Athene Holding Ltd.

Certain metrics discussed in this section are based on management view and therefore may not correspond to amounts disclosed in our consolidated financial statements or the notes thereto. For example, investment figures cited represent our net invested assets, which include assets held by cedants that correspond to liabilities ceded to us, but do not include amounts attributable to our noncontrolling interests in ACRA. In the context discussed, we believe that these metrics provide the most comprehensive view of our risk exposures. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Key Operating and Non-GAAP Measures–Net Invested Assets for further discussion.

Risks Relating to Our Business Operations

Our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows depend on the accuracy of our management’s assumptions and estimates, and we could experience significant gains or losses if these assumptions and estimates differ significantly from actual results.

We make and rely on certain assumptions and estimates regarding many matters related to our business, including valuations, interest rates, investment returns, expenses and operating costs, tax assets and liabilities, tax rates, business mix, surrender activity, mortality and contingent liabilities. We also use these assumptions and estimates to make decisions crucial to our business operations, including establishing pricing, target returns and expense structures for our insurance subsidiaries’ products and pension group annuity transactions; determining the amount of reserves we are required to hold for our policy liabilities; determining the price we will pay to acquire or reinsure business; determining the hedging strategies we employ to manage risks to our business and operations; and determining the amount of regulatory and rating agency capital that our insurance subsidiaries must hold to support their businesses. The factors influencing these assumptions and estimates cannot be calculated or predicted with certainty, and if our assumptions and estimates differ significantly from actual outcomes and results, our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows may be materially and adversely affected. Certain of the assumptions relevant to our business are discussed in greater detail below.

•Insurance Products and Liabilities –Pricing of our annuity and other insurance products, whether issued by us or acquired through reinsurance or acquisitions, is based upon assumptions about persistency, mortality and the rates at which optional benefits are elected. A factor which may affect persistency for some of our products is the value of guaranteed minimum benefits. An increase in the value of guaranteed minimum benefits could result in our policies remaining in force longer than we have estimated, which could adversely affect our results of operations. This could be caused by extended periods of poor equity market performance and/or low interest rates, developments affecting customer perception and other factors outside our control. Alternatively, our persistency estimates could be negatively affected during periods of rising equity markets or interest rates or by other factors outside our control, which could result in fewer policies remaining in force than estimated. Therefore, our results will vary based on deviations from expected policyholder behavior.

If emerging or actual experience deviates from our assumptions, such deviations could have a significant effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows. For example, a significant portion of our in-force and newly issued products contain riders that offer guaranteed lifetime income or death benefits. These riders expose us to mortality, longevity and policyholder behavior risks. If actual utilization of certain rider benefits is adverse when compared to our estimates used in setting our reserves for future policy benefits, these reserves may prove to be inadequate and we may be required to increase such reserves. More generally, deviations from our pricing expectations could result in our subsidiaries earning less of a spread between the investment income earned on our subsidiaries’ assets and the interest credited to such products and other costs incurred in servicing the products, or may require our subsidiaries to make more payments under certain products than our subsidiaries had projected.

•Determination of Fair Value –We hold securities, derivative instruments and other assets and liabilities that must be, or at our election are, measured at fair value. Fair value represents the anticipated amount that would be received upon the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction. The determination of fair value involves the use of various assumptions and estimates, and considerable judgment may be required to estimate fair value. Accordingly, estimates of fair value are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that could be realized in a current or future market exchange. As such, changes in or deviations from the assumptions used in such valuations can significantly affect our financial condition and results of operations. During periods of market disruption, including periods of rapidly changing credit spreads or illiquidity, if trading becomes less frequent or market data becomes less observable, it will likely be difficult to value certain of our investments. Further, rapidly changing credit and equity market conditions could materially impact the valuation of investments as reported within our financial statements, and the period-to-period changes in value could vary significantly. Even if our assumptions and valuations are accurate at the time that they are made, the market value of these investments could subsequently decline, which could materially and adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

•Hedging Strategies –We use, and may in the future use, derivatives and reinsurance contracts to hedge risks related to current or future changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities; current or future changes in cash flows; changes in interest rates, equity markets and credit spreads; the occurrence of credit defaults; foreign currency fluctuations; and changes in mortality and longevity. We use equity derivatives to hedge the liabilities associated with our indexed annuities. Our hedging strategies rely on assumptions and projections regarding our assets and liabilities, as well as general market factors and the creditworthiness of our counterparties, any or all of which may prove to be incorrect or inadequate. Additionally, the derivatives market has become the subject of comprehensive regulation, which may impact the availability and cost of derivatives that we use. Accordingly, our ability to hedge and our hedging activities may be adversely impacted or not have the desired impact. We may also incur significant losses on hedging transactions.

•Financial Statements –The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires management to make various estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported therein. These significant estimates and assumptions include, but are not limited to, the fair value of investments; impairment of investments and allowances for expected credit losses; derivatives valuation, including embedded derivatives; future policy benefit reserves; market risk benefit assets and liabilities; consolidation of VIEs; and income taxes. The estimates and assumptions required for these calculations involve judgment and by nature are imprecise and subject to changes and revisions over time. Accordingly, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected if actual results differ from the estimates we use or if assumptions are materially revised.

A financial strength rating downgrade, potential downgrade or any other negative action by a rating agency could make our product offerings less attractive, inhibit our ability to acquire future business through acquisitions or reinsurance and increase our cost of capital, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Various Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) review the financial performance and condition of insurers and reinsurers, including our subsidiaries, and publish their financial strength ratings as indicators of an insurer’s ability to meet policyholder obligations. These ratings are important to maintain public confidence in our insurance subsidiaries’ products, our insurance subsidiaries’ ability to market their products and our competitive position. Factors that could negatively influence this analysis include:

•changes to our business practices or organizational business plan in a manner that no longer supports our ratings;

•unfavorable financial or market trends;

•changes in NRSROs’ capital adequacy assessment methodologies in a manner that would adversely affect the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries;

•a need to increase reserves to support our outstanding insurance obligations;

•our inability to retain our senior management and other key personnel;

•rapid or excessive growth, especially through large reinsurance transactions or acquisitions, beyond the bounds of capital sufficiency or management capabilities as judged by the NRSROs; and

•significant losses to our investment portfolio.

Some other factors may also relate to circumstances outside of our control, such as views of the NRSRO and general economic conditions. Any downgrade or other negative action by a NRSRO with respect to the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries, or an entity we acquire, or our credit ratings, could materially adversely affect us and our ability to compete in many ways, including the following:

•reducing new sales of insurance products;

•harming relationships with or perceptions of distributors, IMOs, sales agents, banks and broker-dealers;

•increasing the number or amount of policy lapses or surrenders and withdrawals of funds, which may result in a mismatch of our overall asset and liability position;

•requiring us to offer higher crediting rates or greater policyholder guarantees on our insurance products in order to remain competitive;

•increase our borrowing costs;

•reducing our level of profitability and capital position generally or hindering our ability to raise new capital; or

•requiring us to collateralize obligations under or result in early or unplanned termination of hedging agreements and harming our ability to enter into new hedging agreements.

In order to improve or maintain their financial strength ratings, management may attempt to implement strategies which improve capital ratios or other measures and perceptions of our subsidiaries. We cannot guarantee any such measures will be successful. We cannot predict what actions NRSROs may take in the future, and failure to maintain current financial strength ratings could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We operate in a highly competitive industry that includes a number of competitors, which could limit our ability to achieve our growth strategies and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

We operate in highly competitive markets and compete with large and small industry participants. We face intense competition, including from US and non-US insurance and reinsurance companies, broker-dealers, financial advisors, asset managers, diversified financial institutions and private equity firms, with respect to both the products we offer and the acquisition and block reinsurance transactions we pursue. We compete based on a number of factors including financial strength ratings, credit ratings, brand recognition, reputation, quality of service, performance of our products, product features, scope of distribution and price. A decline in our competitive position as to one or more of these factors could adversely affect our profitability. In addition, we may in the future sacrifice our competitive or market position in order to improve our short-term profitability, particularly in the highly competitive retail markets, which may adversely affect our long-term growth and results of operations. Alternatively, we may sacrifice short-term profitability to maintain market share and long-term growth.

Many of our competitors are large and well-established and some have greater breadth of distribution; offer a broader range of products, services or features; assume a greater level of risk; or have higher financial strength, claims-paying or credit ratings than we do. Our competitors may also have lower return on capital targets than we do which may allow them to price products, reinsurance arrangements or acquisitions more competitively. In addition, our competitors, including new market entrants may engage in aggressive, non-economic pricing in an effort to gain market share. If we experience a decline in our competitive position or if our financial strength and credit ratings remain lower than the ratings of certain of our competitors, we may experience increased surrenders and/or an inability to reach sales targets or consummate block reinsurance transactions, which may have a material and adverse effect on our growth, business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

In addition, we may face other competitive risks beyond those specific to the businesses in which we operate. For example, the use and implementation of artificial intelligence, including machine learning technology and generative artificial intelligence (collectively, AI Technologies), may change how financial institutions, including insurers and asset managers, operate, design products, manage risk, and engage with distribution partners and policyholders. Competitors that more effectively adopt or deploy AI Technologies may gain operational, pricing, or product‑development advantages, which could increase competitive pressures.

If we are unable to attract and retain IMOs, banks and broker-dealers, sales of certain of our products may be adversely affected.

We distribute our annuity products through a variable cost distribution network, which includes 41 IMOs, 18 banks and 163 broker-dealers, collectively representing approximately 152,000 independent agents. We must attract and retain such marketers, agents and financial institutions to sell our products. In particular, insurance companies compete vigorously for productive agents. We compete with other life insurance companies for marketers, agents and financial institutions primarily on the basis of our financial position, support services, compensation, credit ratings and product features. Such marketers, agents and financial institutions may promote products offered by other life insurance companies that may offer a larger variety of products than we do. Our competitiveness for such marketers, agents and financial institutions also depends upon the long-term relationships we develop with them. There can be no assurance that such relationships will continue in the future. In addition, our growth plans include increasing the distribution of annuity products through banks and broker-dealers. If we are unable to attract and retain sufficient marketers and agents to sell our products or if we are not successful in expanding our distribution channels within the bank and broker-dealer markets, our ability to compete and our sales volumes and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We rely significantly on third parties for various services, and we may be held responsible for obligations that arise from the acts or omissions of third parties under their respective agreements with us.

We rely significantly on third parties to provide various services that are important to our business, including investment, distribution and administrative services. As such, our business may be affected by the performance of those parties. Additionally, our operations are dependent on various technologies, some of which are provided or maintained by certain key outsourcing partners and other parties. See Item 1. Business–Outsourcingfor certain of the functions that we outsource to third parties.

Many of our subsidiaries’ products and services are sold through third-party intermediaries. In particular, our insurance businesses are reliant on such intermediaries to describe and explain these products and services to potential customers, and although we take precautions to avoid this result, such intermediaries may be deemed to have acted on our behalf. If that occurs, the intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of our subsidiaries’ products and services in advertising materials or other external communications, or inappropriate activities by an intermediary or personnel employed by an intermediary could result in liability for us and have an adverse effect on our reputation and business prospects, as well as lead to potential regulatory actions or litigation involving or against us. In addition, we rely on third-party administrators (TPAs) to administer a portion of our annuity contracts, as well as our legacy life insurance business. Some of our reinsurers also use TPAs to administer business we reinsure to them. To the extent any of these TPAs do not administer such business appropriately, we may experience customer complaints, regulatory intervention and other adverse impacts, which could affect our future growth and profitability. Previously, we received a Section 308 information request from the NYSDFS relating to the administration and lapse of certain life policies covered by a consent order we entered into with the NYSDFS in 2018. Global Atlantic Financial Group Limited (together with its subsidiaries, Global Atlantic) and certain of its affiliates, the reinsurer and administrator of these policies, has been assisting us in our response to the NYSDFS and is obligated to indemnify us under the terms of the reinsurance agreement between us and Global Atlantic. If any of these TPAs or their employees are found to have made material misrepresentations to our policyholders, violated applicable insurance, privacy or other laws and regulations or otherwise engaged in misconduct, we could be held liable for their actions and be subject to regulatory scrutiny, which could adversely affect our reputation, business prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Additionally, past or future misconduct by agents that distribute our subsidiaries’ products or employees of our vendors could result in violations of law by us, regulatory sanctions and/or serious reputational or financial harm and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor associates’ business decisions and to prevent us from taking excessive or inappropriate risks, associates may take such risks regardless of such controls and procedures.

