results are passed directly to the reinsurers, and for which we have elected the fair value option. As of September 30, 2025, the amortized cost and fair value of such mortgage loans on real estate that were in nonaccrual status was $30 million and $20 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2024, the amortized cost and fair value of such mortgage loans on real estate that were in nonaccrual status was $30 million and $21 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, there wereno such mortgage loans on real estate that were more than 90 days past due and still accruing interest. For additional information, see “Fair Value Option” in Note 13.

The amortized cost of mortgage loans on real estate on nonaccrual status (in millions) was as follows, excluding certain mortgage loans on real estate that support our modified coinsurance agreements where the investment results are passed directly to the reinsurers:

We use loan-to-value (“LTV”) and debt-service coverage ratios as credit quality indicators for our commercial mortgage loans on real estate. The amortized cost of commercial mortgage loans on real estate (dollars in millions) by year of origination and credit quality indicator was as follows:

We use loan performance status as the primary credit quality indicator for our residential mortgage loans on real estate. The amortized cost of residential mortgage loans on real estate (in millions) by year of origination and credit quality indicator was as follows:

Credit Losses on Mortgage Loans on Real Estate

In connection with our recognition of an allowance for credit losses for mortgage loans on real estate, we perform a quantitative analysis using a probability of default/loss given default/exposure at default approach to estimate expected credit losses in our mortgage loan portfolio as well as unfunded commitments related to commercial mortgage loans, exclusive of certain mortgage loans held at fair value.

Changes in the allowance for credit losses on mortgage loans on real estate (in millions) were as follows:

(1)We recognized $(1) million and less than $1 million of credit loss benefit (expense) related to unfunded commitments for mortgage loans on real estate for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and less than $1 million and $1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

(2)Accrued investment income on mortgage loans on real estate totaled $110 million and $89 million as of September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and was excluded from the estimate of credit losses.

Alternative Investments

As of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, alternative investments included investments in 381 and 371 different partnerships, respectively, and represented approximately 3% of total investments. These amounts do not include alternative investments that support funds withheld and modified coinsurance reinsurance agreements where the investment results are passed directly to the reinsurers.

Impairments on Fixed Maturity AFS Securities

Details underlying credit loss benefit (expense) incurred as a result of impairments that were recognized in net income (loss) and included in realized gain (loss) on fixed maturity AFS securities (in millions) were as follows:

Payables for Collateral on Investments

The carrying value of the payables for collateral on investments included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and the fair value of the related investments or collateral (in millions) consisted of the following:

(1)We obtain collateral based upon contractual provisions with our counterparties. These agreements take into consideration the counterparties’ credit rating as compared to ours, the fair value of the derivative investments and specified thresholds that if exceeded result in the receipt of cash that is typically invested in cash and invested cash or fixed maturity AFS securities. This also includes interest payable on collateral. See Note 5 for additional information.

(2)Our pledged securities under securities lending agreements are included in fixed maturity AFS securities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. We generally obtain collateral in an amount equal to 102% and 105% of the fair value of the domestic and foreign securities, respectively. We value collateral daily and obtain additional collateral when deemed appropriate. The cash received in our securities lending program is typically invested in cash and invested cash or fixed maturity AFS securities.

(3)Our pledged securities under repurchase agreements are included in fixed maturity AFS securities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The collateral requirements are generally 80% to 95% of the fair value of the securities, and our agreements with third parties contain contractual provisions to allow for additional collateral to be obtained when necessary. This also includes payable from cash collateral received as a result of market value fluctuations on our pledged securities. The cash received in our repurchase program is typically invested in cash and invested cash or fixed maturity AFS securities.

(4)Our pledged investments for Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) are included in fixed maturity AFS securities and mortgage loans on real estate on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The collateral requirements are generally 105% to 115% of the fair value for fixed maturity AFS securities and 155% to 175% of the fair value for mortgage loans on real estate. The cash received in these transactions is primarily invested in cash and invested cash or fixed maturity AFS securities.

Increase (decrease) in payables for collateral on investments (in millions) consisted of the following:

We have elected not to offset our repurchase agreements and securities lending transactions in the consolidated financial statements. The remaining contractual maturities of repurchase agreements and securities lending transactions accounted for as secured borrowings (in millions) were as follows:

We accept collateral in the form of securities in connection with repurchase agreements. In instances where we are permitted to sell or re-pledge the securities received, we report the fair value of the collateral received and a related obligation to return the collateral in the consolidated financial statements. In addition, we receive securities in connection with securities borrowing agreements that we are permitted to sell or re-pledge. As of September 30, 2025, we had not received any collateral and, therefore, had not sold or repledged any

collateral under these agreements.

We also accept collateral from derivative counterparties in the form of securities that we are permitted to sell or re-pledge. As of September 30, 2025, the fair value of this collateral received that we are permitted to sell or re-pledge was $1.6 billion, and we had re-pledged $593 million of this collateral to cover our collateral requirements.

Assets Pledged as Collateral

We pledge assets as collateral in connection with derivative, securities lending and repurchase agreements, our funding agreement-backed repurchase agreement (“FABR”) program, membership obligations with the FHLB and regulatory deposits. See “Payables for Collateral on Investments” above and “Funding Agreements – FABR Program” in Note 10 for additional information. Assets pledged as collateral at carrying value as reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets were as follows:

Investment Commitments

As of September 30, 2025, our investment commitments were $5.9 billion, which included $3.6 billion of limited partnerships (“LPs”), $1.4 billion of mortgage loans on real estate, $600 million of asset-backed variable interest entities and $353 million of private placement securities.

Concentrations of Financial Instruments

As of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, our most significant investments in one issuer were our investments in securities issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association with a fair value of $966 million and $851 million, respectively, or 1% of total investments, and our investments in securities issued by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation with a fair value of $668 million and $566 million, respectively, or less than 1% of total investments. These concentrations include fixed maturity AFS, trading and equity securities.

As of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, our most significant investments in one industry were our investments in securities in the financial services industry with a fair value of $13.8 billion and $13.4 billion, respectively, or 10% of total investments, and our investments in securities in the consumer non-cyclical industry with a fair value of $13.1 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively, or 10% of total investments. These concentrations include fixed maturity AFS, trading and equity securities.

4. Variable Interest Entities

Consolidated VIEs

Asset information (dollars in millions) for the consolidated variable interest entities (“VIEs”) included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets was as follows:

There wereno gains or losses for consolidated VIEs recognized on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024.

Unconsolidated VIEs

Structured Securities

Through our investment activities, we make passive investments in structured securities issued by VIEs for which we are not the manager. These structured securities include our ABS, residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”). We have not provided financial or other support with respect to these VIEs other than our original investment. We have determined that we are not the primary beneficiary of these VIEs due to the relative size of our investment in comparison to the principal amount of the structured securities issued by the VIEs and the level of credit subordination that reduces our obligation to absorb losses or right to receive benefits. Our maximum exposure to loss on these structured securities is limited to the amortized cost for these investments. We recognize our variable interest in these VIEs at fair value on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. For information about these structured securities, see Note 3.

Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies

We invest in certain LPs and limited liability companies (“LLCs”) that we have concluded are VIEs. Our exposure to loss is limited to the capital we invest in the LPs and LLCs. We do not hold any substantive kick-out or participation rights in the LPs and LLCs, and we do not receive any performance fees or decision maker fees from the LPs and LLCs. Based on our analysis of the LPs and LLCs, we are not the primary beneficiary of the VIEs as we do not have the power to direct the most significant activities of the LPs and LLCs. The carrying amounts of our investments in the LPs and LLCs are recognized in other investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and were $5.7 billion and $5.3 billion as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively.

5. Derivative Instruments

We maintain an overall risk management strategy that incorporates the use of derivative instruments to minimize significant unplanned fluctuations in earnings that are caused by interest rate risk, foreign currency exchange risk, equity market risk, basis risk, commodity risk and credit risk. We assess these risks by continually identifying and monitoring changes in our exposures that may adversely affect expected future cash flows and by evaluating hedging opportunities.

