ASSURED GUARANTY LTD

An inability to obtain accurate and timely financial information from Sound Point or other alternative investment managers may impair the Company’s ability to comply with reporting obligations under federal securities law.

The Company will be reliant on Sound Point and other alternative investment managers to provide accurate and timely financial reporting that will allow the Company to timely prepare and file its own financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (GAAP) and in compliance with SEC regulations and New York Stock Exchange listing rules.

As private companies, Sound Point and other alternative investment managers are not subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and historically have not been required to prepare their financial statements in accordance with GAAP or in compliance with the SEC’s accounting regulations. The Company expects to report certain of its investments in Sound Point, the Sound Point funds, other vehicles and separately managed accounts and other alternative investment funds on a one-quarter lag. While each of Sound Point, other alternative investment managers and their respective related parties have agreed to provide to the Company financial information necessary to complete and file its periodic SEC reports on a timely basis, any failure by Sound Point, other alternative investment managers or their respective related parties to provide the Company with accurate and timely financial information could result in a delay in the Company’s timely reporting of its results of operations or it not filing one or more periodic reports with the SEC on time or inaccuracies in its financial statements.

Changes in the fair value of the Company’s insured credit derivatives portfolio, its CCS, and its FG VIEs, the Company’s alternative investments, including those accounted for as CIVs, and/or the Company’s decision to consolidate or deconsolidate one or more FG VIEs and/or CIVs during a financial reporting period, may subject its results of operations to volatility.

The Company is required to mark-to-market certain derivatives that it insures, including CDS that are considered derivatives under GAAP as well as its CCS. Although there is no cash flow effect from this “marking-to-market,” net changes in the fair value of these derivatives are reported in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations and therefore affect its results of operations. If a credit derivative is held to maturity and no credit loss is incurred, any unrealized gains or losses previously reported would be reversed as the transaction reaches maturity. The Company also expects fluctuations in the fair value of its put option under its CCS to reverse over time. For discussion of the Company’s fair value methodology for credit derivatives, see, Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 9, Fair Value Measurement.

The Company is required to consolidate certain VIEs, which generally consist of (1) entities to which it has provided financial guaranties and (2) funds and vehicles in which it invests, such as those managed by Sound Point (and, prior to July 1, 2023, AssuredIM), if it concludes that it is the primary beneficiary of that VIE. Substantially all of the assets and liabilities of the consolidated FG VIEs and CIVs are reported at fair value. The Company continuously evaluates its power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of VIEs and, if circumstances change, may consolidate a VIE that was not previously consolidated or deconsolidate a VIE that had previously been consolidated, and such consolidation or deconsolidation would impact its financial condition and results of operations in the period in which such action is taken. See, Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 8, Financial Guaranty Variable Interest Entities and Consolidated Investment Vehicles.

The required treatment under GAAP of the Company’s insured credit derivatives portfolio, its CCS and its VIEs causes its financial condition and results of operations as reported under GAAP to be more volatile than would be suggested by the actual performance of its business operations. Due to the complexity of fair value methodologies and the application of GAAP requirements, future amendments or interpretations of relevant accounting standards may cause the Company to modify its accounting methodology in a manner which may have an adverse impact on its financial results.

Change in industry and other accounting practices could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, business prospects and share price.

Changes in or the issuance of new accounting standards, as well as any changes in the interpretation of current accounting guidance, could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, business prospects and share price. See, Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 1, Business and Basis of Presentation, for a discussion of the future application of accounting standards.

Changes in or inability to comply with applicable law and regulations could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, capital, liquidity, business prospects and share price.

The Company’s businesses are subject to detailed insurance, asset management and other financial services laws and government regulation in the jurisdictions in which it operates across the globe. In addition to the insurance, asset management and other regulations and laws specific to the industries in which it operates or invests, regulatory agencies in jurisdictions in which the Company operates across the globe have broad administrative power over many aspects of the Company’s business, which may include ethical issues, money laundering, privacy, recordkeeping and marketing and sales practices. Future legislative, regulatory, judicial or other legal changes in the jurisdictions in which the Company does business may adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, capital, liquidity, business prospects and share price by, among other things, limiting the types of risks it may insure, lowering applicable single or aggregate risk limits related to its insurance business, increasing required reserves or capital for its insurance subsidiaries, providing insured obligors with additional avenues for avoiding or restructuring the repayment of their insured liabilities, increasing the level of supervision or regulation to which the Company’s operations may be subject, imposing restrictions that make the Company’s products less attractive to potential buyers and investors, lowering the profitability of the Company’s business activities, requiring the Company to change certain of its business practices and exposing it to additional costs (including increased compliance costs).