Artificial intelligence could increase competitive, operational, legal and regulatory risks to our businesses in ways that we cannot predict.

Technological developments in artificial intelligence, including machine learning technology and generative artificial intelligence (collectively, AI Technologies) and their current and potential future applications, including in the private investment, financial and insurance sectors, as well as the legal and regulatory frameworks within which they operate, are rapidly evolving. The full extent of current or future risks related thereto is not possible to predict and we may not be able to anticipate, prevent, mitigate or remediate all of the potential risks. challenges or impacts of such changes. AI Technologies could significantly disrupt the business models, investment strategies, operational processes, and markets in which we operate and subject us to increased competition, legal and regulatory risks and compliance costs, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows. We also face competitive risks if we fail to adopt AI Technologies in a timely fashion.

Through our use of AI Technologies, we avail ourselves of the potential benefits, insights and efficiencies resulting from these technologies. For example, certain employees may use internal generative AI–powered tools to assist with tasks such as summarizing or searching documents and gathering information. However, these technologies also present a number of potential risks that cannot be fully mitigated. If the data we, our affiliates or third parties whose services we rely on use in connection with the development or deployment of AI Technologies (including employee data and data related to, or used in, workplace operations) is incomplete, inaccurate, inadequate or biased, it may result in flawed algorithms, reduce the effectiveness of AI Technologies, adversely impact our operations, and could subject us to legal and regulatory investigations and/or actions. There is also a risk that AI Technologies and data used therewith may be misused or misappropriated by our employees or third-party service providers or other third parties. Further, we may not be able to control how third‑party AI Technologies that we choose to use are developed or maintained, or how data we input is used or disclosed, even where we have sought contractual protections with respect to these matters. The misuse or misappropriation of our data, including material non‑public information, and unavoidable challenges associated with large‑scale data collection, training on large datasets and validating models could harm our reputation, result in investigations or enforcement actions and create competitive risk. Additionally, the volume and reliance on data and algorithms also make AI Technologies, and in turn us, more susceptible to cybersecurity threats, including compromising underlying models, training data, or other intellectual property. We could be exposed to risks to the extent of our use or third-party service providers’ use of AI Technologies in their business activities. While we may adopt and adjust policies and procedures governing personnel use of AI Technologies, there remains a risk of misuse, unavailability or failure of such technologies, or data leakage arising from their use, any of which could cause material harm to our business.

The use of AI Technologies also requires our compliance with legal or regulatory frameworks that are not fully developed or tested, and we may face litigation and regulatory actions related to our use of AI Technologies, including intellectual property infringement and misappropriation claims, that could have a material and adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows. There has been increased scrutiny, including from global regulators, regarding the use of “big data,” diligence of data sets and oversight of data vendors. Our ability to use data to gain insights into and manage our business may be limited in the future by regulatory scrutiny and legal developments.

As the legal and regulatory landscape for AI rapidly evolves, including in the EU and multiple US states, and key requirements are expected to come into effect in 2026, these new laws and regulations could materially increase compliance costs and constrain our use of AI Technologies. Furthermore, new AI-specific laws or guidance may impose requirements relating to transparency, explainability, data governance, testing/certification, monitoring, and auditability, and may require changes to our models, workflows, or use cases. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations— or the perception that our AI is unsafe, biased, or otherwise non-compliant—could result in investigations, enforcement actions, fines, contractual disputes, and private litigation, and could adversely affect adoption. Additionally, because different jurisdictions are taking different approaches to the regulation of AI Technologies, we may need to limit functionality, delay implementation and adoption of certain AI Technologies, or implement jurisdiction-specific variants. As a result, some of our competitors who may be subject to less stringent requirements may have greater flexibility and offer a more competitive product.

From time to time we may pursue acquisitions and block reinsurance transactions, and our ability to consummate these transactions on economically advantageous terms acceptable to us in the future is unknown.

From time to time we may pursue acquisitions of other insurance companies and businesses and block reinsurance transactions as a way to grow our business. Each of these transactions could require additional capital, systems development and skilled personnel. We may experience challenges identifying, financing, consummating and integrating such acquisitions and block reinsurance transactions. While we have reviewed various opportunities and have successfully completed transactions in the past to facilitate our growth, competition exists in the market for profitable blocks of insurance and businesses. Such competition is likely to intensify as insurance businesses become more attractive targets. It is also possible that merger and acquisition transactions will become less frequent. Thus, in the future, we may not be able to find suitable acquisition or block reinsurance opportunities that are available at attractive valuations, or at all. Even if we do find suitable opportunities, we may not be able to consummate the transactions on commercially acceptable terms. In addition, to the extent we determine to finance an acquisition or block reinsurance transaction, suitable financing arrangements may not be available on acceptable terms, on a timely basis, or at all. Our acquisition and block reinsurance transaction activities may also divert the attention of our management from our business, which may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Interruption or other operational failures in telecommunications, information technology and other operational systems, including as a result of threat actors attacking those systems, or a failure to maintain the security, integrity, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data residing on those systems, including as a result of human error, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are highly dependent on automated and information technology systems to record and process our internal transactions and transactions involving our customers, as well as to calculate reserves, perform actuarial analyses, value our investment portfolio and complete certain other components of our financial statements. We could experience a failure of one of these systems, our employees or agents could fail to monitor and implement enhancements or other modifications to a system in a timely and effective manner or our employees or agents could fail to complete all necessary data reconciliation or other conversion controls when implementing a new software system or modifications to an existing system. Additionally, threat actors who are able to circumvent our security measures and penetrate our information technology systems could access, view, misappropriate, alter or delete information in the systems, including personally identifiable customer information and proprietary business information. Information security risks also exist with respect to the use of portable electronic devices, such as laptops, which are particularly vulnerable to loss and theft.

We retain personally identifiable information and other confidential information, including in some instances sensitive personal information such as health-related information, in our information technology systems and those of our business partners. Despite our security and back-up measures, including periodic testing and our business continuity plan, our information technology systems and those of our business partners may be vulnerable to physical or electronic intrusions, computer viruses or other malicious codes, unauthorized or fraudulent access, cyber-attacks such as ransomware, social-engineering attacks, or denial-of-service attacks, programming or other human errors, and other breaches of cybersecurity and information security systems and similar disruptions, and we may not be able to anticipate, detect, repel or implement effective preventative measures against all such threats, particularly because the techniques used are increasingly sophisticated and constantly evolving. We may also be subject to disruptions of any of these systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (for example, natural disasters, acts of terrorism, war, epidemics, pandemics, computer viruses, and electrical or telecommunications outages).

All of these risks are also applicable where we rely on third-party suppliers to provide products and services to us and/or our customers. We rely on products and services provided by third-party suppliers to operate certain critical business systems, including without limitation, cloud-based infrastructure, encryption and authentication technology, employee email, and other functions, which exposes us to supply-chain attacks or other business disruptions. While we require our critical third-party suppliers to implement and maintain what we believe to be effective cybersecurity and data protection measures, we cannot guarantee that third parties and infrastructure in our supply chain or our partners’ supply chains have not been compromised or that they do not contain exploitable defects or bugs that could result in a breach of or disruption to our information technology systems or the third-party information technology systems that support our insurance products. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third-party suppliers may not have adequate information security measures in place. In addition, if one of our third-party suppliers suffers a security breach, which has happened in the past, our response may be limited or more difficult because we may not have direct access to their systems, logs and other information related to the security breach.

The failure of any one of these systems for any reason, or errors made by our employees or agents, could in each case cause significant interruptions to our operations, which could harm our reputation, adversely affect our internal control over financial reporting or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Any compromise of the security of our information technology systems that results in inappropriate disclosure or use of confidential information, including personally identifiable customer information, could damage the reputation of our brand in the marketplace, deter purchases of our products, subject us to heightened regulatory scrutiny or significant civil and criminal liability and require us to incur significant technical, legal and other expenses in connection with our response, recovery, remediation, and compliance efforts. We are also subject to data privacy and security laws applicable to our business in relevant jurisdictions. See Item 1. Business–Regulation–Data, Cybersecurity, and Technology Regulation for more information.

We are subject to significant operating and financial restrictions imposed by our credit agreements and certain letters of credit, and we are also subject to certain operating restrictions imposed by the indentures to which we are a party.

On June 30, 2023, AHL, ALRe, Athene USA Corporation (AUSA) and AARe, as borrowers, entered into a five-year revolving credit agreement with a syndicate of banks and Citibank, N.A., as administrative agent (Credit Facility). Also on June 27, 2025, AHL, ALRe, Athene Annuity and Life Company (AAIA) and AARe, as borrowers, entered into a new revolving credit agreement with a syndicate of banks and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent (Liquidity Facility), which replaced our previous revolving credit agreement dated as of June 28, 2024. The Credit Facility, Liquidity Facility, and certain letters of credit also entered into contain various restrictive covenants which restrict the operations of our business. As a result of these restrictions, we may be limited in how we conduct our operations and may be unable to raise additional debt financing to compete effectively or to take advantage of new business opportunities.

In addition to the covenants to which we are subject pursuant to our Credit Facility, Liquidity Facility and certain letters of credit, AHL is also subject to certain limited covenants pursuant to the Indentures, dated January 12, 2018 and March 7, 2024, by and between us and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (Base Indentures), as supplemented by the applicable supplemental indentures (together with the Base Indentures, Indentures). The Indentures contain restrictive covenants which limit, subject to certain exceptions, AHL’s and, in certain instances, some or all of its subsidiaries’ ability to make fundamental changes, create liens on any capital stock of certain of AHL’s subsidiaries, and sell or dispose of the stock of certain of AHL’s subsidiaries.

Any future indebtedness we incur may also contain significant operating and financial restrictions.

Risks Relating to Liquidity and Regulatory Capital

As a financial services company, we are exposed to liquidity risk, which is the risk that we are unable to meet near-term obligations as they come due.

Liquidity risk is a manifestation of events that are driven by other risk types (e.g. market, policyholder behavior, operational). A liquidity shortfall may arise in the event of insufficient funding sources or an immediate and significant need for cash or collateral. In addition, it is possible that expected liquidity sources, such as our credit facilities, may be unavailable or inadequate to satisfy the liquidity demands described below. In particular, adverse economic and geopolitical conditions, including the armed conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and in the Middle East, inflationary pressures and corresponding actions taken by the US Federal Reserve, plateauing or slowing economic growth, evolving global tariff or trade policies, and sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and other countries, continue to contribute to volatility in the financial markets. These developments may restrict the liquidity sources available to us and may also increase our liquidity needs. We primarily have liquidity exposure through our collateral market exposure, asset liability mismatch, dependence on the financial markets for funding and funding commitments. If a material liquidity demand is triggered and we are unable to satisfy the demand with the sources of liquidity readily available to us, it may have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Liquidity and Capital Resources for a discussion of our liquidity and sources and uses of liquidity, including information about legal and regulatory limits on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends.

The amount of statutory capital that our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries have, or that they are required to hold, can vary significantly from time to time and is sensitive to a number of factors outside of our control.