Derivative activities are monitored by various management committees. The committees are responsible for overseeing the implementation of various hedging strategies that are developed through the analysis of financial simulation models and other internal and industry sources. The resulting hedging strategies are incorporated into our overall risk management strategies.

See Note 13 for additional disclosures related to the fair value of our derivative instruments.

Interest Rate Contracts

We use derivative instruments as part of our interest rate risk management strategy. These instruments are economic hedges unless otherwise noted and include:

Forward-Starting Interest Rate Swaps

We use forward-starting interest rate swaps to hedge the interest rate exposure within our annuity, life insurance and retirement products.

Interest Rate Cap Corridors

We use interest rate cap corridors to provide a level of protection from the effect of rising interest rates for certain annuity contracts and life insurance products. Interest rate cap corridors involve purchasing an interest rate cap at a specific cap rate and selling an interest rate cap with a higher cap rate. For each corridor, the amount of quarterly payments, if any, is determined by the rate at which the underlying index rate resets above the original capped rate. The corridor limits the benefit the purchaser can receive as the related interest rate index rises above the higher capped rate. There is no additional liability to us other than the purchase price associated with the interest rate cap corridor.

Interest Rate Futures

We use interest rate futures contracts to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in variable annuity and RILA products. These futures contracts require payment between our counterparty and us on a daily basis for changes in the futures index price.

Interest Rate Swap Agreements

We use interest rate swap agreements to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in variable annuity and RILA products.

We also use interest rate swap agreements designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges to hedge the interest rate risk of floating-rate bond coupon payments on certain variable-rate long-term debt and other variable-rate bonds held by replicating a fixed-rate bond.

Finally, we use interest rate swap agreements designated and qualifying as fair value hedges to hedge against changes in the fair value of certain fixed-rate long-term debt and fixed maturity securities due to interest rate risks.

Bond Forwards and Treasury and Reverse Treasury Locks

We use treasury locks designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges to hedge the interest rate exposure related to our issuance of fixed-rate securities or the anticipated future cash flows of floating-rate fixed maturity securities due to changes in interest rates. In addition, we use bond forwards and reverse treasury locks designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges to hedge the interest rate exposure related to the anticipated purchase of fixed-rate securities or the anticipated future cash flows of floating-rate fixed maturity securities due to changes in interest rates. These derivatives are primarily structured to hedge interest rate risk inherent in the assumptions used to price certain liabilities.

Foreign Currency Contracts

We use derivative instruments as part of our foreign currency risk management strategy. These instruments are economic hedges unless otherwise noted and include:

Currency Futures

We use currency futures to hedge foreign exchange risk associated with certain options in variable annuity products. Currency futures exchange one currency for another at a specified date in the future at a specified exchange rate.

Foreign Currency Swaps

We use foreign currency swaps to hedge foreign exchange risk of investments in fixed maturity securities denominated in foreign currencies. A foreign currency swap is a contractual agreement to exchange one currency for another at specified dates in the future at a specified exchange rate.

We also use foreign currency swaps designated and qualifying as cash flow and fair value hedges to hedge foreign exchange risk of investments in fixed maturity securities denominated in foreign currencies.

Foreign Currency Forwards

We use foreign currency forwards to hedge foreign exchange risk of investments in fixed maturity securities denominated in foreign currencies. A foreign currency forward is a contractual agreement to exchange one currency for another at specified dates in the future at a specified current exchange rate.

Equity Market Contracts

We use derivative instruments as part of our equity market risk management strategy that are economic hedges and include:

Call Options Based on the S&P 500®Index and Other Indices

We use call options to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in variable annuity, RILA, fixed indexed annuity, IUL and VUL products.

Our RILA, fixed indexed annuity and IUL contracts permit the holder to elect an interest rate return or an equity market component, where interest credited to the contracts is linked to the performance of the S&P 500 Index or other indices. Policyholders may elect to rebalance index options at renewal dates. At the end of each indexed term, which can be up to six years, we have the opportunity to re-price the indexed component by establishing participation rates, caps, spreads and specified rates, subject to contractual guarantees. We use call options that are highly correlated to the portfolio allocation decisions of our policyholders, such that we are economically hedged with respect to equity returns for the current reset period.

Consumer Price Index Swaps

We use consumer price index swaps to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in fixed annuity products. Consumer price index swaps are contracts entered into at no cost and whose payoff is the difference between the consumer price index inflation rate and the fixed-rate determined as of inception.

Equity Futures

We use equity futures contracts to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in variable annuity and RILA products. These futures contracts require payment between our counterparty and us on a daily basis for changes in the futures index price.

Put Options

We use put options to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in variable annuity, RILA and VUL products. Put options are contracts that require the buyers to pay at a specified future date the amount, if any, by which a specified equity index is less than the strike rate stated in the agreement, applied to a notional amount.

Total Return Swaps

We use total return swaps to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in variable annuity, RILA and VUL products.

In addition, we use total return swaps to hedge a portion of the liability related to our deferred compensation plans. We receive the total return on a portfolio of indexes and pay a floating-rate of interest.

Commodity Contracts

We use commodity contracts to economically hedge certain investments that are closely tied to the changes in commodity values. The commodity contract is an over-the-counter contract that combines a purchase put/sold call to lock in a commodity price within a predetermined range in exchange for a net premium.

Credit Contracts

We use derivative instruments as part of our credit risk management strategy that are economic hedges and include:

Credit Default Swaps – Buying Protection

We use credit default swaps (“CDSs”) to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in variable annuity products.

We buy CDSs to hedge against a drop in bond prices due to credit concerns of certain bond issuers. A CDS allows us to put the bond back to the counterparty at par upon a default event by the bond issuer. A default event is defined as bankruptcy, failure to pay, obligation acceleration or restructuring.

CDSs – Selling Protection

We use CDSs to hedge the liability exposure on certain options in variable annuity products.

We sell CDSs to offer credit protection to policyholders and investors. The CDSs hedge the policyholders and investors against a drop in bond prices due to credit concerns of certain bond issuers. A CDS allows the investor to put the bond back to us at par upon a default event by the bond issuer. A default event is defined as bankruptcy, failure to pay, obligation acceleration or restructuring.

Embedded Derivatives

We have embedded derivatives that include:

RILA, Fixed Indexed Annuity and IUL Contracts Embedded Derivatives

Our RILA, fixed indexed annuity and IUL contracts permit the holder to elect an interest rate return or an equity market component, where interest credited to the contracts is linked to the performance of the S&P 500® Index or other indices. Policyholders may elect to rebalance index options at renewal dates. At the end of each indexed term, which can be up to six years, we have the opportunity to re-price the indexed component by establishing participation rates, caps, spreads and specified rates, subject to contractual guarantees. We use options that are highly correlated to the portfolio allocation decisions of our policyholders, such that we are economically hedged with respect to equity returns for the current reset period.

Reinsurance-Related Embedded Derivatives

We have certain modified coinsurance and coinsurance with funds withheld reinsurance agreements with embedded derivatives related to the withheld assets of the related funds. These derivatives are considered total return swaps with contractual returns that are attributable to various assets and liabilities associated with these reinsurance agreements.

Primary Risks Managed by Derivatives

We have derivative instruments with off-balance-sheet risks whose notional or contract amounts exceed the related credit exposure. Outstanding derivative instruments with off-balance-sheet risks (in millions) were as follows:

(1)These asset and liability balances are presented on a gross basis. Amounts are reported in derivative investments and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets after the evaluation for right of offset subject to master netting agreements.

(2)Reported in funds withheld reinsurance liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

(3)Reported in policyholder account balances and deposit assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The maturity of the notional amounts of derivative instruments (in millions) was as follows:

(1)As of September 30, 2025, the latest maturity date for which we were hedging our exposure to the variability in future cash flows for these instruments was January 28, 2030.

(2)As of September 30, 2025, the latest maturity date for which we were hedging our exposure to the variability in future cash flows for these instruments was June 16, 2061.

