Jackson Financial Inc

Our company is subject to, or affected by, many laws and regulations as a result of:

•our public company status,

•our ownership and operation of insurance companies,

•our ownership and operation of registered investment advisors and regulated broker-dealers,

•our use of derivatives, and

•our advisory relationships with customers.

These laws and regulations affect, among other things, how we conduct business, our permitted investments and financial condition, marketing and investment disclosures, cybersecurity and privacy requirements, and applicable accounting standards. Further, they are complex, subject to change, and administered and enforced by multiple governmental authorities. The authorities include state insurance regulators, state securities administrators, the SEC, FINRA, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), the U.S. Department of Justice, and state attorneys general. Generally, these laws and regulations are designed to protect or benefit the interests of a specific constituency, such as, for example, state insurance laws and regulations that are generally intended to protect or benefit purchasers or users of insurance products.

State Insurance Regulation

State insurance laws establish supervisory agencies with broad administrative and supervisory powers related to granting and revoking licenses to transact business, regulating marketing and other trade practices, establishing guaranty associations, licensing agents, prescribing and approving policy forms, regulating certain premium rates, regulating insurance holding company systems, establishing reserve requirements, prescribing the form and content of required financial statements and reports, performing financial and other examinations, determining the reasonableness and adequacy of statutory capital and surplus, regulating the type and amount of investments permitted, limiting the amount of dividends that can be paid and the size of transactions that can be consummated without first obtaining regulatory approval, regulating standards of business conduct and other related matters. Certain information and reports that each of Brooke Life and Jackson has filed with DIFS can be inspected during normal business hours at 530 W. Allegan Street, 7th Floor, Lansing, Michigan.

As part of their regulatory oversight process, state insurance departments conduct periodic examinations, generally once every three to five years, of the books, records, accounts and business practices of insurers domiciled in their states. Examinations are sometimes carried out in cooperation with other states' insurance regulators under guidelines promulgated by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (the “NAIC"). State and federal insurance and securities regulatory authorities and other state law enforcement agencies and attorneys general also, from time to time, make inquiries and conduct examinations or investigations regarding our compliance with among other things, insurance laws and securities laws. The most recent DIFS and NYSDFS examinations of Jackson and Jackson National Life Insurance Company of New York ("Jackson NY"), respectively, concluded in 2023 with no material findings.

Insurance companies have been under increased scrutiny by various state regulators, the federal government and the NAIC. Various states have considered or enacted legislation that in many cases increases states’ authority to regulate insurance companies. Although the federal government does not directly regulate the insurance business, federal legislation and administrative policies in several areas, including pension regulation, age and sex discrimination, financial services regulation, securities regulation and federal taxation, can significantly affect the insurance business. Legislation has been introduced from time to time in the U.S. Congress that could result in a more expansive role of regulation of insurance companies. The NAIC has approved and recommended several regulatory initiatives designed to reduce the risk of insurance company insolvencies. These initiatives include investment and reserve requirements, risk-based capital (“RBC”) standards, restrictions on an insurance company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders, and the adoption of model laws, relating to risk management, financial exposure assessment, and governance structure disclosure.

State insurance laws and regulations also include provisions governing marketplace activity of life and annuity insurers, including provisions governing the form and content of disclosure to consumers, such as illustrations, advertising, sales practices and complaint handling. State regulatory authorities generally enforce these provisions through periodic market conduct examinations, with emphasis in recent years on improper life insurance pricing and sales practices, race-based underwriting or sales practices, and misleading sales presentations, targeting the elderly, and product suitability for potential customers.

In December 2022, Michigan enacted an amendment to the holding company provision within its Insurance Code, which adopts a Group Capital Calculation ("GCC") for use in DIFS’ monitoring of insurance holding companies’ solvency. While the GCC is not a capital requirement, the calculation is intended to provide additional analytical information for use in assessing group risks and capital adequacy, complementing DIFS’ current holding company analysis. The changes were required to ensure Michigan remained in compliance with accreditation standards set by the NAIC, which allows for inter-state cooperation and reduces regulatory redundancies.