Our US insurance subsidiaries are subject to state regulations that provide for minimum capital requirements (MCR) based on RBC formulas for life insurance companies relating to insurance, business, asset, interest rate and certain other risks. Similarly, our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries are subject to MCR imposed by the BMA through the BMA’s ECR and MMS.

In any particular year, our subsidiaries’ capital ratios and/or statutory surplus amounts may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors, some of which are outside of our control and some of which we can only partially control, including, but not limited to, the following:

•the amount of statutory income or loss generated by our insurance subsidiaries;

•the amount of additional capital our insurance subsidiaries must hold to support their business growth;

•changes in reserve requirements applicable to our insurance subsidiaries;

•changes in market value of certain securities in our investment portfolio;

•recognition of write-downs or other losses on investments held in our investment portfolio;

•changes in the credit ratings of investments held in our investment portfolio;

•changes in the value of certain derivative instruments;

•changes in interest rates;

•credit market volatility;

•changes in policyholder behavior;

•changes in corporate tax rates;

•changes to the RBC formulas and interpretations of the NAIC instructions with respect to RBC calculation methodologies; and

•changes to the ECR, BSCR, or TCL formulas and interpretations of the BMA’s instructions with respect to ECR, BSCR, or TCL calculation methodologies.

Further to NAIC activities with respect to RBC calculation methodologies, the NAIC has recently adopted and is currently considering a variety of reforms to its RBC framework, which could increase the capital requirements for our US insurance subsidiaries. For example, the NAIC recently adopted changes to certain statements of statutory accounting principles in connection with its principles-based bond project, which became effective on January 1, 2025, setting forth the factors to determine whether an investment in debt qualifies for reporting on an insurer’s statutory financial statement as a bond on Schedule D-1 as opposed to Schedule BA (other long-term invested assets), the latter of which could result, among other things, in the capital charge treatment of an investment being less favorable. The NAIC also adopted an interim change to the life RBC formula for year-end 2023 and 2024 reporting to increase the RBC base factor for residual tranches of structured securities, and will further consider whether to increase or decrease the base factor in future years. In addition, the NAIC is reviewing changes related to filing exempt status for certain securities, including a proposal that sets forth procedures for the NAIC’s review of investments that are exempt from filing with the NAIC’s Securities Valuation Office, which could result in, among other things, the capital charge treatment of the investment being less favorable.

In March 2024, the BMA published revised rules and new guidance notes to enhance Bermuda’s regulatory regime for commercial insurers. The material enhancement to the framework included updates to the technical provisions, the computation of the BSCR and the BSCR adjustment framework.

NRSROs may also implement changes to their internal models, which differ from the RBC and BSCR capital models, that have the effect of increasing or decreasing the amount of statutory capital our subsidiaries must hold in order to maintain their current ratings. To the extent that one of our insurance subsidiary’s solvency or capital ratios is deemed to be insufficient by one or more NRSROs to maintain their current ratings, we may take actions either to increase the capitalization of the insurer or to reduce the capitalization requirements. If we are unable to accomplish such actions, NRSROs may view this as a reason for a ratings downgrade. Regulatory developments, including the NAIC’s adoption of amendments to its Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act and Model Regulation requiring, subject to certain exceptions, the filing of a confidential annual GCC and an annual LST with the IID, the lead state insurance regulator of our US insurance subsidiaries, may increase the amount of capital that we are required to hold and could result in us being subject to increased regulatory requirements.

If a subsidiary’s solvency or capital ratios reach certain minimum levels, it could subject us to further examination or corrective action imposed by our insurance regulators. Corrective actions may include limiting our subsidiaries’ ability to write additional business, increased regulatory supervision, or seizure or liquidation of the subsidiary’s business, each of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

Repurchase agreement programs subject us to potential liquidity and other risks.

We may engage in repurchase agreement transactions whereby we sell fixed income securities to third parties, primarily major brokerage firms or commercial banks, with a concurrent agreement to repurchase such securities at a determined future date. These repurchase agreements provide us with liquidity and in certain instances also allow us to earn spread income. Under such agreements we may be required to deliver additional securities or cash as margin to the counterparty if the value of the securities sold decreases prior to the repurchase date. If we are required to return significant amounts of cash collateral or post cash or securities as margin on short notice or have inadequate cash on hand as of the repurchase date, we may be forced to sell securities to meet such obligations and may have difficulty doing so in a timely manner or may be forced to sell securities in a volatile or illiquid market for less than we otherwise would have been able to realize under normal market conditions. Rehypothecation of subject securities by the counterparty may also create risk with respect to the counterparty’s ability to perform its obligations to tender such securities on the repurchase date. Such facilities may not be available to us on favorable terms or at all in the future.

Risks Relating to Market and Credit Risk

Our investments are subject to market and credit risks that could diminish their value and these risks could be greater during periods of extreme volatility or disruption in the financial and credit markets, which could adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.

Our investments and derivative financial instruments are subject to risks of credit defaults and changes in market values. Periods of macroeconomic weakness or recession, heightened volatility or disruption in the financial and credit markets could increase these risks, potentially resulting in impairment of assets in our investment portfolio. Heightened geopolitical tensions, such as a deterioration in US-China relations or the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, including any resulting sanctions, export controls or other restrictive measures that may be imposed by countries against governmental or other entities in other countries could also lead to disruption, instability, and volatility in the global markets, which may affect our investments across negatively impacted sectors or geographies.

We are also subject to the risk that cash flows generated from the collateral underlying the structured products we own may differ from our expectations in timing or amount. In addition, many of our classes of investments, but in particular our alternative investments, may produce investment income that fluctuates significantly from period to period. Any event reducing the estimated fair value of these securities, other than on a temporary basis, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and cash flows. If our investment manager, Apollo, fails to react appropriately to difficult market, economic and geopolitical conditions, our investment portfolio could incur material losses. Certain of our investments are more vulnerable to these risks than others, as described more fully below.

•Fixed maturity and equity securities –We have significant investments in fixed maturity securities, equity securities, and short-term investments, including our investments in investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds and structured products, which include RMBS and CLOs. An economic downturn affecting the issuers or underlying collateral of these securities, ratings downgrades affecting the issuers or guarantors of such securities, or similar trends and issues could cause the estimated fair value of our fixed income securities portfolio and our earnings to decline and the default rates of the fixed income securities in our portfolio to increase.

•Collateralized loan obligations –We also have significant investments in CLOs. Control over the CLOs in which we invest is exercised through collateral managers, who may take actions that could adversely affect our interests, and we may not have the right to direct collateral management. There may also be less information available to us regarding the underlying debt instruments held by CLOs than if we had invested directly in the debt of the underlying companies. Additionally, the estimated fair values of subordinated tranches of CLOs tend to be much more sensitive to adverse economic downturns and underlying borrower defaults than those of more senior securities. Furthermore, our investments in CLOs are also subject to liquidity risk as there is a limited market for CLOs. Accordingly, we may suffer unrealized depreciation and could incur realized losses in connection with the sale of our CLO interests.

We have a risk management framework in place to identify, assess and prioritize risks, including the market and credit risks to which our investments are subject. As part of that framework, we test our investment portfolio based on various market scenarios. Under certain stressed market scenarios, unrealized losses on our investment portfolio could lead to material reductions in its carrying value. Under some extreme scenarios, total stockholders’ equity could be severely impacted prior to any potential market recovery. See Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risks.

Interest rate fluctuations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.

Interest rate risk is a significant market risk for us. We define interest rate risk as the risk of an economic loss due to changes in interest rates. This risk arises from our holdings in interest rate-sensitive assets (e.g., fixed income assets) and liabilities (e.g., fixed deferred and immediate annuities). Substantial and sustained increases or decreases in market interest rates could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows, including in the following respects:

•Significant changes in interest rates expose us to the risk of not realizing anticipated spreads between overall net investment earned rates and our cost of funds.

•Changes in interest rates may negatively affect the value of our assets and our ability to realize gains or avoid losses from the sale of those assets. Significant volatility in interest rates may have a larger adverse impact on certain assets in our investment portfolio that are highly structured or have limited liquidity.

•Changes in interest rates may cause changes in prepayment rates on certain fixed income assets within our investment portfolio. For instance, falling interest rates may accelerate the rate of prepayment on mortgage loans, while rising interest rates may decrease such prepayments below the level of our expectations. At the same time, falling interest rates may result in the lengthening of duration for our policies and liabilities due to the guaranteed minimum benefits contained in our products, while rising interest rates could lead to increased policyholder withdrawals and a shortening of duration for our liabilities. In either case, we could experience a mismatch in our assets and liabilities and potentially incur significant economic losses.

•During periods of declining interest rates or a prolonged period of low interest rates, our annuity products may be relatively more attractive to existing policyholders than other investment opportunities available to them. This may cause our assumptions regarding persistency to prove inaccurate as our policyholders opt not to surrender or take withdrawals from their products, which may result in us experiencing greater claim costs than we had anticipated and/or cash flow mismatches between assets and liabilities.

•During periods of declining interest rates, we may have to reinvest the cash we receive as interest or return of principal on our investments into lower-yielding high-grade instruments or seek higher-yielding, but higher-risk instruments in an effort to achieve returns comparable with those attained during more stable interest rate environments.

•Certain securitized financial assets are accounted for based on expectations of future cash flows. To the extent future interest rates are lower than we have projected, we will experience slower accretion of discounts on these assets and will have a lower yield on our portfolio.

•An extended period of declining interest rates or a prolonged period of low interest rates may cause us to decrease the crediting rates of our products, thereby reducing their attractiveness.

•In periods of rapidly increasing interest rates, withdrawals from and/or surrenders of annuity contracts may increase as policyholders choose to seek higher investment returns elsewhere. Obtaining cash to satisfy these obligations may require our insurance subsidiaries to liquidate fixed income investments at a time when market prices for those assets are depressed. This may result in realized investment losses.

•An increase in market interest rates could reduce the value of certain of our investments held as collateral under reinsurance agreements and require us to provide additional collateral, thereby reducing our available capital and potentially creating a need for additional capital which may not be available to us on favorable terms, or at all.

We are subject to the credit risk of our counterparties, including ceding companies, reinsurers, plan sponsors and derivative counterparties.

We encounter various types of counterparty credit risk. Our insurance subsidiaries cede certain risk to third-party insurance companies that may cover large volumes of business and expose us to a concentration of credit risk with respect to such counterparties. Such subsidiaries may not have a security interest in the underlying assets and despite certain indemnification rights, we retain liability to our policyholders if a counterparty fails to perform. Certain of our insurance subsidiaries also reinsure liabilities from other insurance companies and these subsidiaries may be negatively impacted by changes in the ceding companies’ ratings, creditworthiness, and market perception, or any policy administration issues. We also assume pension obligations from plan sponsors that expose us to the credit risk of the plan sponsor. In addition, we may be exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by our derivative agreement counterparties. If any of these counterparties are not able to satisfy its obligations to us or third parties, including policyholders, we may not achieve our targeted returns and our financial position, results of operations, liquidity and cash flow may be materially adversely affected.

Our investment portfolio may be subject to concentration risk, particularly with respect to single issuers, including Athora, among others; industries, including financial services; and asset classes, including real estate.

We face single issuer concentration risk both in the context of alternative investments, in which we occasionally hold significant equity positions, and large asset trades, in which we generally hold significant debt positions. Our most significant concentration risk exposure arising in the context of alternative investments, on a risk-adjusted basis, is our investment in Athora, an insurance holding company focused on the European life insurance market. Given our significant exposure to these issuers, we are subject to the risks inherent in their business. For example, as a life insurer, Athora is subject to credit risk with respect to its investment portfolio and mortality risk with respect to its product liabilities, each of which may be exacerbated by unforeseen events. Further, Athora has significant European operations, which expose it to volatile economic conditions and risks relating to EU countries and withdrawals thereof. In addition, Athora is subject to multiple legal and regulatory regimes that may hinder or prevent it from achieving its business objectives. To the extent that we suffer a significant loss on our investment in these issuers, including Athora, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected

In addition, from time to time, in order to facilitate certain large asset trades and in exchange for commitment fees, we may commit to purchasing a larger portion of an investment than we ultimately expect to retain, and in such instances we are reliant upon Apollo’s ability to syndicate the transaction to other investors. If Apollo is unsuccessful in its syndication efforts, we may be exposed to greater concentration risk than what we would deem desirable from a risk appetite perspective and the commitment fee that we receive may not adequately compensate us for this risk.