The following amounts (in millions) were recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets related to cumulative basis adjustments for fair value hedges:

(1)Includes $(297) million and $(310) million of unamortized adjustments from discontinued hedges as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively.

The change in our unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments within accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (“AOCI”) (in millions) was as follows:

(1)The OCI offset is reported within net investment income on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

(2)The OCI offset is reported within interest and debt expense on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

(3)The OCI offset is reported within realized gain (loss) on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

The effects of qualifying and non-qualifying hedges (in millions) on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) were as follows:

As of September 30, 2025, $62 million of the deferred net gains (losses) on derivative instruments in AOCI were expected to be reclassified to earnings during the next 12 months. This reclassification would be due primarily to interest rate variances related to our interest rate swap agreements.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, there were no material reclassifications to earnings due to hedged firm commitments no longer deemed probable or due to hedged forecasted transactions that had not occurred by the end of the originally specified time period.

Information related to our CDSs for which we are the seller (dollars in millions) was as follows:

(1)Represents average credit ratings based on the midpoint of the applicable ratings among Moody’s, S&P and Fitch Ratings, as scaled to the corresponding S&P ratings.

(2)Third-party valuation specialists are used to determine the market value of our CDSs.

(3)CDSs were entered into in order to hedge the liability exposure on certain variable annuity products.

(4)Sellers do not have the right to demand indemnification or compensation from third parties in case of a loss (payment) on the contract.

As of December 31, 2024, we did not have any exposure related to CDSs for which we are the seller.

Details underlying the associated collateral of our CDSs for which we are the seller if credit risk-related contingent features were triggered (in millions) were as follows:

Certain of our CDS agreements contain contractual provisions that allow for the netting of collateral with our counterparties related to all of our collateralized financing transactions that we have outstanding. If these netting agreements were not in place, our counterparties would have been required to post less than $1 million of collateral as of September 30, 2025.

Credit Risk

We are exposed to credit losses in the event of non-performance by our counterparties on various derivative contracts and reflect assumptions regarding the credit or non-performance risk. The non-performance risk is based upon assumptions for each counterparty’s credit spread over the estimated weighted average life of the counterparty exposure, less collateral held. As of September 30, 2025, the non-performance risk adjustment waszero. The credit risk associated with such agreements is minimized by entering into agreements with financial institutions with long-standing, superior performance records. Additionally, we maintain a policy of requiring derivative contracts to be governed by an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) Master Agreement. We are required to maintain minimum ratings as a matter of routine practice in negotiating ISDA agreements. Under nearly all of our ISDA agreements, our insurance subsidiaries have agreed to maintain certain financial strength ratings. A downgrade below these levels could result in termination of derivative contracts, at which time any amounts payable by us would be dependent on the market value of the underlying derivative contracts. In certain transactions, we and the counterparty have entered into a credit support annex requiring either party to post collateral when net exposures exceed pre-determined thresholds. These thresholds vary by counterparty and credit rating. The amount of such exposure is essentially the net replacement cost or market value less collateral held for such agreements with each counterparty if the net market value is in our favor. We did not have any exposure as of September 30, 2025, or December 31, 2024.

The amounts recognized (in millions) by S&P credit rating of counterparty, for which we had the right to reclaim cash collateral or were obligated to return cash collateral, were as follows:

Balance Sheet Offsetting

Information related to the effects of offsetting on the Consolidated Balance Sheets (in millions) was as follows:

(1)Excludes excess non-cash collateral received of $1.2 billion, as the collateral offset is limited to the net estimated fair value of derivatives after application of netting arrangements.

(1)Excludes excess non-cash collateral received of $817 million, as the collateral offset is limited to the net estimated fair value of derivatives after application of netting arrangements.

(2)Excludes excess non-cash collateral pledged of $39 million, as the collateral offset is limited to the net estimated fair value of derivatives after application of netting arrangements.

6. DAC, VOBA, DSI and DFEL

The following table reconciles deferred acquisition costs (“DAC”), value of business acquired (“VOBA”) and deferred sales inducements (“DSI”) (in millions) to the Consolidated Balance Sheets:

The following table reconciles deferred front-end loads (“DFEL”) (in millions) to the Consolidated Balance Sheets:

(1)Represents DFEL reported in Other Operations attributable to the indemnity reinsurance agreement with Protective that is excluded from the following tables. We reported $56 million and $51 million of ceded DFEL in reinsurance recoverables on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively.

The following tables summarize the changes in DAC (in millions):

DAC amortization expense of $277 million and $803 million was recorded in commissions and other expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, respectively, and $253 million and $754 million, respectively, was recorded for the corresponding periods in 2024.

The following tables summarize the changes in VOBA (in millions):

VOBA amortization expense of $12 million and $35 million was recorded in commissions and other expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, respectively, and $12 million and $37 million, respectively, was recorded for the corresponding periods in 2024. No additions or write-offs were recorded for each respective period.

The following tables summarize the changes in DSI (in millions):

DSI amortization expense of $4 million and $11 million was recorded in interest credited on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, respectively, and $4 million and $13 million, respectively, was recorded for the corresponding periods in 2024.

The following tables summarize the changes in DFEL (in millions):

DFEL amortization of $92 million and $287 million was recorded in fee income on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, respectively, and $79 million and $230 million, respectively, was recorded for the corresponding periods in 2024.

7. Reinsurance

Fortitude Re

Effective October 1, 2023, we entered intotwo reinsurance agreements with Fortitude Reinsurance Company Ltd. (“Fortitude Re”), an authorized Bermuda reinsurer with reciprocal jurisdiction reinsurer status in Indiana, to reinsure certain blocks of in-force UL with secondary guarantees (“ULSG”), MoneyGuard® and fixed annuity products, including group pension annuities. Fortitude Re represents our largest reinsurance exposure as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024.

The first agreement was structured as a coinsurance treaty between us and Fortitude Re for the ULSG and fixed annuities blocks. As significant insurance risk was transferred for ULSG products and life-contingent annuities, amounts recoverable from Fortitude Re were $10.6 billion as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024. We reported a deferred loss on the transaction of $2.5 billion and $2.6 billion as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively. We amortized $23 million and $69 million of the deferred loss during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025, respectively, and $23 million and $67 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024, respectively. Annuities that are not life-contingent do not contain significant insurance risk; therefore, we reported deposit assets for these contracts of $2.5 billion and $3.0 billion as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively.

The second agreement was structured as coinsurance with funds withheld for the MoneyGuard block; however, as we retained significant insurance risk under the agreement, we reported deposit assets of $8.4 billion and $8.1 billion as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively. In this coinsurance with funds withheld reinsurance agreement, we as the ceding company withhold, and therefore retain, the assets backing the deposit assets. We held investments with a carrying value of $9.1 billion and $9.3 billion in support of reserves associated with the Fortitude Re transaction in a funds withheld arrangement as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively, which consisted of the following (in millions):

8. MRBs

The following table reconciles market risk benefits (“MRBs”) (in millions) to MRB assets and MRB liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets:

The following table summarizes the balances of and changes in net MRB (assets) liabilities (in millions):

(1) Consists primarily of changes in MRB assets and liabilities due to the impact of changes in actual to expected policyholder behavior and aggregation impacts related to fund performance and other assumptions.

(2) Consists primarily of the update of fund mapping, volatility and other capital market assumptions.

(3) Net amount at risk (“NAR”) is the current guaranteed minimum benefit in excess of the current account balance as of the balance sheet date. For guaranteed living benefits (“GLBs”), the guaranteed minimum benefit is calculated based on the present value of GLB payments. Our variable annuity products may offer more than one type of guaranteed benefit rider to a policyholder. In instances where more than one guaranteed benefit feature exists in a contract, the guaranteed benefit rider that provides the highest NAR is used in the calculation.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, Variable Annuities had an unfavorable impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review driven by updates to policyholder behavior and capital market assumptions and other items, partially offset by model enhancements and updates to separate account fee assumptions. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, Fixed Annuities and Retirement Plan Services did not have any significant assumption updates.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, Variable Annuities had a favorable impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review driven by model enhancements and updates to capital market assumptions. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, Fixed Annuities had an unfavorable impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review driven by model enhancements and updates to policyholder GLB utilization assumptions. Retirement Plan Services did not have any significant assumption updates.