Annuity Suitability Regulation

On February 13, 2020, the NAIC approved revisions to the Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation (the “Annuity Suitability Model Regulation”). The revised model imposes a “best interest” standard of conduct and includes a “safe harbor” for fiduciary advisors who recommend annuities. Under the safe harbor, as it applies to the “care” elements of the Annuity Suitability Model Regulation, investment advisors offering annuities need only comply with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Advisers Act”). Each state chooses whether to implement the Annuity Suitability Model Regulation. If they so choose, they will either amend their current suitability regulations or adopt the new model. NYSDFS' amended insurance regulation (Regulation 187, "Suitability and Best Interest in Life Insurance and Annuity Transactions") incorporates the “best interest” standard for the sale of annuities and expands the application of this standard beyond annuity transactions to include sales of life insurance policies to consumers.

Guaranty Associations and Similar Arrangements

State laws require insurance companies doing business within their jurisdictions to participate in various types of guaranty associations or other similar arrangements. These guaranty associations and arrangements provide certain levels of protection to customers from losses under insurance policies issued by insurance companies that become impaired or insolvent. Typically, these guaranty associations levy assessments up to a prescribed limit on a member insurer's proportionate share of the business in the relevant jurisdiction of all member insurers in the lines of business in which the impaired or insolvent insurer is engaged. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments that they paid through full or partial premium tax offsets, usually over a period of years. The aggregate assessments levied against us during the prior three years have not been material to our financial condition.

Regulation of Investments

We are subject to state laws and regulations that require diversification of our investment portfolios and limit the amount of investments in certain asset categories, such as below investment-grade fixed income securities, equity real estate, mortgages, other equity investments, foreign investments and derivatives. Failure to comply with these requirements would cause investments exceeding regulatory limitations to be treated as non-admitted assets for purposes of measuring surplus and, in most instances, would require divestiture of the non-qualifying investments. We believe that our investments complied with these requirements at December 31, 2023.

Surplus and Capital; RBC Requirements

The NAIC has developed RBC standards for life insurance companies as well as a model act for state legislatures to enact. The model act requires that life insurance companies report on a RBC formula standard calculated by applying factors to various asset, premium and reserve items and separate model-based calculations of risk associated primarily with interest rate and market risks. The RBC formula takes into account the risk characteristics of a company, including asset risk, insurance risk, interest rate risk, market risk and business risk. The NAIC designed the formula as an early warning tool to identify potentially inadequately capitalized companies for purposes of initiating regulatory action.

Under RBC requirements, regulatory compliance is determined by an NAIC defined ratio (known as the RBC ratio) of a company’s total adjusted capital, to its company action level of RBC, also as defined by the NAIC. Four levels of regulatory attention may be triggered if the RBC ratio is insufficient:

As of December 31, 2023, Jackson's and Jackson NY’s total adjusted capital and RBC minimum required levels under the NAIC’s definition substantially exceeded the standards of their respective states of domicile and the NAIC.

We believe that we will be able to maintain our RBC ratios in excess of “company action level” through appropriate risk management, investing and capital management, and claims handling. However, no assurances can be given that developments affecting us or our insurance subsidiaries, many of which could be outside of our control, will not cause our RBC ratios to fall below our targeted levels. See Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Legal, Tax and Regulatory Matters—A decrease in the risk-based capital ("RBC") ratio (as a result of a reduction in statutory capital and surplus or increase in RBC requirements) of our insurance subsidiaries could result in increased scrutiny by insurance regulators and rating agencies, which could lead to corrective measures and ratings downgrades that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The NAIC updated the risk-based capital framework to reflect more current modeling of asset risk and insurance risk, with changes effective at year-end 2021 and 2022. The changes had minimal impact on our life insurance subsidiaries.

Federal Initiatives Impacting Insurance Companies

While the U.S. government does not directly regulate the insurance industry, federal initiatives can impact the insurance industry.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, and similar laws passed in jurisdictions outside the U.S., has significantly impacted the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives. In the U.S., the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) and the SEC regulate swaps and other derivatives. The CFTC has primary jurisdiction over swaps, which constitute the vast majority of the market, and the SEC has primary jurisdiction over security-based swaps.