We also have significant investments in nonbank lenders focused on providing financing to individuals or entities. As a result, through these investments, we have significant exposure to credit risk. In addition to the concentration risk arising from our investments in single issuers within the nonbank lending sector of the financial services industry, we have significant exposure to the financial services industry more broadly as a result of the composition of investments in our investment portfolio. Economic volatility or any further macroeconomic, regulatory or other changes having an adverse impact on the financial services industry more broadly, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

A significant portion of our net invested assets is invested in real estate-related assets. Any significant decline in the value of real estate generally or the occurrence of any of the risks described elsewhere in this report with respect to our real estate-related investments could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Specifically, through our investments in commercial mortgage loans (CML) and CMBS, we have exposure to certain categories of commercial property, including office buildings, retail, that have been adversely affected by the spread of COVID-19 and the work from home trend. In addition, the CML we hold, and the CML underlying the CMBS that we hold, face both default and delinquency risk.

Many of our invested assets are relatively illiquid and we may fail to realize profits from these assets for a considerable period of time, or lose some or all of the principal amount we invest in these assets if we are required to sell our invested assets at a loss at inopportune times.

Many of our investments are in securities that are not publicly traded or that otherwise lack liquidity, such as our privately placed fixed maturity securities, below investment grade securities, investments in mortgage loans and alternative investments. These relatively illiquid types of investments are recorded at fair value. If a material liquidity demand is triggered and we are unable to satisfy the demand with the sources of liquidity available to us, we could be forced to sell certain of our assets and there can be no assurance that we would be able to sell them for the values at which such assets are recorded and we might be forced to sell them at significantly lower prices. In many cases, we may also be prohibited by contract or applicable securities laws from selling such securities for a period of time. Thus, it may be impossible or costly for us to liquidate positions rapidly in order to meet unexpected policyholder withdrawal or recapture obligations. This potential mismatch between the liquidity of our assets and liabilities could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Further, governmental and regulatory authorities periodically review legislative and regulatory initiatives, and may promulgate new or revised, or adopt changes in the interpretation and enforcement of existing, rules and regulations at any time that may impact our investments. For example, Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act governs the submission of quotes into quotation systems by broker-dealers and has historically been applied to the over-the-counter equity markets. Effective October 30, 2023, the SEC adopted an order exempting securities issued pursuant to Rule 144 from the quotation restrictions of Rule 15c2-11. However, for many other privately placed fixed income securities, Rule 15c2-11 restricts the ability of market participants to publish quotations. Such change in regulatory requirements could disrupt market liquidity and cause securities in our investment portfolio that are not publicly traded, such as our privately placed fixed maturity securities and below investment grade securities, to lose value, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our investments linked to real estate are subject to credit risk, market risk, servicing risk, loss from catastrophic events and other risks, which could diminish the value that we obtain from such investments.

A substantial amount of our net invested assets is linked to real estate, including fixed maturity and equity securities, such as CMBS and RMBS, and mortgage loans, consisting of both CML and RML. Defaults by third parties in the payment or performance of their obligations underlying these assets could reduce our investment income and realized investment gains or result in the recognition of investment losses. For example, an unexpectedly high rate of default on mortgages held by a CMBS or RMBS may limit substantially the ability of the issuer of such security to make payments to holders of such securities, reducing the value of those securities or rendering them worthless. The risk of such defaults is generally higher in the case of mortgage securitizations that include “sub-prime” or “alt-A” mortgages. As of December 31, 2025, 2.2% of our net invested assets linked to real estate were invested in such “sub-prime” mortgages and “alt-A” mortgages. Changes in laws and other regulatory developments relating to mortgage loans may impact the investments of our portfolio linked to real estate in the future. Additionally, cash flow variability arising from an unexpected acceleration in the rate of mortgage prepayments can be significant, and could cause a decline in the estimated fair value of certain “interest only” securities.

The CML we hold, and CML underlying the CMBS that we hold, face both default and delinquency risk. Legislative proposals that would allow or require modifications to the terms of CML, an increase in the delinquency or default rate of our CML portfolio or geographic or sector concentration within our CML portfolio could materially and adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations. Our investments in RML and RMBS also present credit risk. Higher than expected rates of default or loss severities on our RML investments and the RML underlying our RMBS investments may adversely affect the value of such investments. A significant number of the mortgages underlying our RML and RMBS investments are concentrated in certain geographic areas. Any event that adversely affects the economic or real estate market in any of these areas could have a disproportionately adverse effect on our RML and RMBS investments. A rise in home prices, concern regarding further changes to government policies designed to alter prepayment behavior, increased availability of housing-related credit and lower interest rates could combine to increase expected or actual prepayment speeds, which would likely lower the valuations of RML and the valuations of RMBS that we carry at a premium to par prices or that are structured as interest only securities and inverse interest only securities. In general, any significant weakness in the broader macro economy or significant problems in a particular real estate market may cause a decline in the value of residential properties securing the mortgages in that market, thereby increasing the risk of delinquency, default and foreclosure. This could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our credit loss experience.

Control over the underlying assets in all of our real estate-related investments is exercised through servicers that we do not control. If a servicer is not vigilant in seeing that borrowers make their required periodic payments, borrowers may be less likely to make these payments, resulting in a higher frequency of delinquency and default. If a servicer takes longer to liquidate nonperforming mortgages, our losses related to those loans may be higher than we expected. Any failure by a servicer to service RMLs in which we are invested or which underlie a RMBS in which we are invested in a prudent, commercially reasonable manner could negatively impact the value of our investments in the related RML or RMBS.

Our investments in assets linked to real estate are also subject to loss in the event of catastrophic events, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and fires.

In addition to the credit and market risk that we face in relation to all of our real estate-related investments, certain of these investments may expose us to various environmental, regulatory and other risks. Any adverse environmental claim or regulatory action against us resulting from our real-estate related investments could adversely impact our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our investment portfolio may include investments in securities of issuers based outside the US, including emerging markets, which may be riskier than securities of US issuers.

We may invest in securities of issuers organized or based outside the US that may involve heightened risks in comparison to the risks of investing in US securities, including unfavorable changes in currency rates and exchange control regulations, reduced and less reliable information about issuers and markets, less stringent accounting standards, illiquidity of securities and markets, higher brokerage commissions, transfer taxes and custody fees, local economic or political instability and greater market risk in general. In particular, investing in securities of issuers located in emerging market countries involves additional risks, such as exposure to economic structures that are generally less diverse and mature than, and to political systems that can be expected to have less stability than, those of developed countries; national policies that restrict investment by foreigners in certain issuers or industries of that country; the absence of legal structures governing foreign investment and private property; an increased risk of foreclosure on collateral located in such countries; a lack of liquidity due to the small size of markets for securities of issuers located in emerging markets; and price volatility.

As of December 31, 2025, 37% of the carrying value of our available-for-sale (AFS) securities, including related parties, was comprised of securities of issuers based outside of the US and debt securities of foreign governments. Of our total AFS securities, including related parties, as of December 31, 2025, 7% were invested in CLOs of Cayman Islands issuers (for which the underlying assets are largely loans to US issuers) and 30% were invested in other non-US issuers. While we invest in securities of non-US issuers, the currency denominations of such securities usually match the currency denominations of the liabilities that the assets support. When the currency denominations of the assets and liabilities do not match, we generally undertake hedging activities to eliminate or mitigate currency mismatch risk. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Investment Portfolio for further information on international exposure.

Additionally, investing in securities and other financial instruments of companies organized or based outside the US and operating outside the US may also expose us to increased compliance risks, as well as higher compliance costs to comply with US and non-US anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and sanctions laws and regulations. These factors are outside our control and may affect the level and volatility of securities prices and the liquidity and the value of investments, and we may not be able to or may choose not to manage our exposure to

these conditions.

While we seek to hedge foreign currency risks, foreign currency fluctuations may reduce our net income and our capital levels, adversely affecting our financial condition.

We are exposed to foreign currency exchange rate risk through the investments in our investment portfolio that are denominated in currencies other than the US dollar or are issued by entities which primarily conduct their business outside of the US, as well as insurance liabilities, funding agreements and other transactions that are denominated in currencies other than the US dollar. We are also exposed to foreign currency exchange risk through our investment in certain subsidiaries domiciled in foreign jurisdictions, both as a result of our direct investment and as a result of currency mismatches between the assets and liabilities of those subsidiaries. We may employ various strategies (including hedging) to manage our exposure to foreign currency exchange risk. To the extent that these exposures are not fully hedged or the hedges are ineffective, our results or equity may be reduced by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates that could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Climate change-related risks and regulatory and other efforts to address climate change could adversely affect our business.

We face a number of risks associated with climate change including both transition and physical risks. The transition risks that could impact our company and our investment portfolio include those risks related to the impact of US and foreign climate-related legislation and regulation, as well as risks arising from climate-related business trends. Moreover, our investments are subject to risks stemming from the physical impacts of climate change. In particular, climate change may impact asset prices, increase insurance costs and decrease the value of our investments linked to real estate. For example, rising sea levels may lead to decreases in real estate values in coastal areas. We have significant concentrations of real estate investments and collateral underlying investments linked to real estate in areas of the US prone to severe weather and climate events (such as wildfires, droughts, hurricanes and floods), including California, sections of the Northeastern US, the South Atlantic states and the Gulf Coast.

Climate change-related regulations or interpretations of existing laws have resulted, and may continue to result, in enhanced disclosure obligations that could negatively affect our investments and also materially increase our regulatory burden. We also face business trend-related climate risks. Certain investors are increasingly taking climate-related risks into account when determining whether to invest in our preferred stock, debt securities and FABN program. Conversely, certain investors may be concerned if we take climate change-related risks into account when making investment decisions. Our reputation and investor relationships could be damaged as a result of our involvement in certain industries, investments or transactions associated with activities perceived to be causing or exacerbating climate change, as well as any decisions we make to continue to conduct or change our activities in response to considerations relating to climate change.

Furthermore, our financial and operational results could be impacted by emerging risk and changes to the regulatory landscape related to sustainability-related matters. New and evolving US and non-US legislation, policies and regulations, including climate-related or other sustainability-related disclosure requirements in the US, the European Union and the UK, may result in higher regulatory, compliance and reporting costs, increased capital expenditures or changes in our investment practices. Changes in such regulations may also affect asset prices, resulting in realized or unrealized losses on our investments. Numerous jurisdictions in which we operate have also proposed or adopted legislation or regulatory initiatives that oppose, restrict or otherwise affect investment strategies that incorporate sustainability‑related considerations, which may create operational challenges and constraints for our products and activities (including our funding agreement‑backed note program and issuances of preferred stock and debt securities). In addition, differing or inconsistent requirements across jurisdictions may increase the complexity and cost of our compliance efforts. Any violation, even if alleged, or failure to obtain or maintain regulatory approvals could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Undertaking initiatives to address sustainability-related matters, including those related to human capital management such as talent attraction and development, DEI and employee health and safety, could increase our cost of doing business. Further, any actual or perceived failure to meet the expectations of regulators, investors or other stakeholders relating to sustainability-related practices could harm our reputation.

Financial markets have been subject to inflationary pressures, and continued heightened inflation may adversely impact our business and results of operations.