See “MRBs” in Note 13 for details related to our fair value judgments, assumptions, inputs and valuation methodology.

9. Separate Accounts

The following table presents the fair value of separate account assets (in millions) reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets by major investment category:

The following table reconciles separate account liabilities (in millions) to the Consolidated Balance Sheets:

(1) Represents separate account liabilities reported in Other Operations primarily attributable to the indemnity reinsurance agreements with Protective ($52 millionand $49 million as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively) that are excluded from the following tables.

The following table summarizes the balances of and changes in separate account liabilities (in millions):

10. Policyholder Account Balances

The following table reconciles policyholder account balances (in millions) to the Consolidated Balance Sheets:

(1) Represents policyholder account balances reported primarily in Other Operations attributable to the indemnity reinsurance agreements with Protective ($4.1 billion and $4.4 billion as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively) and funding agreements ($1.9 billion andnone as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively).

The following table summarizes the balances and changes in policyholder account balances (in millions):

(1)NAR is the current guaranteed minimum benefit in excess of the current account balance as of the balance sheet date. For GLBs, the guaranteed minimum benefit is calculated based on the present value of GLB payments. Our variable annuity products may offer more than one type of guaranteed benefit rider to a policyholder. In instances where more than one guaranteed benefit rider exists in a contract, the guaranteed benefit rider that provides the highest NAR is used in the calculation.

(2)Calculation is based on total account balances and includes both policyholder account balances and separate account balances.

The following table presents policyholder account balances (in millions) by range of guaranteed minimum crediting rates and the related range of difference, in basis points, between the interest being credited to policyholders and the respective guaranteed contract minimums:

(1)Consists of indexed account balances that include the fair value of embedded derivative instruments, non-life contingent payout annuity account balances, short-term dollar cost averaging annuities business and policy loans.

Funding Agreements

Funding agreements, which are discussed below, are reported in policyholder account balances on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and the associated interest is reported within interest credited on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

Funding Agreement-Backed Notes Program

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“LNL”) established a $5.0 billion funding agreement-backed notes (“FABN”)program in 2024 pursuant to which LNL may issue unsecured funding agreements to an unaffiliated and unconsolidated special purpose statutory trust (the “Trust”) that will then issue medium-term notes for which payment of interest and principal is secured by such funding agreement. We had funding agreements issued under the program totaling $1.5 billion as of September 30, 2025, compared tonone as of December 31, 2024.

FABR Program

During the third quarter of 2025, LNL issued a$400 million secured funding agreement under our FABR program that is secured by a portfolio of assets pledged to the special-purpose entity. Our FABR program involves an unaffiliated and unconsolidated special-purpose entity that enters into a repurchase agreement with a third party, the proceeds of which are used by a special-purpose entity to purchase funding agreements from LNL. See “Assets Pledged as Collateral” in Note 3 for information on pledged assets.

11. Future Contract Benefits

The following table reconciles future contract benefits (in millions) to the Consolidated Balance Sheets:

(1) See “Liability for Future Policy Benefits” below for further information.

(2) See “Liability for Future Claims” below for further information.

(3) See “Additional Liabilities for Other Insurance Benefits” below for further information.

(4) Represents future contract benefits reported in Other Operations primarily attributable to the indemnity reinsurance agreements with Protective ($5.4 billion as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024) and Swiss Re ($2.0 billionand $1.8 billion as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively) that are excluded from the following tables.

(5) Represents other miscellaneous reserves that are not representative of long-duration contracts, primarily related to participating traditional life insurance contracts and incurred but not reported and in course of settlement life insurance liabilities, and are excluded from the following tables.

Liability for Future Policy Benefits

The liability for future policy benefits represents reserves associated with our limited payment life-contingent annuities and non-participating traditional life insurance contracts (i.e., term insurance). The reserve is the net of present value of expected future policy benefits less present value of expected net premiums as summarized in the following table (in millions, except years):

(1) The cash flow assumption impact to the liability is calculated as the present value of expected future policy benefits less the present value of expected net premiums. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, the net effect of changes in cash flow assumptions gross of reinsurance reduced the liability by $167 million and $96 million, respectively, primarily associated with favorable updates to mortality assumptions. See “Effect of Annual Assumption Review” below for more information.

(2) For thenine months ended September 30, 2025, the Traditional Life actual to expected reserve impact on expected net premiums was attributable primarily to policyholder behavior and mortality, which unfavorably impacted the liability by $38 million and $15 million, respectively; and the actual to expected reserve impact on expected future policy benefits was attributable primarily to policyholder behavior, which favorably impacted the liability by $51 million, which was partially offset by $3 million related to mortality. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, the Traditional Life actual to expected reserve impact on expected net premiums was attributable primarily to mortality and policyholder behavior, which unfavorably impacted the liability by $49 million and $10 million, respectively; and the actual to expected reserve impact on expected future policy benefits was attributable primarily to mortality, which favorably impacted the liability by $74 million, which was partially offset by $4 million primarily related to policyholder behavior. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, Payout Annuities did not have any significantly different actual experience compared to expected.

(3) Includes deferred profit liability within Payout Annui ties of $88 million and $60 million as of September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, Payout Annuities did not have a significant cash flow assumption impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review, and Traditional Life had a favorable cash flow assumption impact from updates to mortality and policyholder behavior assumptions.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, Payout Annuities did not have a significant cash flow assumption impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review, and Traditional Life had a favorable cash flow assumption impact from updates to mortality assumptions, partially offset by an unfavorable impact from updates to policyholder behavior assumptions.

The following table summarizes the discounted and undiscounted expected future gross premiums and expected future benefit payments (in millions):

The following table summarizes the gross premiums and interest accretion (in millions) recognized in insurance premiums and benefits, respectively, on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss):

Liability for Future Claims

The liability for future claims represents reserves associated with our group long-term disability and life waiver products. The following table summarizes the balances of and changes in liability for future claims (in millions, except years):

(1) Generally, the experience exhibited for the Group Protection business relates to morbidity and, to a lesser extent, mortality. Group Protection long-duration products have limited exposure to lapse risk, as the liabilities for future claims are limited to those associated with claim reserves. For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, morbidity comprised substantially all of the favorable effect of actual variances from expected experience, as our claims experience was more favorable than assumed.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, we had a favorable cash flow assumption impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review from updates to the claim termination rate assumption, partially offset by updates to social security and incurred assumptions. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, we did not have a significant cash flow assumption impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review.

The following table summarizes the discounted and undiscounted expected future benefit payments (in millions):

The following table summarizes the gross premiums and interest accretion (in millions) recognized in insurance premiums and benefits, respectively, on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss):

Additional Liabilities for Other Insurance Benefits

Additional liabilities for other insurance benefits represent reserves associated with our UL and VUL contracts with secondary guarantees, including MoneyGuard®. The following table summarizes the balances of and changes in additional liabilities for other insurance benefits (in millions, except years):

(1)For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, the actual to expected reserve impact was attributable primarily to mortality, which unfavorably impacted the liability by $193 million and $160 million, respectively.

(2)For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, the effect of actual variances from expected experience, net of reinsurance, was$88 million and $115 million, respectively.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, we had an unfavorable cash flow assumption impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review from updates to mortality and policyholder behavior assumptions, partially offset by updates to the morbidity assumption.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, we had an unfavorable cash flow assumption impact to net income (loss) attributable to the annual assumption review impacting reinsured blocks of MoneyGuard® business for updates to policyholder behavior and mortality assumptions that were partially offset by updates to capital market assumptions.