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is time consuming and personnel-intensive. If the Company fails to comply with applicable insurance or investment advisory laws and regulations it could be exposed to fines, the loss of insurance or investment advisory licenses, limitations on the right to originate new business and restrictions on its ability to pay dividends. If an insurance subsidiary’s surplus declines below minimum required levels, the insurance regulator could impose additional restrictions on the insurance subsidiary or initiate insolvency proceedings.

Legislation, regulation or litigation arising out of the struggles of distressed obligors may adversely impact the Company’s legal rights as creditor as well as its investments.

Borrower distress or default, whether or not the relevant obligation is insured by one of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries, may result in legislation, regulation or litigation that may impact the Company’s legal rights as creditor or its investments. For example, the default by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on much of its debt has resulted in both legislation (including the enactment of PROMESA) and litigation that is continuing to impact the Company’s rights as creditor, most directly in Puerto Rico but also elsewhere in the U.S. municipal market.

The Company is, and may be in the future, involved in litigation, both as a defendant and as a plaintiff, in the ordinary course of its insurance and asset management business and other business operations. The outcome of such litigation could materially impact the Company’s loss reserves and results of operations and cash flows. For a discussion of material litigation, see, Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 3, Outstanding Exposure; Note 4, Expected Loss to be Paid (Recovered); and Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies.

AGL’s ability to pay dividends and fund share repurchases and other activities may be constrained by certain insurance regulatory requirements and restrictions.

AGL is subject to Bermuda regulatory requirements that affect its ability to pay dividends on common shares and to make other payments. Under the Bermuda Companies Act 1981, as amended, AGL may declare or pay a dividend only if it has reasonable grounds for believing that it is, and after the payment would be, able to pay its liabilities as they become due, and if the realizable value of its assets would not be less than its liabilities. While AGL currently intends to pay dividends on its common shares, investors who require dividend income should carefully consider these risks before investing in AGL.

AGL is dependent on dividends from its subsidiaries, including dividends from its insurance subsidiaries, for resources to pay holders of its common shares, fund share repurchases and pursue other activities. The ordinary dividends that AGL’s insurance subsidiaries may pay without regulatory approval are subject to legal and regulatory limitations. See “– Regulatory – State Dividend Limitations,” “– Non-U.S. Regulation – Bermuda – Restrictions on Dividends and Distributions,” “– Non-U.S. Regulation – United Kingdom Insurance and Financial Services Regulation – Restrictions on Dividend Payments” and “– Non-U.S. Regulation – France – Restrictions on Dividend Payments.” As a result, absent relief from the relevant regulator(s), the Company’s insurance subsidiaries may be required to retain capital in the insurance companies that is substantially in excess of what the Company believes is necessary to support its insurance businesses, reducing the Company’s ability to productively use or return to shareholders such excess capital. In addition, if, pursuant to insurance laws and regulations, AGL’s insurance subsidiaries are not permitted to pay ordinary dividends or make other permitted payments to AGL at the times or in sufficient amounts AGL requires to fund its activities, and if AGL’s other operating subsidiaries were unable to provide such funds, AGL’s ability to pay dividends to shareholders or fund share repurchases or pursue other activities could be adversely affected. See “— Operational Risks — The ability of AGL and its subsidiaries to meet their liquidity needs may be limited.”

Applicable insurance laws may make it difficult to effect a change of control of AGL.

Before a person can acquire control of a U.S., U.K. or French insurance company, prior written approval must be obtained from the relevant regulator commissioner of the state or country where the insurer is domiciled. In addition, once a person controls a Bermuda insurance company, the Authority may object to such a person who is not, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to exercise such control. Because a person acquiring 10% or more of AGL’s common shares would indirectly control the same percentage of the stock of its insurance subsidiaries, the insurance change of control laws of Maryland, New York, the U.K., France and Bermuda would likely apply to such a transaction. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent a change of control of AGL, including through transactions, and in particular unsolicited transactions, that some or all of its shareholders might consider to be desirable. While AGL’s Bye-Laws limit the voting power of any shareholder to less than 10%, the Company cannot provide assurances that the applicable regulatory bodies would agree that a shareholder who owned 10% or more of its common shares did not control the applicable insurance subsidiaries, notwithstanding the limitation on the voting power of such shares.