Financial markets have been subject to inflationary pressures, and we cannot predict the extent to which heightened inflation may be transitory. Certain of our products are sensitive to inflation rate fluctuations, and a sustained increase in the inflation rate may adversely affect our business and results of operations. For example, failure to accurately anticipate higher inflation and factor it into our product pricing assumptions may result in mispricing of our products, which could materially and adversely impact our results of operations. Inflation also impacts our investment portfolio and nature of our liability profile, thereby impacting our investment portfolio’s rate of investment return and corresponding investment income. Continued heightened inflation could adversely impact returns on our investment portfolio and results of operations.

Risks Relating to Our Relationship with Apollo

There are potential conflicts of interests between Apollo, our corporate parent, and the holders of our preferred stock.

AGM is the beneficial owner of 100% of our common stock and controls all of the voting power to elect members to our board of directors. As a result, AGM could exercise significant influence and control over corporate matters for the foreseeable future, including approval of significant corporate transactions, appointment of members of our management, approval of the termination of our investment management agreements (IMA) and determination of our corporate policies.

The interests of our common stockholder, AGM, may conflict with the interests of our preferred stockholders. Actions that AGM takes as our sole common stockholder may not be favorable to our preferred stockholders. For example, the concentration of voting power held by AGM, the significant representation on our board of directors by individuals who are employees of AGM, or the limitations on our ability to terminate IMAs with Apollo covering assets backing reserves and surplus in ACRA could delay, defer or prevent a change of control of us or impede a merger, takeover or other business combination which a preferred stockholder may otherwise view favorably. AGM may, in its role as our sole common stockholder, vote in favor of a merger, takeover or other business combination transaction which our preferred stockholders might not consider in their best interests, including those transactions in which the AGM may have an interest. Further, AGM may cause us to declare a cash dividend on shares of our common stock, including dividends of a greater amount than in prior years.

Our audit committee and our disinterested directors analyze these conflicts to protect against potential harm resulting from conflicts of interest in connection with transactions that we have entered into or will enter into with Apollo or its affiliates. Specifically, our related party transactions policy requires that the audit committee approve certain material transactions by and between us and Apollo or its affiliates, including entering into material agreements or the imposition of any new fee or increase in the rate at which fees are charged to us, subject to certain exceptions. See Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence. These conflicts provisions will not, by themselves, prohibit transactions with Apollo or its affiliates. In addition, our audit committee may exclusively rely on information provided by Apollo, including with respect to fees charged by Apollo or its affiliates, and with respect to the historical performance or fees of unrelated service providers used for comparison purposes, and may not independently verify the information so provided.

Apollo charges us management fees based on the composition and value of our assets. Substantially all of our net invested assets are managed by Apollo. Our investment policies permit Apollo to invest in securities of issuers with which it is affiliated, including funds managed by Apollo. Apollo may make such investments at its discretion, subject only to the approval of our audit committee in certain cases and/or certain regulatory approvals. Accordingly, Apollo may have a conflict of interest in managing our investments, which could increase amounts payable by us for asset management services or cause us to receive a lower return on our investments than if our investment portfolio was managed by another party. Asset management fees are paid based on the value of our net invested assets regardless of the results of our operations or investment performance. Therefore, Apollo could be incentivized to exercise its influence to cause us to increase our net invested assets, which may have an adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We have made investments in collective investment vehicles managed by Apollo affiliates, including seed investments in new investment vehicles or investment strategies offered by Apollo which have limited track records, as well as junior and subordinated tranches of structured investment vehicles which may assist Apollo in meeting certain regulatory requirements applicable to Apollo as the sponsor of such vehicles. Such Apollo affiliates may charge us or such vehicles management or other fees, that independently, or when taken together with other fees charged by Apollo, may not be the lowest fee available for similar investment management services offered by unrelated managers. In addition, it is possible that such unrelated managers may perform better than Apollo. Apollo is not obligated to devote any specific amount of time to our affairs, or to the funds in which we are invested. Affiliates of Apollo manage and expect to continue to manage other client accounts, some of which have objectives similar to ours, including collective investment vehicles managed by Apollo and in which Apollo may have an equity interest. We will compete with other Apollo clients not only in terms of time spent on management of our portfolio, but also for allocation of assets that do not have significant supply. In addition, there may be different Apollo investment teams investing in the same strategies for different clients, including us. As a result, we may compete with other Apollo clients for the same investment opportunities, potentially disadvantaging us. Apollo may also manage accounts whose asset management fee schedules, investment objectives and policies differ from ours, which may cause Apollo to allocate securities in a manner that may have an adverse effect on our ability to source appropriate assets and meet our strategic objectives.

Under our fee agreement with ISG (Fee Agreement), Apollo receives higher sub-allocation fees for investing in asset classes with higher alpha generating abilities. See Note 15 – Related Parties–Apollo–Fee structureto the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the sub-allocation fees. There is no assurance that higher returns will be achieved by investing in these asset classes. Accordingly, Apollo is incentivized to increase the amount of investments subject to higher sub-allocation fees, which may result in greater risk to the returns in our investment portfolio. While we believe that we and Apollo have each implemented appropriate risk governance regarding asset allocation, it is possible that such incentives could result in increased holdings of assets with higher alpha generating abilities, and if such investments fail to perform, it could have an adverse impact on our investment results.

From time to time, Apollo may acquire investments on our behalf which are senior or junior to other instruments of the same issuer that are held by, or acquired for, another Apollo client (for example, we may acquire junior debt while another Apollo client may acquire senior debt). In the event such an issuer enters bankruptcy or becomes otherwise insolvent, the client holding securities which are senior in preference may have the right to aggressively pursue the issuer’s assets to fully satisfy the issuer’s indebtedness to the client, and the client holding the investment which is junior in the capital structure may not have access to sufficient assets of the issuer to completely satisfy its claim against the issuer and may suffer a loss. It is our understanding that Apollo has adopted procedures that are designed to enable it to address such conflicts and to ensure that clients are treated fairly and equitably in these situations. However, given Apollo’s fiduciary obligations to the other client, Apollo may be unable to manage our investment in the same manner as would have been possible without the conflict of interest. In such event, we may receive a lower return on such investment than if another Apollo client was not in a different part of the capital structure of the issuer.

Apollo and its affiliates have diverse and expansive private equity, credit and real estate investment platforms, investing in numerous companies across many industries. If Apollo acquires or forms a company with a business strategy competing with ours, additional conflicts may arise between us and Apollo or between us and such company in executing our plans, including with respect to the allocation of investments or the ability to execute on corporate opportunities. Our certificate of incorporation provides that Apollo and its members and affiliates (including certain of our directors) generally have no duty to refrain from engaging, directly or indirectly, in the same or similar business activities or lines of business that we do.

Apollo and its affiliates regularly obtain material non-public information regarding various potential acquisition or trading targets. When Apollo and its affiliates obtain material non-public information regarding a potential acquisition or trading target, Apollo becomes restricted from trading in such acquisition or trading target’s outstanding securities. Some of such securities may be potential investment opportunities for us, or may be owned by us and be potential disposition opportunities. The inability of Apollo to purchase or sell such investments on our behalf as a result of these restrictions may result in us acquiring investments that may otherwise underperform the restricted investments that Apollo would have acquired, or incurring losses on investments that Apollo would have sold, on our behalf, had such restrictions not been in place.

James R. Belardi, our Executive Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, also serves as a member of the board of directors and an executive officer of AGM and as Chief Executive Officer of ISG and receives compensation from ISG for services he provides. Mr. Belardi also owns a profits interest in ISG and in connection with such interest receives a specified percentage of other fee streams earned by Apollo from us, including sub-allocation fees. Mr. Belardi is also a director of the general partner of ISG. Accordingly, Mr. Belardi’s involvement as a member of our board of directors and management team, as an officer and director of AGM, and as an officer of ISG and director of ISG’s general partner may lead to a conflict of interest. Grant Kvalheim, our Chief Executive Officer, also serves as an executive officer of AGM and a Partner of Apollo, and Louis-Jacques Tanguy, our Chief Financial Officer, is a Partner and employee of Apollo. Furthermore, certain members of our board of directors also serve on the board of directors of AGM or ISG or are employees of Apollo or its affiliates, which could also lead to potential conflicts of interest. See Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

We rely on our investment management agreements with Apollo for the management of our investment portfolio. Apollo may terminate these arrangements at any time, and there are limitations on our ability to terminate investment management agreements covering assets backing reserves and surplus in ACRA, which may adversely affect our investment results.

We rely on Apollo to provide us with investment management services pursuant to various IMAs. Apollo relies in part on its ability to attract and retain key people, and the loss of services of one or more of the members of Apollo or any of its subsidiaries’ senior management could delay or prevent Apollo from fully implementing our investment strategy.

ACRA System IMA Termination Rights

The Fee Agreement provides that, with respect to IMAs covering assets backing reserves and surplus in ACRA, whether from internal reinsurance, third party reinsurance, or inorganic transactions (ACRA System IMAs), among us or any of our subsidiaries, on the one hand, and ISG, or another member of the Apollo Group (as defined in our certificate of incorporation) on the other hand, we may not, and will cause our subsidiaries not to, terminate any ACRA System IMA, other than on June 4, 2023 or any two year anniversary of such date (each such date, an IMA Termination Election Date) and any termination on an IMA Termination Election Date requires (1) the approval of two-thirds of our Independent Directors (as defined in our bylaws) and (2) prior written notice to ISG or the applicable Apollo subsidiary of such termination at least 30 days, but not more than 90 days, prior to an IMA Termination Election Date. If our Independent Directors make such election to terminate and notice of such termination is delivered, the termination will be effective no earlier than the second anniversary of the applicable IMA Termination Election Date (IMA Termination Effective Date). Notwithstanding the foregoing, our board of directors may only terminate an ACRA System IMA on an IMA Termination Election Date for “AHL Cause” as defined in the Fee Agreement and pursuant to the provisions set forth therein. The limitations on our ability to terminate the ACRA System IMAs with the applicable Apollo subsidiary could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The Fee Agreement gives our Independent Directors complete discretion, while acting in good faith, as to whether to determine if an AHL Cause event has occurred with respect to any ACRA System IMA with the applicable Apollo subsidiary, and therefore our Independent Directors are under no obligation to make, and accordingly may exercise their discretion never to make, such a determination.

The boards of directors of our subsidiaries may terminate an ACRA System IMA with the applicable Apollo subsidiary relating to the applicable subsidiary if such subsidiary’s board of directors determines that such termination is required in the exercise of its fiduciary duties. If our subsidiaries do elect to terminate any such agreement, other than as provided above, we may be in breach of the Fee Agreement, which could subject us to regulatory scrutiny, expose us to stockholder lawsuits and could have a negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Termination by Apollo

We may be adversely affected if Apollo elects to terminate an IMA at a time when such agreement remains advantageous to us. We depend upon Apollo to implement our investment strategy. Further, Apollo does not face the restrictions described above with regards to its ability to terminate any ACRA System IMA with us and may terminate such agreements at any time. If Apollo chooses to terminate such agreements, there is no assurance that we could find a suitable replacement or that certain of the opportunities made available to us as a result of our relationship with Apollo would be offered by a suitable replacement, and therefore our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely impacted by our failure to retain a satisfactory investment manager.