The following table summarizes the gross assessments and interest accretion (in millions) recognized in insurance premiums and benefits, respectively, on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss):

12. Debt

Changes in debt (in millions) were as follows:

Details underlying the recognition of a gain (loss) on the early extinguishment of debt (in millions) reported within interest expense on

our Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) were as follows:

(1) In May 2025, pursuant to a tender offer, we repurchased $34 million of our 3.05% Senior Notes due 2030, $129 million of our 4.35% Senior Notes due 2048, $136 million of our 4.375% Senior Notes due 2050, $97 million of our Subordinated Notes due 2066, $97 million of our Subordinated Notes due 2067, $21 million of our Capital Securities due 2066 and $5 million of our Capital Securities due 2067.

Facility Agreements for Senior Notes Issuances

Trust I Facility Agreement

On August 18, 2020, LNC entered into a 10-year facility agreement (the “Trust I Facility Agreement”) with Belrose Funding Trust, a Delaware statutory trust (“Trust I”), in connection with Trust I’s sale of $500 million of its Pre-Capitalized Trust Securities Redeemable August 15, 2030, (the “2030 P-Caps”) in a private placement pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). Trust I invested the proceeds from the sale of the 2030 P-Caps in a portfolio of principal and interest strips of U.S. Treasury securities (the “Trust I Eligible Assets”). The Trust I Facility Agreement provided LNC the right to issue to Trust I, and to require Trust I to purchase from LNC, on one or more occasions, up to an aggregate principal amount outstanding at any one time of $500 million of LNC’s 2.330% Senior Notes due 2030 (the “2.330% Senior Notes”) in exchange for a corresponding amount of the Trust

I Eligible Assets. In return, LNC paid Trust I a semi-annual facility fee at a rate of 1.691% per year (applied to the unexercised portion of the issuance right) and reimbursed Trust I for its expenses.

On May 13, 2025, LNC exercised in full its issuance right under the Trust I Facility Agreement and on May 15, 2025, LNC issued $500 million aggregate principal amount of the 2.330% Senior Notes to Trust I in exchange for the Trust I Eligible Assets, which had a fair value of $418 million when the 2.330% Senior Notes were issued. The net proceeds from the issuance of the 2.330% Senior Notes and subsequent sale of the Trust I Eligible Assets were used to early extinguish long-term debt during the second quarter of 2025 pursuant to a tender offer.

In connection with the exercise of its issuance right, LNC waived its right to repurchase the 2.330% Senior Notes and directed the trustee of Trust I to dissolve Trust I and deliver the 2.330% Senior Notes to the beneficial holders of the 2030 P-Caps pro rata in respect of each 2030 P-Cap. On May 20, 2025, Trust I was dissolved and The Depository Trust Company distributed the 2.330% Senior Notes to the beneficial holders of the 2030 P-Caps pro rata in respect of each 2030 P-Cap.

Trust II Facility Agreement

On May 20, 2025, LNC entered into a 30-year facility agreement (the “Trust II Facility Agreement”) with Belrose Funding Trust II, a Delaware statutory trust (“Trust II”), in connection with Trust II’s sale of $1.0 billion of its Pre-Capitalized Trust Securities Redeemable May 15, 2055, (the “2055 P-Caps”) in a private placement pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act. Trust II invested the proceeds from the sale of the 2055 P-Caps in a portfolio of principal and interest strips of U.S. Treasury securities (the “Trust II Eligible Assets”). The Trust II Facility Agreement provides LNC the right to issue to Trust II, and to require Trust II to purchase from LNC, on one or more occasions, up to an aggregate principal amount outstanding at any one time of $1.0 billion of LNC’s 6.792% Senior Notes due 2055 (the “6.792% senior notes”) in exchange for a corresponding amount of the Trust II Eligible Assets. LNC may direct Trust II to grant all or a portion of the issuance right to one or more assignees (who are LNC’s consolidated subsidiaries or persons to whom LNC or any such consolidated subsidiary has an obligation or liability) (each, an “Issuance Right Assignee”) who may cause a corresponding portion of the 6.792% senior notes to be issued to Trust II and receive the corresponding Trust II Eligible Assets that would otherwise have been delivered to LNC pursuant to the exercise of the issuance right. The 6.792% senior notes will not be issued unless and until the issuance right is exercised. In return, LNC pays Trust II a semi-annual facility fee at a rate of 1.888% per year (applied to the unexercised portion of the issuance right) and reimburses Trust II for its expenses.

The issuance right will be exercised automatically in full upon (1) LNC’s failure to make certain payments to Trust II, such as the facility fee or payments for Trust II’s expenses, or failure to purchase and pay for any defaulted Trust II Eligible Assets that LNC is required to purchase at their face amount from Trust II pursuant to the Trust II Facility Agreement, in each case if the failure is not cured within 30 days, or (2) certain bankruptcy events involving LNC. LNC is also required to exercise the issuance right in full if it reasonably believes that its consolidated stockholders’ equity (excluding AOCI and equity of noncontrolling interests attributable thereto) has fallen below a minimum threshold (which was $2.75 billion as of September 30, 2025, and is subject to adjustment from time to time in certain cases), if an event of default under the indenture governing the 6.792% senior notes has occurred or would have occurs, and upon certain other events described in the Trust II Facility Agreement.

Prior to any involuntary exercise of the issuance right, LNC has the right to repurchase the 6.792% senior notes then outstanding and held by Trust II, in whole or in part, in exchange for principal and/or interest strips of U.S. Treasury securities, and may exercise or assign the issuance right with respect to the repurchased 6.792% senior notes at a later date. Additionally, LNC may redeem any outstanding 6.792% senior notes, in whole or in part, prior to their maturity. Prior to November 15, 2054, the redemption price will equal the greater of par and a make-whole redemption price. On or after November 15, 2054, any outstanding 6.792% senior notes may be redeemed at par.

13. Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Financial Instruments Carried at Fair Value

The following summarizes our financial instruments carried at fair value (in millions) on a recurring basis by the fair value hierarchy levels:

(1)Derivative investment assets and liabilities are presented within the fair value hierarchy on a gross basis by derivative type and not on a master netting basis by counterparty.

The following summarizes changes to our financial instruments carried at fair value (in millions) and classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The gains and losses below may include changes in fair value due in part to observable inputs that are a component of the valuation methodology. The summary schedule excludes changes to MRB assets and MRB liabilities as these balances are rolled forward in Note 8.

(1)The changes in fair value of the interest rate swaps are offset by an adjustment to derivative investments (see Note 5).

(2)Amortization and accretion of premiums and discounts are included in net investment income on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss). Gains (losses) from sales, maturities, settlements and calls and credit loss expense are included in realized gain (loss) on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

(3)Gains (losses) from the changes in fair value are included in market risk benefit gain (loss) on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

(4)Gains (losses) from the changes in fair value are included in realized gain (loss) on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

The following provides the components of the items included in issuances, sales, maturities, settlements and calls, net, (in millions) as reported above:

The following summarizes changes in unrealized gains (losses) included in net income related to financial instruments carried at fair value classified within Level 3 that we still held (in millions):

(1) Included in realized gain (loss) on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

(2) Included in market risk benefit gain (loss) on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).

The following summarizes changes in unrealized gains (losses) included in OCI, net of tax, related to financial instruments carried at fair value classified within Level 3 that we still held (in millions):

The following provides the components of the transfers into and out of Level 3 (in millions) as reported above:

Transfers into and out of Level 3 are generally the result of observable market information on financial instruments no longer being available or becoming available to our pricing vendors. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, transfers in and out of Level 3 were attributable primarily to the financial instruments’ observable market information no longer being available or becoming available.

The following summarizes the fair value (in millions), valuation techniques and significant unobservable inputs of the Level 3 fair value measurements as of September 30, 2025:

The following summarizes the fair value (in millions), valuation techniques and significant unobservable inputs of the Level 3 fair value measurements as of December 31, 2024:

(1) Unobservable inputs were weighted by the relative fair value of the instruments, unless otherwise noted.

(2) The liquidity/duration adjustment input represents an estimated market participant composite of adjustments attributable to liquidity premiums, expected durations, structures and credit quality that would be applied to the market observable information of an investment.

(3) The lapse input represents the estimated probability of a contract surrendering during a year, and thereby forgoing any future benefits. The range for indexed annuity contracts represents the lapses during the surrender charge period.