Dodd-Frank Act requirements and similar non-U.S. regulations make it more costly to use derivatives and hedge investment exposures and may affect our returns. These regulations may impede our ability to utilize derivatives. Another factor that has driven up the cost of trading in both over-the-counter and exchange traded derivatives is the increased capital charges imposed on financial intermediaries, such as futures commission merchants and banks. As a result of these regulations, we expect costs to continue to rise, which could adversely impact our ability to implement our desired hedging strategies. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has adopted significant regulations changing the way swaps are traded in the U.S., including:

•imposing registration requirements on swap dealers and large market participants, known as major swap participants,

•subjecting a significant portion of the interest rate swap market and some of the credit default swap index market to mandatory exchange or swap execution facility trading and central clearing requirements, and

•imposing new requirements on swap transactions, including trade reporting and recordkeeping, know-your-customer and other sales practices, and documentation for swap transactions entered into with swap dealers and major swap participants.

Regulators around the world, including U.S. banking regulators and the CFTC, have implemented margin requirements for uncleared derivatives generally in accordance with the recommendations of the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision and International Organization of Securities Commissions. The variation margin requirements require us to exchange variation margin (comprised of specified liquid instruments and subject to required haircuts) when entering into uncleared swaps and security-based swaps with regulated entities. The initial margin requirements are being phased-in and may also ultimately require us to post initial margin when entering into such derivatives. We completed the required legal documentation and changes to our operational processes in 2021 to accommodate the exchange of initial margin with U.S. and European Union swap dealers, when necessary.

Banking regulators' rules applicable to certain qualified financial contracts with banking institutions and their applicable affiliates, such as many derivatives contracts, securities lending agreements and repurchase agreements, generally require the inclusion of contractual provisions that limit or delay certain rights of their counterparties, including counterparties’ default rights (such as the right to terminate the contracts or foreclose on collateral) and restrictions on assignments and transfers of credit enhancements (such as guarantees) arising in connection with the banking institution or an applicable affiliate becoming subject to a bankruptcy, insolvency, resolution or similar proceeding. Our qualified financial contracts are subject to these rules and contain the relevant provisions.

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “FSOC”). The FSOC has the ability to designate certain insurance companies and insurance holding companies that pose a systemic risk to the financial stability of the U.S., in which case such companies would become subject to heightened prudential regulation by the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Federal Reserve Board”). The Federal Reserve Board may limit such company’s ability to enter into merger transactions, restrict its ability to offer financial products, require it to terminate one or more activities, or impose conditions on how it conducts activities. On December 4, 2019, the FSOC issued final guidance regarding the designation of non-bank financial companies as systemically important. The guidance provided that the FSOC will move from an “entity-based” designation approach towards an “activities-based” approach. This approach eliminated the prior quantitative thresholds for designation as a systemically important entity. However, in November 2023, the FSOC adopted a new analytic framework for financial stability risks and updated guidance on its nonbank financial company determinations process, overruling the 2019 guidance. While the impact of this change is not completely clear at this time, it could increase the chance that the Company is subject to additional regulatory measures.

The Dodd-Frank Act also authorizes the Federal Insurance Office ("FIO") to assist the Secretary of the Treasury Department in negotiating covered agreements. A covered agreement is an agreement between the U.S. and one or more foreign governments, authorities or regulatory entities, regarding prudential measures with respect to insurance or reinsurance. The FIO is further charged with determining, in accordance with the procedures and standards established under the Dodd-Frank Act, whether state laws are preempted by a covered agreement. Pursuant to this authority, in September 2017, the U.S. and the European Union signed a covered agreement (the “EU Covered Agreement”) to address, among other things, reinsurance collateral requirements. In addition, on December 18, 2018, the Treasury Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative signed a Bilateral Agreement between the U.S. and the United Kingdom on Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance in anticipation of the United Kingdom’s potential exit from the European Union (the “UK Covered Agreement” and, together with the EU Covered Agreement, the “Covered Agreements”). U.S. state regulators had five years from the dates the Covered Agreements were signed to adopt reinsurance reforms removing reinsurance collateral requirements for EU and UK reinsurers that meet the prescribed minimum conditions set forth in the applicable Covered Agreement or else state laws imposing such reinsurance collateral requirements may be subject to federal preemption. On June 25, 2019, the NAIC adopted amendments to the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Model Regulation to conform to the requirements of the Covered Agreements. As of December 31, 2023, 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted and promulgated the Model Law and Model Regulation. Additionally, five other U.S. jurisdictions have adopted regulations or memorandums of understanding consistent with the Model Law and Model Regulation.