Interruption or other operational failures in telecommunications, information technology and other operational systems at Apollo or a failure to maintain the security, integrity, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data residing on Apollo’s systems, including as a result of human error, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are highly dependent on Apollo, as our investment manager, to maintain information technology and other operational systems to record and process its transactions with respect to our investment portfolio, which includes providing information that enables us to value our investment portfolio and may affect our financial statements. Apollo could experience a failure of one of these systems, its employees or agents could fail to monitor and implement enhancements or other modifications to a system in a timely and effective manner or its employees or agents could fail to complete all necessary data reconciliation or other conversion controls when implementing a new software system or modifications to an existing system. Additionally, anyone who is able to circumvent Apollo’s security measures and penetrate its information technology systems could access, view, misappropriate, alter or delete information in the systems, including proprietary information relating to our investment portfolio. The maintenance and implementation of these systems at Apollo is not within our control. Should Apollo’s systems fail to accurately record information pertaining to our investment portfolio, we may inadvertently include inaccurate information in our financial statements and experience a lapse in our internal control over financial reporting. The failure of any one of these systems at Apollo for any reason, or errors made by its employees or agents, could cause significant interruptions to its operations, which could adversely affect our internal control over financial reporting or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The historical investment portfolio performance of Apollo should not be considered as indicative of the future results of our investment portfolio, or our future results or our ability to declare and pay dividends on our preferred stock.

Our investment portfolio’s returns have benefited historically from investment opportunities and general market conditions that currently may not exist and may not repeat themselves, and there can be no assurance Apollo will be able to avail itself of profitable investment opportunities in the future. Furthermore, the historical returns of our investments managed by Apollo are not directly linked to our ability to declare and pay dividends on our preferred stock, which is affected by various factors, one of which is the value of our investment portfolio. In addition, Apollo is compensated based on the aggregate value of the assets it manages on our behalf and on the allocation of those assets to certain fee categories, rather than on the investment returns achieved. Accordingly, there can be no guarantee Apollo will be able to achieve any particular return for our investment portfolio in the future.

The returns that we expect to achieve on our investment portfolio may not be realized.

We make certain assumptions regarding our future financial performance, including but not limited to, target returns on our organic and inorganic channels and target net spreads. Included within these assumptions are estimates regarding the level of returns to be achieved on our investment portfolio, including assumptions regarding the expected future performance of assets directly originated by Apollo. These returns are subject to market and other factors and we can give no assurance that they will ultimately be achieved. Actual results may differ, perhaps significantly, from our current expectations. To the extent that such differences occur, our future financial performance may be materially and adversely different than that communicated herein and elsewhere.

Risks Relating to Insurance and Other Regulatory Matters

Our industry is highly regulated and we are subject to significant legal restrictions and obligations, and these restrictions and obligations may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and prospects.

We are subject to a complex and extensive array of laws and regulations that are administered and enforced by many regulators, including the BMA, US state insurance regulators, US state securities administrators, US state banking authorities, the SEC, FINRA, the DOL, and the IRS. See Item 1. Business–Regulation for a summary of certain of the laws and regulations applicable to our business. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us to administrative penalties imposed by a particular governmental or self-regulatory authority, unanticipated costs associated with remedying such failure or other claims, harm to our reputation, revocation of our certificate of incorporation or interruption of our operations, any of which could have a material and adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In addition to these restrictions, guaranty associations may subject member insurers, including us, to assessments that require the insurers to pay funds to cover contractual obligations under insurance policies issued by insurance companies that become impaired or insolvent. These associations levy assessments, up to prescribed limits, on each member insurer doing business in a particular state on the basis of their proportionate share of the premiums written by all member insurers in the lines of business in which the impaired or insolvent insurer previously engaged. Most states limit assessments in any year to 2% of the insurer’s average annual premium for the three years preceding the calendar year in which the impaired insurer became impaired or insolvent. Although we have historically not paid material amounts in connection with these assessments, we cannot accurately predict the magnitude of such amounts in the future, or accurately predict which past or future insolvencies of other insurers could lead to such assessments. If material, such future assessments may have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows, and any liability we have previously established for these potential assessments may not be adequate.

In addition to the foregoing risks, the financial services industry is the focus of increased regulatory scrutiny as various US state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations conduct inquiries and investigations into the products and practices of the companies within this industry. Governmental authorities and standard setters in the US and worldwide (including the IAIS) have become increasingly interested in potential risks posed by the insurance industry as a whole, and to commercial and financial activities and systems in general, as indicated by the development of the ICS by the IAIS to be applicable to IAIGs, as well as the US NAIC’s adoption of the GCC and LST. The IID has adopted the GCC and LST amendments, which are applicable to us. In February 2024, the IID identified AGM as meeting the criteria as an IAIG and further identified AHL as the Head of the IAIG. As a result of these identifications, Athene will be subject to the relevant capital standard that the US applies to IAIGs. At this time, we do not expect a significant impact on AHL’s capital position or capital structure; however, we cannot fully predict with certainty the impact (if any) on AHL’s capital position or capital structure and any other burdens being named an IAIG may impose on AHL or its insurance affiliates. See Item 1. Business–Regulation–Group Oversight and Capital Frameworkfor further discussion. While we cannot predict the exact nature, timing or scope of possible governmental initiatives, there may be increased regulatory intervention in the insurance and financial services industry in the future.

Our failure to obtain or maintain licenses and/or other regulatory approvals as required for the operations of our insurance subsidiaries may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and prospects.

Each regulator retains the authority to license insurers in its jurisdiction and an insurer generally may not operate in a jurisdiction in which it is not licensed. We have US domiciled insurance subsidiaries that collectively are currently licensed to do business in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. Our ability to retain these licenses depends on our and our subsidiaries’ ability to meet requirements established by the NAIC and adopted by each state, such as RBC standards and surplus requirements. Some of the factors influencing these requirements, particularly factors such as changes in equity market levels, the value of certain derivative instruments that do not receive hedge accounting, the value and credit ratings of certain fixed-income and equity securities in our investment portfolio, interest rate changes, changes to the applicable RBC formulas and the interpretation of the NAIC’s instructions with respect to RBC calculation methodologies, are out of our control.

In addition, licensing regulations differ as to products and jurisdictions and may be subject to interpretation as to whether certain licenses are required with respect to the manner in which we may sell or service some of our products in certain jurisdictions. The degree of complexity is heightened in the context of products that are issued through our institutional channel, including our pension group annuity products, where one product may cover risks in multiple jurisdictions.

If the factors discussed above adversely affect us or a state regulator interprets a licensing requirement differently than we do and we are unable to meet the requirements above, our subsidiaries could lose their licenses to do business in certain states; be subject to additional regulatory oversight; have their licenses suspended; be subject to rescission requests, fines, administrative penalties or payments to policyholders; or be subject to seizure of assets. A loss or suspension of any of our subsidiaries’ licenses or an inability of any of our insurance subsidiaries to be able to sell or service certain of our insurance products in one or more jurisdictions may negatively impact our reputation in the insurance market and result in our subsidiaries’ inability to write new business, distribute funds or pursue our investment/overall business strategy.

The licenses currently held by our insurance subsidiaries are limited in scope with respect to the products that may be sold within the respective jurisdictions. To the extent that our insurance subsidiaries seek to sell products for which we are not currently licensed, such subsidiaries would be required to become licensed in each of the respective jurisdictions in which such products are expected to be sold. There is no assurance that our insurance subsidiaries would be able to obtain the relevant licenses and the subsidiaries’ inability to do so may impair our competitive position and reduce our growth prospects, causing our financial position, results of operations and cash flows to fall below our current expectations.

Our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries, as Bermuda domiciled insurers, are also required to maintain licenses. Each of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries is licensed as a reinsurer in Bermuda. Bermuda insurance statutes and regulations and policies of the BMA require that our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries, among other things, maintain a minimum level of capital and surplus; satisfy solvency standards; restrict dividends, distributions and reductions of capital; obtain prior approval or provide notification to the BMA, as the case may be, of ownership, transfer and disposition of stockholder controller shares; maintain a head office and have certain officers resident in Bermuda; appoint and maintain a principal representative in Bermuda; and provide for the performance of certain periodic examinations of itself and its financial condition. A failure to meet these conditions may result in the suspension or revocation of a Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary’s license to do business as a reinsurance company in Bermuda, which would mean that such Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary would not be able to enter into any new reinsurance contracts until the suspension ended or it became licensed in another jurisdiction. Any such suspension or revocation of a Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary’s license would negatively impact its and our reputation in the reinsurance marketplace and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

UK law imposes licensing and other regulatory requirements in respect of insurance and reinsurance business carried out in the UK. Certain of our subsidiaries are UK tax resident companies but do not have the UK regulatory licenses required to write or carry out insurance business in the UK. Accordingly, their business does not involve transactions with UK domiciled clients and we believe that their operations and governance arrangements are otherwise undertaken to comply with UK regulatory requirements. ALReI is a Bermuda domiciled and regulated reinsurance subsidiary that is not a UK tax resident and does not have the UK regulatory licenses required to write or carry out insurance business in the UK. ALReI assumed reinsurance business from a UK domiciled client in December 2019, and will continue to seek other such opportunities going forward, in accordance with and as permitted under UK law. We believe ALReI’s business, operations and governance arrangements are undertaken to comply with UK law. We will continue to monitor developments in UK regulation to seek to cause the UK tax resident companies and ALReI to comply with UK law and regulation at all times; however, there can be no assurance that the UK regulatory authorities will not interpret the application of the relevant rules in a manner that differs from our interpretation and challenge the existing or future arrangements.

The process of obtaining licenses is time consuming and costly, and we may not be able to become licensed in jurisdictions other than those in which our subsidiaries are currently licensed and/or for products for which we are currently licensed. The modification of the conduct of our business resulting from our and our subsidiaries becoming licensed in certain jurisdictions or for certain products could significantly and negatively affect our business. In addition, our inability to comply with insurance statutes and regulations could materially and adversely affect our business by limiting our ability to conduct business, as well as subjecting us to penalties and fines.

Changes in legal and regulatory requirements, including through the adoption of executive orders, governing the insurance industry or otherwise applicable to our business, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and prospects.

Certain of the laws and regulations to which we are subject are summarized in Item 1. Business–Regulation. Changes in legal and regulatory requirements, including through the adoption of executive orders, relevant to our business may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and prospects. Certain of the risks associated with these changes are discussed in greater detail below.

The Dodd-Frank Act made sweeping changes to the regulation of financial services entities, products and markets. Historically, the federal government had not directly regulated the insurance business. However, the Dodd-Frank Act generally provides for enhanced federal supervision of financial institutions, including some insurance companies in defined circumstances, as well as financial activities that are deemed to represent a systemic risk to financial stability or the economy. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are relevant to us, our competitors or those entities with which we do business, including, but not limited to: the establishment of a comprehensive federal regulatory regime with respect to derivatives; the establishment of consolidated federal regulation and resolution authority over SIFIs and/or systemically important financial activities; the establishment of the Federal Insurance Office; changes to the regulation of broker-dealers and investment advisors; changes to the regulation of reinsurance; changes to regulations affecting the rights of stockholders; the imposition of additional regulation over credit rating agencies; and the imposition of concentration limits on financial institutions that restrict the amount of credit that may be extended to a single person or entity.

Legislative or regulatory requirements imposed by or promulgated in connection with the Dodd-Frank Act may impact us in many ways, including, but not limited to: placing us at a competitive disadvantage relative to our competition or other financial services entities; changing the competitive landscape of the financial services sector or the insurance industry; making it more expensive for us to conduct our business; requiring the reallocation of significant company resources to government affairs; increasing our legal and compliance related activities and the costs associated therewith as the Dodd-Frank Act may permit the preemption of certain state laws when inconsistent with international agreements, such as the EU Covered Agreement and the UK Covered Agreement; and otherwise having a material adverse effect on the overall business climate as well as our financial condition and results of operations.

Heightened standards of sales conduct as a result of the implementation of SAT, including state adoption of a revised SAT version that includes a best interest concept, or the adoption of other similar proposed rules or regulations could also increase the compliance and regulatory burdens on our representatives, and could lead to increased litigation and regulatory risks, changes to our business model, a decrease in the number of our securities-licensed representatives and a reduction in the products we offer to our clients, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, we expect the worldwide demographic trend of population aging will cause policymakers to continue to focus on the framework of US and non-US retirement systems, which may drive additional changes regarding the manner in which individuals plan for and fund their retirement, the extent of government involvement in retirement savings and funding, the regulation of retirement products and services and the oversight of industry participants. Any incremental requirements, costs and risks imposed on us in connection with such current or future legislative or regulatory changes, may constrain our ability to market our products and services to potential customers, and could negatively impact our profitability and make it more difficult for us to pursue our growth strategy.