(4) The utilization of GLB withdrawals input represents the estimated percentage of policyholders that utilize the GLB withdrawal riders.

(5) The utilization factors are applied to the present value of claims or premiums, as appropriate, in the MRB calculation to estimate the impact of inefficient GLB withdrawal behavior, including taking less than or more than the maximum GLB withdrawal.

(6) The non-performance risk input represents the estimated additional credit spread that market participants would apply to the market observable discount rate when pricing a contract. The non-performance risk input was weighted by the absolute value of the sensitivity of the reserve to the non-performance risk assumption.

(7) The mortality input represents the estimated probability of when an individual belonging to a particular group, categorized according to age or some other factor such as gender, will die.

(8) The volatility input represents overall volatilities assumed for the underlying variable annuity funds, which include a mixture of equity and fixed-income assets. Volatility assumptions vary by fund due to the benchmarking of different indices. The volatility input was weighted by the relative account balance assigned to each index.

(9) The mortality is based on a combination of company and industry experience, adjusted for improvement factors.

(10) A weighted average input range is not a meaningful measurement for lapse, utilization factors or mortality.

(11) The fair value inputs for ceded MRBs are consistent with those used to value MRB assets and liabilities.

From the table above, we have excluded Level 3 fair value measurements obtained from independent, third-party pricing sources. We do not develop the significant inputs used to measure the fair value of these assets and liabilities, and the information regarding the significant inputs is not readily available to us. Independent broker-quoted fair values are non-binding quotes developed by market makers or broker-dealers obtained from third-party sources recognized as market participants. The fair value of a broker-quoted asset or liability is based solely on the receipt of an updated quote from a single market maker or a broker-dealer recognized as a market participant as we do not adjust broker quotes when used as the fair value measurement for an asset or liability. Significant increases or decreases in any of the quotes received from a third-party broker-dealer may result in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement.

The embedded derivative liability associated with Fortitude Re was excluded from the above table. As discussed in Note 7, this embedded derivative liability was created through a coinsurance with funds withheld reinsurance agreement where the investments supporting the reinsurance agreement were withheld by and continue to be reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. This reinsurance-related embedded derivative is valued as a total return swap with reference to the fair value of the investments held by us. Accordingly, the unobservable inputs utilized in the valuation of the reinsurance-related embedded derivative are a component of the investments supporting the reinsurance agreement that are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Changes in any of the significant inputs presented in the table above would have resulted in a significant change in the fair value measurement of the asset or liability as follows:

•Investments – An increase in the liquidity/duration adjustment input would have resulted in a decrease in the fair value measurement.

•Indexed annuity contracts embedded derivatives – For direct embedded derivatives, an increase in the lapse or mortality inputs would have resulted in a decrease in the fair value measurement.

•MRBs – Assuming our MRBs are in a liability position: an increase in our lapse, non-performance risk or mortality inputs would have resulted in a decrease in the fair value measurement, except for policies with guaranteed death benefit (“GDB”) riders only, in which case an increase in mortality inputs would have resulted in an increase in the fair value measurement.

For each category discussed above, the unobservable inputs are not inter-related; therefore, a directional change in one input would not have affected the other inputs.

As part of our ongoing valuation process, we assess the reasonableness of our valuation techniques or models and make adjustments as necessary.

Fair Value Option

Mortgage loans on real estate, net of allowance for credit losses, as reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, includes mortgage loans on real estate for which the fair value option was elected. The fair value option allows us to elect fair value as an alternative measurement for mortgage loans not otherwise reported at fair value. We have made these elections for certain mortgage loans associated with modified coinsurance agreements to help mitigate the inconsistency in earnings that would otherwise result from the use of embedded derivatives included with these loans. Changes in fair value are reflected in realized gain (loss) on the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income (Loss). Changes in fair value due to instrument-specific credit risk are estimated using changes in credit spreads and quality ratings for the period reported. Mortgage loans on real estate for which the fair value option was elected are valued using third-party pricing services. We have procedures in place to review the valuations each quarter to ensure they are reasonable, including utilizing a separate third party to reperform the valuation for a selection of mortgage loans on an annual basis. Due to lack of observable inputs, mortgage loans electing the fair value option are classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

The fair value and aggregate contractual principal for mortgage loans on real estate where the fair value option was elected (in millions) were as follows:

For information on current and past due composition and accruing status for loans where we have elected the fair value option, see Note 3.

Financial Instruments Not Carried at Fair Value

The following summarizes the fair value by the fair value hierarchy levels and the carrying amount of our financial instruments not carried at fair value (in millions):

The following discussion outlines the methodologies and assumptions used to determine the fair value of our financial instruments not carried at fair value on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Considerable judgment is required to develop these assumptions used to measure fair value. Accordingly, the estimates shown above are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that would be realized in a one-time, current market exchange of all of our financial instruments.

The fair value of mortgage loans on real estate, excluding mortgage loans accounted for using the fair value option, is established using a discounted cash flow method based on credit rating, maturity and future income. The ratings for mortgages in good standing are based on property type, location, market conditions, occupancy, debt-service coverage, LTV, quality of tenancy, borrower and payment record. The fair value for impaired mortgage loans is based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, the loan’s market price or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. The inputs used to measure the fair value of our mortgage loans on real estate, excluding mortgage loans accounted for using the fair value option, are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Other Investments

The carrying value of our assets classified as other investments, excluding short-term investments, approximates fair value. Other investments includes primarily LPs and other privately held investments that are accounted for using the equity method of accounting and the carrying value is based on our proportional share of the net assets of the LPs. Other investments also includes FHLB stock carried at cost and periodically evaluated for impairment based on ultimate recovery of par value. The inputs used to measure the fair value of our LPs, other privately held investments and FHLB stock are classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy. The remaining assets in other investments include cash collateral receivables and securities that are not LPs or other privately held investments. The inputs used to measure the fair value of these assets are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Policy Loans

The carrying value for policy loans are the unpaid principal balances. Policy loans are fully collateralized by the cash surrender value of underlying insurance policies. As a result, the carrying value of the policy loans approximates the fair value. The inputs used to measure the fair value of these assets are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Cash and Invested Cash

Cash and invested cash is carried at cost. The inputs used to measure its fair value are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Policyholder Account Balances – Certain Investment Contracts and Other Liabilities

Policyholder account balances and other liabilities include account balances of certain investment contracts that exclude significant mortality or morbidity risk. The fair value of the account balances of certain investment contracts is based on a discounted cash flow model as of the balance sheet date. The inputs used to measure the fair value of these policyholder account balances are classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

Policyholder Account Balances – Funding Agreements

The fair value of funding agreements issued under the FABN program is based on quoted market prices. The fair value of secured funding agreements under the FABR program is based on a discounted cash flow model as of the balance sheet date. The inputs used to measure the fair value of funding agreements are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. For more information on funding agreements, see Note 10.

Short-Term and Long-Term Debt

The fair value of short-term and long-term debt is based on quoted market prices. The inputs used to measure the fair value of our short-term and long-term debt are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Funds Withheld Reinsurance Liabilities

Funds withheld reinsurance liabilities includes our obligation to pay reinsurers under coinsurance with funds withheld and modified coinsurance arrangements where the Company is the cedant. This liability includes embedded derivatives, which are total return swaps with contractual returns that are attributable to the Company’s reinsurance agreements. The embedded derivatives are carried at fair value and thus excluded from the preceding table. The inputs used to measure the remaining balance are classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.

14. Contingencies and Commitments

Contingencies

Regulatory and Litigation Matters

Regulatory bodies, such as state insurance departments, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, tax authorities and other regulatory bodies regularly make inquiries and conduct examinations, investigations or audits concerning our compliance with, among other things, insurance laws, securities laws, tax laws, laws governing the activities of broker-dealers and registered investment advisers and unclaimed property laws. Tax-related matters can include disputes with taxing authorities, ongoing audits, evaluation of filing positions and any potential assessments related thereto.