SEC’s Regulation Best Interest

On June 5, 2019, the SEC adopted a package of investment advice reforms designed to enhance investor protections while preserving retail investor access and choice. The most significant element of the package is a rule (known as “Regulation Best Interest”) establishing a best interest standard of conduct for broker-dealers and their representatives when they make recommendations to retail investors. Regulation Best Interest, which became effective on June 30, 2020, enhances the duties and disclosure requirements that apply to our broker-dealer and investment adviser subsidiaries when they provide recommendations and investment advice to retail investors, as well as our representatives that provide such services. The reforms increase the regulatory burden on broker-dealers selling our products, but also provide a more consistent regulatory standard that could provide benefits to the overall insurance and investment market. Also, FINRA adopted rules to align to Regulation Best Interest and is enforcing both the SEC regulations and its own rules relating to recommendations of investments to retail consumers.

Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Advice Rule

The Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued a regulatory action, effective February 16, 2021, that reinstated the text of the DOL’s 1975 investment advice regulation defining what constitutes fiduciary “investment advice” to Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") plans and individual retirement accounts ("IRAs"). The related guidance provided by the DOL broadened the circumstances under which financial institutions, including insurance companies, could be considered fiduciaries under ERISA or the Federal income tax code. The rule and accompanying guidance faced hurdles, including a February 2023 U.S. District Court decision that vacated the roll over portion of the guidance, ruling that the DOL exceeded its authority in this area.

On October 31, 2023, the DOL proposed revisions to the definition of fiduciary and related Prohibited Transaction Exemptions (PTE) (the “2023 Fiduciary Advice Rule”), redefining what constitutes fiduciary “investment advice” to ERISA plans and IRAs. The proposal again extends fiduciary status to one-time rollover recommendations and broadens the circumstances under which financial institutions, including insurance companies, could be considered fiduciaries under ERISA or the Federal income tax code, despite the recent U.S. District Court decision. The proposal also narrows the applicability of PTE 84-24 specific to insurance commissions for annuity recommendations to independent insurance agents recommending non-securities products. The proposed changes to PTE 84-24 also impose certain supervisory obligations on insurance carriers that are similar to obligations already covered under the National Association of Insurance Commissioner’s (NAIC) Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation. As currently drafted, the above-reference revisions would be effective 60 days after the rule is finalized and published in the Federal Register.

We continue to analyze the impact of the 2023 Fiduciary Advice Rule, if adopted, and, while we cannot predict the rule’s impact, it could have an adverse effect on sales of annuities through our distribution partners. We may need to take certain additional actions to comply with, or assist our distributors in their compliance with, the 2023 Fiduciary Advice Rule. The 2023 Fiduciary Advice Rule may also lead to changes to our compensation practices and product offerings and increase litigation risk, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Nonetheless, because the distribution of annuities is primarily through intermediaries, most of which have implemented systems and processes to align to existing state and federal fiduciary and/or best interest standards, we believe that we will have more limited exposure to the 2023 Fiduciary Advice Rule. While the rule may not have a material impact on our business, it may impede certain investors’ access to financial advice or annuities that provide guaranteed income streams.

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 includes anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws as well as various regulations applicable to broker-dealers and other financial services companies, including insurance companies. Financial institutions are required to collect information regarding the identity of their customers, watch for and report suspicious transactions, respond to requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies and share information with other financial institutions. As a result, we are required to maintain certain internal compliance practices, procedures and controls.