Although we are subject to regulation in each state in which we conduct business, in many instances the state insurance laws and regulations emanate from the NAIC. State insurance regulators and the NAIC regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Any proposed or future legislation or NAIC initiatives, if adopted, may be more restrictive on our ability to conduct business than current regulatory requirements or may result in higher costs or increased statutory capital and reserve requirements. Changes in these laws and regulations or interpretations thereof are often made for the benefit of the consumer and at the expense of the insurer and could have a material adverse effect on our domestic insurance subsidiaries’ businesses, financial condition and results of operations. We are also subject to the risk that compliance with any particular regulator’s interpretation of a legal or accounting issue may not result in compliance with another regulator’s interpretation of the same issue, particularly when compliance is judged in hindsight. There is an additional risk that any particular regulator’s interpretation of a legal or accounting issue may change over time to our detriment, or that changes to the overall legal or market environment, even absent any change of interpretation by a particular regulator, may cause us to change our views regarding the actions we need to take from a legal risk management perspective, which could necessitate changes to our practices that may, in some cases, limit our ability to grow and improve profitability.

Risks Relating to Taxation

The tax treatment of our structure is complex and may be subject to change as a result of new laws or regulations or differing interpretations of existing laws and regulations, under audit or otherwise, potentially on a retroactive basis.

The tax treatment of our structure and transactions undertaken by us depends in some instances on determinations of fact and interpretations of complex provisions of US federal, state, local and non-US tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. In addition, US federal, state, local and non-US tax rules are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS, the US Department of the Treasury, and state, local and non-US legislative and regulatory bodies, which frequently results in revised interpretations of established concepts, statutory changes, revisions to regulations and other modifications, interpretations and practices. It is possible that future legislation increases the US federal income tax rates applicable to corporations, limits further the deductibility of interest or effects other changes that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

On August 16, 2022, the US government enacted the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). The IRA contains a number of tax-related provisions, including a 15% minimum corporate income tax on certain large corporations as well as an excise tax on stock repurchases. H.R.1 enacted on July 4, 2025, further modified various provisions of the US federal tax rules, including certain provisions of the IRA. The impact of the H.R.1 and the IRA on our financial condition will depend on the facts and circumstances of each year.

Non-US, state and local governments may enact legislation that could result in changes to non-US, state and local tax law and regulations, which may have a material impact on our financial position and results of operations. In particular, both the rate and basis of taxation may change. We cannot predict whether any particular proposed legislation will be enacted or, if enacted, what the specific provisions or the effective date of any such legislation would be, or whether it would have any effect on us. As such, we cannot assure you that future legislative, administrative or judicial developments will not result in an increase in the amount of US (including state or local) or non-US tax payable by us, our subsidiaries or investors in our shares. If any such developments occur, our business, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected and such developments could have an adverse effect on your investment in our shares.

Our effective tax rate and tax liability is based on the application of current tax laws, regulations and treaties as interpreted and applied by various jurisdictions. These laws, regulations and treaties are complex, and the manner in which they apply to us and our subsidiaries is sometimes open to interpretation. Moreover, the application of such laws, regulations and treaties may not be compatible with one another. Significant management judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowance recorded against our net deferred tax assets. Although management believes its application of current laws, regulations and treaties to be correct and sustainable upon examination by the tax authorities, the tax authorities could challenge our interpretation resulting in additional tax liability or adjustment to our tax provision that could increase our effective tax rate or have other unforeseen adverse tax consequences.

In addition, we or certain of our subsidiaries are currently (or have been recently) under tax audit in various jurisdictions, and these jurisdictions or any others where we conduct business may assess additional tax against us. While we believe our tax positions, determinations, and calculations are reasonable, the final determination of tax upon resolution of any audits could be materially different from our historical tax provisions and accruals. Should additional material taxes be assessed as a result of an audit, assessment or litigation, there could be an adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows in the period or periods for which that determination is made. Even where an audit, assessment or litigation is resolved favorably to us, the additional costs incurred in resisting or resolving such audits, assessments or litigation may adversely affect our business.

The US Congress, the OECD and other government bodies and organizations in jurisdictions where we and our affiliates are established, invest or conduct business continue to recommend and implement changes related to the taxation of multinational companies. The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (Inclusive Framework), which currently includes over 145 countries and jurisdictions, has proposed and encouraged the implementation by its participating jurisdictions of changes to numerous long-standing tax principles through its BEPS project, which is focused on a number of issues, including the prevention of profit shifting among affiliated entities in different jurisdictions, limitation of improper interest deductibility claims and ensuring eligibility of taxpayers claiming the benefits of double tax treaties. Several of the BEPS measures, including measures covering treaty abuse, the deductibility of interest expense, local nexus requirements, transfer pricing and hybrid mismatch arrangements, are relevant to our group structure and the structure of some of our investments. There remains some significant uncertainty regarding the timing of implementation and the specific domestic measures adopted in pursuance of the BEPS project for our business, however. Those aspects of the BEPS proposals which have already been implemented rely on relatively new legislation in a number of Inclusive Framework member jurisdictions, for which there is (in many cases) limited domestic precedent. Specifically, uncertainty remains around (among other matters) access to tax treaties for some of our investments, which could create situations of double taxation and adversely impact our investment returns.

In addition, Inclusive Framework members continue to work toward the domestic implementation of so-called “Pillar Two” which, broadly, ensures that multinational enterprises (MNEs) with revenues over 750 million euros pay a minimum rate of corporate income tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate. Pillar Two includes two interlocking rules for domestic adoption by Inclusive Framework members (together the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules (GloBE Rules)): (1) an Income Inclusion Rule (IIR), which imposes top-up tax on a parent entity in respect of the low-taxed income of a constituent entity within that parent entity’s group; and (2) a “UTPR” (commonly known as an undertaxed profits rule), which denies deductions or requires an equivalent adjustment to the extent the low-taxed income of a constituent entity is not subject to tax under an IIR.

Key aspects of Pillar Two (including IIR regimes) became effective in jurisdictions relevant to our business from January 1, 2024, with other aspects (including UTPR regimes) being implemented into domestic laws throughout the course of 2025. The UK, for example, enacted legislation in July 2023 implementing an IIR via a Minimum Top-up Tax “MTT” (alongside a UK domestic top-up tax) that applies to MNEs for accounting periods beginning on or after December 31, 2023 and introduced the UTPR in 2025 with effect for accounting periods beginning on or after December 31, 2024.

The OECD has released administrative guidance which clarifies (and in some cases amends) previously released guidance on the application of the model GloBE Rules, and jurisdictions enacting legislation in respect of Pillar Two have sought to implement these updates (either by way of legislative amendment or the release of further domestic guidance). We expect that the OECD will continue to release updates to its administrative guidance which may result in further amendments to the Pillar Two rules as they apply in relevant jurisdictions.

On January 5, 2026, members of the Inclusive Framework agreed on several new safe harbors as part of a package of measures on Pillar Two aimed at reducing compliance burdens and ensuring fair treatment of substance-based tax incentives. A key element of the package includes measures designed to ensure that, subject to certain conditions, neither the IIR nor the UTPR would apply to certain US headquartered MNEs (or any foreign subsidiaries included in the group’s consolidated financial statements) for financial years commencing on or after January 1, 2026 (the SbS Safe Harbor). While these measures could, if implemented as contemplated, significantly reduce the potential impact of the Pillar Two rules to some or all of our business, the practical impact of these measures remains uncertain and will depend on local law enactment, administrative guidance, and interpretation in the relevant jurisdictions. In addition, local Pillar Two regimes, including qualified domestic minimum top-up taxes, may continue to apply in jurisdictions in which our business operates. In the UK, the Exchequer Secretary to His Majesty’s Treasury announced on January 7, 2026 that measures to implement the new provisions, applicable to accounting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2026, will be subject to technical consultation and then brought forward in the next Finance Bill. However, no assurances can be provided that such measures will be enacted or, if enacted, what their effective date may be.

The release of further updates to the GloBE Rules and adoption of Pillar Two legislation (including IIR or UTPR regimes) by additional jurisdictions have given and may continue to give rise to consequential amendments to tax laws (other than those which seek to enact or modify Pillar Two rules) in other jurisdictions. As noted below (see Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Taxation–The Bermuda Corporate Income Tax Act 2023, or other changes in Bermuda tax laws, may negatively affect our earnings and results from operations.), Bermuda in particular has enacted the Corporate Income Tax Act 2023 (Bermuda CIT) in response to the Pillar Two initiative. The implications of these rules for our business remain uncertain, both at a domestic level in Bermuda and in terms of how the Bermuda CIT (which came into full effect on January 1, 2025) might interact with the MTT and UTPR legislation or other Pillar Two implementing legislation in relevant jurisdictions. These rules also now need to be considered against the backdrop of the above mentioned SbS Safe Harbor measures which have the potential to exclude certain US-headed groups from the IRR and UTPR altogether. We have taken specific steps under the Bermuda CIT in response to the SbS Safe Harbor measures.

Alongside Pillar Two, the Inclusive Framework has also developed a proposal to amend existing tax laws and principles to shift taxing rights to the jurisdiction of the consumer (called Pillar One). As currently proposed, Pillar One seeks to re-allocate taxing rights over 25% of the residual profits of MNEs with global turnover in excess of 20 billion euros (excluding extractives and regulated financial services) to the jurisdictions where the customers and users of those MNEs are located. While the Inclusive Framework continues to seek agreement regarding the form and timing of implementation of Pillar One, no concrete proposal has yet been achieved and therefore the likely impact on our business and the taxes we pay remains unclear.

The timing, scope and implementation into the domestic law of relevant jurisdictions of any measures in pursuit of aspects of the BEPS project other than Pillar One and Pillar Two remain subject to significant uncertainty, as does the content of existing and future OECD guidance and the form of legislation which enacts these changes. Such future changes may result in material additional tax being payable by our business and the businesses of the companies in which we invest. The ultimate implementation of the BEPS project may also increase the complexity and the burden and costs of compliance and advice relating to our efforts to efficiently fund, hold and realize investments, and could necessitate or increase the probability of some restructuring of our group or business operations. This may also lead to additional complexity in evaluating the tax implications of ongoing investments and restructuring transactions within our business.

Our ownership of certain non-US entities could cause us to be subject to US federal income tax in amounts greater than expected, which could adversely affect the value of your investment.

Certain of our non-US subsidiaries are treated as foreign corporations under the Internal Revenue Code (such subsidiaries, the Non-US Subsidiaries). Each of the Non-US Subsidiaries currently intends to operate in a manner that will not cause it to be subject to US federal income taxation on a net basis in any material amount. However, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether a foreign corporation is engaged in a trade or business (or has a permanent establishment) in the US, as the law is unclear and the determination is highly factual and must be made annually. Therefore there can be no assurance that the IRS will not successfully contend that a Non-US Subsidiary that does not intend to be treated as engaged in a trade or business (or as having a permanent establishment) in the US does, in fact, so engage (or have such a permanent establishment). If any such Non-US Subsidiary is treated as engaged in a trade or business in the US (or as having a permanent establishment), it may incur greater tax costs than expected on any income not exempt from taxation under an applicable income tax treaty, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

In addition, certain of our subsidiaries are treated as resident in the UK for UK tax purposes (UK Resident Companies) and expect to qualify for the benefits of the income tax treaty between the US and the UK (UK Treaty) by reason of being subsidiaries of AGM or by reason of satisfying an ownership and base erosion test. Accordingly, our UK Resident Companies are expected to qualify for certain exemptions from, or reduced rates of, US federal taxes that are provided for by the UK Treaty. However, there can be no assurances that our UK Resident Companies will continue to qualify for treaty benefits or satisfy all of the requirements for the tax exemptions and reductions they intend to claim. If any of our UK Resident Companies fails to qualify for such benefits or satisfy such requirements, it may incur greater tax costs than expected, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

AHL may be subject to UK taxation by reason of its historic UK tax residency or as a result of ceasing to be a UK tax resident.