LNC is involved in various pending or threatened legal or regulatory proceedings, including purported class actions, arising from the conduct of business both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding verdicts obtained in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experiences of LNC in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

Due to the unpredictable nature of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is normally difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

We establish liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when information related to the loss contingencies shows both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. It is possible that some matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated as of September 30, 2025.

For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects two types of matters. For some matters included within this estimate, an accrual has been made, but there is a reasonable possibility that an exposure exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, while potentially estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible but not probable. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of September 30, 2025, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, including amounts in excess of amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $150 million, after-tax. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure on such matters.

For other matters, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Among other matters, we are presently engaged in litigation, including relating to cost of insurance rates (“Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation”), as described below. No accrual has been made for some of these matters. Although a loss is believed to be reasonably possible for these matters, for some of these matters, we are not able to estimate a reasonably possible amount or range of potential liability. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters may have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements, but, based on information currently known, management does not believe those cases are likely to have such an impact.

Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation

Cost of Insurance Litigation

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“LNL”) on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. In response, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023. On March 7, 2024, the parties entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses policies that are at issue in this case, which also includes all policies at issue in the lawsuits captioned Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Companyand Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, each of which are described below. The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida). As of September 30, 2025, the total provisional settlement amount of$147.5 million, pre-tax, remains accrued.

Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company (“FPP”), No. 2:18-cv-01573, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed on April 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above) entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuits captioned TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD.

v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Companyand Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (both discussed below). The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the Glover provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida). A motion has been filed to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the completion of the settlement approval process in Glover.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above) entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuits captioned Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company(discussed above) and Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (discussed below). The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the Glover provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida). A motion has been filed to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the completion of the settlement approval process in Glover.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (“LLANY”) charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified a class of all current or former owners of six universal life insurance products issued by LLANY that were assessed a cost of insurance charge any time on or after June 27, 2013. Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the class. On April 19, 2023, LLANY filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above) entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuits captioned Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Companyand TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company(both discussed above). The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On March 29, 2024, the court issued its summary judgment decision, granting LLANY’s motion in part and denying it in part, and entering summary judgment against twenty-two policyholders that the court determined were not economically harmed. On June 25, 2024, the court granted LLANY’s April 12, 2024, motion to stay proceedings in this matter pending the completion of the approval process in Glover. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the Glover provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the Glover provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in Iwanski, TVPX ARS INC. and Vida).

Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:22-cv-01878, is a putative class action filed on May 13, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. On August 26, 2022, LNL filed a motion to dismiss. We are vigorously defending this matter.

EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 17-cv-02592-GJP (E.D. Pa.), filed on February 1, 2017; Brighton Trustees, LLC, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-2251-GJP (E.D. Pa.), filed on April 20, 2023 (and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 12, 2023); and Ryan K. Crayne, on behalf of and as trustee for Carlton Peak Trust v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 2:24-cv-00053-GJP, filed on November 17, 2023 (and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 4, 2024) are consolidated civil actions pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In each case other than Crayne, plaintiffs purport to own universal life insurance policies or interests in universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). In Crayne, plaintiffs purport to own litigation claims concerning universal life policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other things, plaintiffs in each case allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016 (or, in Brighton Trustees, in 2016 and 2017). We are vigorously defending these consolidated matters. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, solely in its capacity as securities intermediary v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 25-cv-00152-GJP (E.D. Pa.), filed on December 4, 2024 (and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 9, 2025) was previously consolidated with the above civil actions. On October 7, 2025, we entered into an agreement fully and finally settling the Wells Fargo case, and the Wells Fargo parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the Wells Fargo case with prejudice.

Other Litigation

Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, et al, filed in the District Court of the 14 th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, No. DC-23-02492, is a putative class action that was filed on February 22, 2023. Plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale, Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and Toni Hale (“Plaintiffs”) allege on behalf of a putative class that Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and LLANY (together, “Lincoln”), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product Services, LLC (“Fidelity”) created and marketed misleading and deceptive insurance products with attributes of investment products. The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who purchased Lincoln OptiBlend products that allocated account monies to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account, between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Plaintiffs assert the following claims individually and on behalf of the class, (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3) negligent misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4) aiding and abetting fraud against Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages from “a missed investment return of approximately 5-6%” and mitigation damages. They seek actual, consequential and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and litigation costs. On March 31, 2023, the Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal removing the action from the 14 th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Donald C. Meade v. Lincoln National Corporation, Ellen Cooper, Dennis Glass, and Randal Freitag(“Defendants”), No. 2:24-cv-01704, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is a putative class action that was filed on April 23, 2024. On June 24, 2024, Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund (“Local 295”) filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. On October 23, 2024, the court granted this motion. Local 295 seeks to represent persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lincoln National Corporation common stock between December 8, 2021, and November 2, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”). On December 23, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and under SEC Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts that plaintiff alleges Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, at the time the statements were made, about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects with respect to its Guaranteed Universal Life policies and their lapse rates. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, together with equitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On February 21, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On July 24, 2025, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff was given 14 days from the date of the court’s order to file a second amended complaint. On August 7, 2025, plaintiff informed the court that it would pursue its appellate rights and would not file a second amended complaint. On August 28, 2025, the court entered an Order of Judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and directing that the amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice. On September 25, 2025, plaintiff filed a Notice to Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in respect of the court’s order of July 24, 2025, and Order of Judgment of August 28, 2025 (including as to all prior opinions and orders that have merged into that order). We are vigorously defending this matter.

In Re Lincoln National Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2:24-cv-02713, is the matter name for the following two civil actions that were consolidated for all purposes on September 26, 2024, by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Lawrence Hollin, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation v. Ellen G. Cooper, Dennis R. Glass, Randal J. Freitag, Deirdre P Connelly, William H. Cunningham, Reginald E. Davis, Eric G. Johnson, Gary C. Kelly, M. Leanne Lachman, Dale LeFebvre, Janet Liang, Michael F. Mee, Lynn M. Utter and Patrick S. Pittard (“Individual Defendants”)and Lincoln National Corporation (“Nominal Defendant”), No. 2:24-cv-02713 (E.D. Pa.), filed on June 20, 2024; and Robert R. Wiersum, derivatively on behalf of Lincoln National Corporation v. Ellen G. Cooper, Dennis R. Glass, Randal J. Freitag, Deirdre P Connelly, William H. Cunningham, Reginald E. Davis, Eric G. Johnson, Gary C. Kelly, M. Leanne Lachman, Dale LeFebvre, Janet Liang, Michael F. Mee, Lynn M. Utter and Patrick S. Pittard(“Individual Defendants”)and Lincoln National Corporation (“Nominal Defendant”), No. 2:24-cv-03251 (E.D. Pa.), filed on July 23, 2024. By the same September 26, 2024, order, the court directed, among other things, that all proceedings and deadlines in this consolidated case be stayed until 30 days after resolution of all motions to dismiss (including the exhaustion of all related appeals) in the Meade matter discussed above. Plaintiffs bring this complaint for, inter alia, alleged breaches of fiduciary duties between November 4, 2020, at latest, through the date of filing and allege violations of the federal securities laws caused by the issuance of allegedly materially false and misleading statements issued, or caused to be issued, by the Individual Defendants in the Company’s SEC filings and other public statements. Plaintiffs allege that the Company thereby suffered loss, injury and damage. Among other relief, plaintiffs seek, in favor of the Company, damages sustained by the Company, punitive damages and attorney’s fees, an accounting for all damages to the Company and an unspecified order directing the Company to improve existing corporate governance and internal procedures. The Individual Defendants are vigorously defending these consolidated matters.

In Re Lincoln National Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. CV-2024-0011319, is the matter name for the following two civil actions that were consolidated for all purposes on February 28, 2025, by the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania: Anthony Morgan, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation v. Ellen G. Cooper, Deirdre P. Connelly, William H. Cunningham, Reginald Davis, Eric C. [G.] Johnson, Gary C. Kelly, M. Leanne Lachman, Dale LeFebvre, Janet Liang, Lynn M. Utter, Dennis Glass and Randal Freitag (“Individual Defendants”)and Lincoln National Corporation (“Nominal Defendant”), No. CV-2024-011319 (Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania) filed on December 31, 2024; and Harry Rosenthal, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation v. Ellen G. Cooper, Deirdre P Connelly, William H. Cunningham, Reginald Davis, Eric C. [G.] Johnson, Gary C. Kelly, M. Leanne Lachman, Dale LeFebvre, Janet Liang, Lynn M. Utter, Dennis Glass and Randal Freitag (“Individual Defendants”)and Lincoln National Corporation (“Nominal Defendant”), No. CV-2025-00146 (Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania) filed on January 3, 2025. By the same February 28, 2025, order, the court directed, among other things, that all proceedings and deadlines in this consolidated case be stayed until 30 days after resolution of all motions to dismiss (including the exhaustion of all related appeals) in the Meade matter discussed above. Plaintiffs bring this verified stockholder derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of Nominal Defendant Lincoln National Corporation against the Individual Defendants, inter alia, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties for allegedly failing to comply with federal securities laws, by the issuance of allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company’s SEC filings and other public statements. Plaintiffs allege claims against the Individual Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Individual Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company was experiencing a decline in its VUL business; (ii) that, as a result, the goodwill associated with the life insurance business was overstated; (iii) that, as a result, the Company’s policy lapse assumptions were outdated; (iv) that, as a result, the Company’s reserves were overstated; (v) that, as a result, the Company’s reported financial results and financial statements were misstated; and (vi) that, as a result, the Individual Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Plaintiffs allege that the Company thereby suffered loss, injury and damage. Among other relief, the action seeks specifically, in favor of the Company: damages sustained by the Company; a direction by the court for the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with all applicable laws and to protect the Company and its shareholders; restitution from the Individual Defendants, and each of them, and an order for the disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the Individual Defendants; the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The Individual Defendants are vigorously defending this matter.

Kelly Grink v. Virtua Health and Lincoln National Corporation et al., No. 1:24-cv-09919, is a putative class action filed on October 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 7, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, inter alia, added an additional named plaintiff (Steven Molnar) and additional named defendants, including Lincoln Retirement Services Company, LLC, and [The] Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. Plaintiffs Kelly Grink, Diane Trump and Steven Molnar are participants in Virtua Health’s defined contribution plans. Plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former participants or beneficiaries of Virtua’s 401(k) savings plan and 403(b) retirement program (together, the “Plans”) who invested in the Plans’ fixed annuity option in the six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Lincoln offers a fixed annuity investment option to plan participants through its group annuity contract with the Plans. Lincoln also provides recordkeeping and administration services to the Plans. Plaintiffs allege that the Virtua defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duty including by maintaining the Plans’ investment in the Lincoln stable value fund when other investment providers are alleged to have provided superior alternatives at substantially lower cost. Plaintiffs allege that the Lincoln defendants were at all relevant times fiduciaries to the Plans and were parties in interest to a prohibited transaction under ERISA. The action seeks relief against the Lincoln defendants including the disgorgement of any profits they received as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, together with plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other equitable or remedial relief as the court deems appropriate. On April 4, 2025, the Lincoln defendants filed a motion to dismiss. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Maria Laurino and Ricardo Miller v. The Valley Hospital and Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, et. al., No. 2:25-cv-15263, is a putative class action lawsuit filed on September 4, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs are participants in Valley Hospital Health System Partnership Plan (the “Plan”), which is the 401(k) defined contribution plan for The Valley Hospital and affiliated entities. Plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former participants and beneficiaries in the Plan since September 4, 2019. Lincoln offers a fixed annuity investment option to Plan participants through its group annuity contract with the Plan. Lincoln also provides recordkeeping and administration services to the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that The Valley Hospital defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duty, including by maintaining the Plan’s investment in the Lincoln stable value fund when other investment providers are alleged to have provided superior investment alternatives, and by participating in an alleged fiduciary breach by Lincoln. Plaintiffs allege that the Lincoln defendants were fiduciaries to the Plan and were parties in interest to a prohibited transaction under ERISA. The action seeks relief against the Lincoln defendants, including the disgorgement of profits, attorney’s fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other equitable or remedial relief as the court deems appropriate. We are vigorously defending this matter.

Tax Assessment Proceeding

Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Township of Radnor, pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Civil Division, No. 2022-001894, is a de novo appeal filed by LNL on March 21, 2022, regarding a September 30, 2021, Notice of Tax Assessment issued by the Township of Radnor (the “Township”) to LNL for additional business privilege tax for the years 2014-2019/2020 estimate. The assessment was based on an audit undertaken by a third-party auditor and consultant to the Township, following a periodic business review of LNL undertaken by the same individual in 2018. The assessment is comprised of taxes, interest and penalties for the period in question. LNL filed a motion for summary judgment that was denied by the court. The trial of this matter was held in the fourth quarter of 2024. On July 16, 2025, the trial court entered judgment in favor of LNL. On July 25, 2025, the Township filed a post-trial motion asking the trial court to vacate that judgment, reinstate the assessment subject to accrued statutory interest and enter judgment in favor of the Township. On August 15, 2025, the Township filed a notice of appeal in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. On the same date, LNL filed a motion to strike the Township’s post-trial motion in the trial court, and the trial court granted LNL’s motion.

Reinsurance Disputes

Certain reinsurers have in the past sought, and may in the future seek, rate increases on certain yearly renewable term agreements. We may initiate legal proceedings, as necessary, under these agreements in order to protect our contractual rights. Additionally, reinsurers have in the past initiated, and may in the future initiate, legal proceedings against us.

State Guaranty Fund Assessments

State guaranty associations levy assessments on insurance companies doing business within their jurisdictions to cover policyholder losses from insolvent or impaired insurance companies. Mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in some states. We accrue the cost of future guaranty fund assessments based on estimates of insurance company insolvencies provided by the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations and the amount of premiums written in each state. We reported the undiscounted expected state guaranty fund assessment liability within other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of $63 million as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024. The actual amount of assessments levied against us in connection with insurance company insolvencies may vary from this estimate. Future guaranty fund assessments are expected to be paid based on anticipated funding periods for each guaranty association obligation. In addition, we reported the related receivable for expected future state premium tax recoveries within other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of$100 million and $99 millionas of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively. Premium tax recoveries are expected to be realized based on regulations set forth by the various state taxing authorities. The balance sheet position as of September 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, nets to recoveries of$37 million and $36 million, respectively.

15. Shares and Stockholders’ Equity

Preferred Shares

Preferred stock authorized, issued and outstanding (number of shares) was as follows:

The per share and aggregate dividends declared for preferred stock by series (in millions except per share data) was as follows:

Common Shares

The changes in our common stock (number of shares) were as follows:

Our common stock is without par value.

Issuance of Common Stock

On June 5, 2025, we closed the previously announced stock purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Bain Capital Prairie, LLC (the “Buyer”), a newly formed subsidiary of Bain Capital, under which we agreed to sell shares representing 9.9% of our outstanding common stock on a post-issuance basis to the Buyer. Under the final terms, Lincoln issued 18,759,497 shares of common stock at $44.00 per share, based on a 25% premium to the 30-day volume-weighted average price as of April 8, 2025, for aggregate consideration of $825 million.

The Purchase Agreement provides for, among other things, certain limitations on the Buyer’s and certain of its affiliates’ ability to transfer common stock, purchase additional common stock, and take certain other actions with respect to the Company and its common stock, and an agreement that the Buyer and certain of its affiliates will, subject to certain limitations, vote common stock they beneficially own in favor of the matters recommended for approval by the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”). The Purchase Agreement also grants the Buyer the right to designateone observer to be present in a nonvoting capacity at all meetings of the Board and, following the first anniversary of the closing of the Transaction, the right to replace such observer with a voting member of the Board, in each case subject to the Buyer’s satisfaction of certain conditions and approval of the Board.

Earnings Per Share

The calculation of earnings per share (“EPS”) was as follows (in millions except per share data):