Prior to 2024, AHL was treated as resident in the UK for UK tax purposes. As from 2024, AHL expects to no longer be a resident of the UK for tax purposes on the basis that it is not incorporated in the UK and its central management and control is no longer exercised from the UK. Further, it is expected that AHL will conduct its affairs in a manner that ensures that it is not regarded as carrying on a trade in the UK through a UK “permanent establishment” or “UK Representative.” Accordingly, AHL does not expect to be generally subject to UK tax on its worldwide profits.

While it is not anticipated that any adverse UK tax consequences should arise to AHL as a result of its historic UK tax residency, it is possible that HMRC may nonetheless seek to assert UK taxation with respect to AHL’s historic or future income or gains (including, without limitation, under a number of specific UK tax regimes, including the controlled foreign company regime, the hybrids and other mismatches regime, the diverted profits tax and the MTT). The UK tax regime also provides for certain forms of “exit taxation” to occur where a company ceases to be a UK tax resident (broadly, by deeming such companies (in certain circumstances) to have effected a deemed realization of their assets and liabilities at fair market value upon departure). We do not anticipate material adverse UK tax consequences for AHL arising as a result of its historic UK tax residency or as a result of ceasing to be a UK tax resident, but no assurances can be provided that HMRC will not assert that additional UK taxation applies.

The Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) may significantly increase our tax liability.

The BEAT operates as a minimum tax and is generally calculated as a percentage (10% for taxable years before 2026 and 10.5% thereafter) of the “modified taxable income” of an “applicable taxpayer.” Modified taxable income is calculated by adding back to a taxpayer’s regular taxable income the amount of certain “base erosion tax benefits” with respect to certain payments made to foreign affiliates of the taxpayer, as well as the “base erosion percentage” of any net operating loss deductions. The BEAT applies for a taxable year only to the extent it exceeds a taxpayer’s regular corporate income tax liability for such year (determined without regard to certain tax credits).

Certain of our reinsurance agreements require our US subsidiaries (including any non-US subsidiaries that have elected to be subject to US federal income taxation) to pay or accrue substantial amounts to certain of our non-US reinsurance subsidiaries that would be characterized as “base erosion payments” with respect to which there are “base erosion tax benefits.” These and any other “base erosion payments” may cause us to be subject to the BEAT. In addition, tax authorities may disagree with our BEAT calculations, or the interpretations on which those calculations are based, and assess additional taxes, interest and penalties.

We establish our tax provision in accordance with US GAAP. However, there can be no assurance that this provision will accurately reflect the amount of US federal income tax that we ultimately pay, as that amount could differ materially from the estimate. There may be material adverse consequences to our business if tax authorities successfully challenge our BEAT calculations, in light of the uncertainties described above.

Changes in tax law could adversely impact our earnings.

Many of the products that we sell and reinsure benefit from one or more forms of tax-favored status under current US federal and state income tax regimes. For example, we sell and reinsure annuity contracts that allow the policyholders to defer the recognition of taxable income earned within the contract. Future changes in US federal or state tax law could reduce or eliminate the attractiveness of such products, which could affect the sale of our products or increase the expected lapse rate with respect to products that have already been sold. Decreases in product sales or increases in lapse rates, in either case, brought about by changes in US tax law, may result in a decrease in net invested assets and therefore investment income and may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

There is US income tax risk associated with reinsurance between US insurance companies and their Bermuda affiliates.

If a reinsurance agreement is entered into among related parties, the IRS is permitted to reallocate or recharacterize income, deductions or certain other items, and to make any other adjustment, to reflect the proper amount, source or character of the taxable income of each of the parties. If the IRS were to successfully challenge our reinsurance arrangements, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.

The Bermuda Corporate Income Tax Act 2023, or other changes in Bermuda tax laws, may negatively affect our earnings and results from operations.

On December 27, 2023, the Government of Bermuda enacted the Bermuda CIT. On January 1, 2025, the Bermuda CIT imposed a 15% corporate income tax on entities that are tax residents in Bermuda or have a Bermuda permanent establishment and are members of multi-national groups with consolidated revenues in excess of €750 million for at least two of the last four fiscal years. The Bermuda CIT also includes various transitional provisions and elections that may reduce the amount of tax imposed. Other than as noted below, our subsidiaries that are organized in Bermuda generally will be subject to tax under the Bermuda CIT, although we do not expect to owe any cash tax thereunder. As discussed in Item 7.–Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Overview–Bermuda Corporate Income Tax, in response to the SbS Safe Harbor measures described above, and the announcement by the Exchequer Secretary to His Majesty’s Treasury in the UK that measures to implement the new provisions will be brought forward in the next Finance Bill, we revoked ACRA’s election to be subject to Bermuda CIT. The revocation of this election will result in a reduction to other assets with a corresponding increase to income tax expense, which results in a reduction to adjusted Athene Holding Ltd. common stockholder’s equity, equal to the net amount of the Bermuda deferred tax assets of $1.7 billion. No assurances can be provided that the Bermuda CIT, future amendments, regulations or other guidance in respect of the Bermuda CIT, the interaction of the Bermuda CIT with SbS Safe Harbor implementing legislation (if any), or any consequences of our revocation of ACRA’s election to be subject to Bermuda CIT will not negatively affect our earnings and results of operations.

The Bermuda Minister of Finance, under the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966 of Bermuda, as amended, has issued Tax Assurance Certificates to our Bermuda subsidiaries assuring such entities that if any legislation is enacted in Bermuda that would impose tax computed on profits or income, or computed on any capital asset, gain or appreciation, or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any such tax will not be applicable to such entities or any of their operations, shares, debentures or other obligations until March 31, 2035, except insofar as such tax applies to persons ordinarily resident in Bermuda or to any taxes payable in respect of real property owned or leased by such entities in Bermuda. Given the limited duration of the Bermuda Minister of Finance’s assurances, and that the Bermuda CIT described above was enacted notwithstanding such assurances, we cannot assure you that we will not be subject to any other Bermuda taxes before or after March 31, 2035.

Risks Relating to Investment in Our Securities

AHL is a holding company with limited operations of its own. As a consequence, AHL’s ability to pay dividends on its securities and to make timely payments on its debt obligations will depend on the ability of its subsidiaries to make distributions or other payments to it, which may be restricted by law.

AHL is a holding company with limited business operations of its own. AHL’s primary subsidiaries are insurance and reinsurance companies that own substantially all of our assets and conduct substantially all of our operations. Accordingly, AHL’s payment of dividends and ability to make timely payments on its debt obligations is dependent, to a significant extent, on the generation of cash flow by its subsidiaries and their ability to make such cash or other assets available to it, by dividend or otherwise. Dividends or distributions that may be paid by AHL’s insurance subsidiaries are limited or restricted by applicable insurance or other laws that are based in part on the prior year’s statutory income and surplus, or other sources. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Liquidity and Capital Resources–Holding Company Liquidity–Dividends from Insurance Subsidiaries.

AHL’s subsidiaries may not be able to, or may not be permitted to, make distributions to enable AHL to meet its obligations and pay dividends. These limitations on AHL’s subsidiaries’ abilities to pay dividends to AHL may negatively impact AHL’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. If AHL is not able to receive sufficient distributions from its subsidiaries, AHL may be required to raise funds through the incurrence of indebtedness, issuance of equity or sale of assets. AHL’s ability to access funds through such methods is subject to market conditions and there can be no assurance that AHL would be able to raise funds on favorable terms or at all.

Each subsidiary is a distinct legal entity and legal and contractual restrictions may also limit AHL’s ability to obtain cash from its subsidiaries. In addition to the specific restrictions described above, AHL’s subsidiaries, as members of its insurance holding company system, are subject to various statutory and regulatory restrictions on their ability to pay dividends to AHL, as further described in Item 1. Business–Regulation–Group Oversight and Capital Framework–Insurance Holding Company Regulation.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for certain legal actions between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a judicial forum viewed by the stockholders as more favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, and the enforceability of the exclusive forum provision may be subject to uncertainty.

Article XIII of our certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for: (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our current or former directors, officers, other employees or stockholders to us or our stockholders; (c) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (DGCL), our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; or (d) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine, except for, as to each of (a) through (d) above, any claim as to which the Court of Chancery determines that there is an indispensable party not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery (and the indispensable party does not consent to the personal jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery within ten days following such determination), which is vested in the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or forum other than the Court of Chancery, or for which the Court of Chancery does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The exclusive forum provision also provides that it will not apply to claims arising under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or other federal securities laws for which there is exclusive federal or concurrent federal and state jurisdiction. Stockholders cannot waive, and will not be deemed to have waived under the exclusive forum provision, the Company’s compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although we believe this exclusive forum provision benefits us by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law in the types of lawsuits to which it applies, this exclusive forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, other employees or stockholders, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Further, in the event a court finds the exclusive forum provision contained in the Certificate of Incorporation to be unenforceable or inapplicable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, operating results and financial condition.

General Risk Factors

Our business may be the target or subject of, and we may be required to defend against or respond to, litigation, regulatory investigations, enforcement actions or reputational harm.

We operate in an industry in which various practices are subject to potential litigation, including class actions, and regulatory scrutiny. We, like other financial services companies, are involved in litigation and arbitration in the ordinary course of business and may be the subject of regulatory proceedings (including investigations and enforcement actions). Plaintiffs may seek large or indeterminate amounts of damages in litigation and regulators may seek large fines in enforcement actions. Given the large or indeterminate amounts sometimes sought, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation and enforcement actions, it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of one or more matters could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings and Note 16 – Commitments and Contingenciesto the consolidated financial statements for certain matters to which we are a party, if any. Even if we ultimately prevail in any litigation or receive positive results from investigations, we could incur material legal costs or our reputation could be materially adversely affected.

Beginning in March 2024, a number of putative class actions were filed in federal courts in the US against certain of our customers, in their respective capacities as plan sponsors, alleging violations of ERISA in connection with their transfer of pension obligations under defined benefit plans governed under ERISA and their purchase of pension group annuity contracts from us. The lawsuits seek, inter alia, that defendants guarantee the annuities purchased from us and disgorge any profits earned from the transactions. Although we are not a named defendant, the lawsuits make several negative allegations about us and our business, which we believe to be untrue. More recently, similar claims have been filed against customers of other insurance companies that have transferred their pension obligations to such other insurance companies. Negative public perceptions of us and our business have adversely affected, and may continue to adversely affect, our ability to attract and retain customers in our pension group annuity business, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. To the extent these lawsuits continue to spread to customers of other insurance companies, future activity in the overall pension risk transfer industry may be reduced. In addition, these lawsuits could lead to increased regulatory and governmental scrutiny of our business and the industry overall, and/or result in us becoming involved in these lawsuits or even being named as a defendant in future lawsuits related to our pension group annuity business, which could result in additional expenses, adverse regulations and oversight, and/or additional reputational harm. These lawsuits could also spur similar copycat lawsuits, which could further impact our pension group annuity business. To the extent that the inflows in our pension group annuity business continue to be negatively impacted by these lawsuits, and in the event of any related regulatory and governmental scrutiny, we may seek to increase our inflows in our other distribution channels, including by issuing additional funding agreements within our institutional channel. However, there are no assurances that we would be successful in replacing any future pension group annuity inflows with inflows from other distribution channels or that such other inflows would result in comparable spreads.