Cybersecurity Regulations

Cybersecurity is subject to increased scrutiny by insurance regulators. In 2017, the NYSDFS adopted 23 NYCRR 500 (the “NYSDFS Cybersecurity Regulation”), which requires covered businesses in New York to have a comprehensive cybersecurity program that aligns to the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework and requires policies and procedures in several specific areas including, personnel, training, access privileges, penetration testing, vulnerability management, encryption, multifactor authentication, application security, data minimization, incident response planning, and notification and vendor management. The NYSDFS has pursued enforcement actions and penalties for violations demonstrating the significant risk of noncompliance. On November 1, 2023, the NYSDFS adopted a second amendment to the NYSDFS Cybersecurity Regulation, which includes requirements relating to risk assessments, cybersecurity policies, penetration testing, monitoring, and certain audit requirements. The regulation will take effect in phases during 2024.

The NAIC has adopted the Insurance Data Security Model Law, which established the standards for data security, investigation, and notification of a breach of data security for insurance companies. As of January 2024, twenty-three states (including Michigan, effective January 1, 2021) had adopted the model law. Importantly, the drafters of the Data Security Model Law intend that a licensee’s compliance with the NYSDFS Cybersecurity Regulation will constitute compliance with the Data Security Model Law. We have taken the necessary steps to comply with this regulation.

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”) grants all California residents the right to know what information a business has collected from them and the sourcing and sharing of that information, as well as a right to have a business delete their personal information (with some exceptions). The CCPA’s definition of “personal information” is more expansive than those found in other privacy laws applicable to us in the U.S. Failure to comply with the CCPA could result in regulatory fines, and the law grants a private right of action for any unauthorized disclosure of personal information as a result of failure to maintain reasonable security procedures. Additionally, on November 3, 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative, the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), that adjusts and, in some respects, expands consumer rights and business obligations created by the CCPA. The CPRA, effective January 1, 2023, imposes additional obligations on companies that collect California residents’ personal information, including providing a right to correct personal information, additional protections for certain uses of sensitive personal information, and certain limitations on data use and data sharing that does not involve a sale. The CPRA also creates a new California Privacy Protection Agency, which will be charged with enforcing both the CCPA and the CPRA.

Federal law and regulation require financial institutions to protect the security and confidentiality of customer information, notify customers about their policies and practices relating to their collection, disclosure and securing the confidentiality of customer information. Federal and state laws also regulate disclosures of customer information. In March 2022, Congress enacted a 72-hour cyber reporting provision within a larger legislative package. In addition to this provision, Congress and state legislatures are expected to consider additional regulation relating to privacy and other aspects of customer information.

On October 21, 2019, the NAIC formed a Privacy Protections (H) Working Group to review state insurance privacy protections regarding the collection, use and disclosure of information gathered in connection with insurance transactions. In early 2023, the NAIC proposed a consumer privacy protection model law designed to replace the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Model Act and the Privacy of Consumer Financial Health and Information Regulation. The NAIC is continuing to consider comments received on the proposed model law. Privacy protection is also gaining attention in state legislatures nationwide. There are now five states with laws generally applicable to data privacy (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia). With the exception of California, these laws do not apply to Jackson National Life and other financial institutions subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In addition, in 2023 Michigan enacted a data privacy bill that has the same exclusion for financial institutions. While the final direction of these proposed statutes and regulations is not clear, they could result in additional requirements for Jackson Financial or its subsidiaries.

See Item 1C. Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Risk Management and Strategy.

Holding Company Regulation

We are subject to regulation under the insurance holding company laws of various jurisdictions. These laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction, but generally require each controlled insurance company to register with state regulatory authorities and file reports that provide information, including capital structure, ownership, financial condition, certain intercompany transactions and general business operations.

Restrictions on Acquiring “Control”

Insurance holding company regulations generally provide that no person, corporation or other entity may acquire control of an insurance company, or a controlling interest in any parent company of an insurance company, without the prior approval of such insurance company’s domiciliary state insurance regulator. Under the laws of each domiciliary state of our insurance subsidiaries, any person acquiring, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the voting securities of an insurance company is presumed to have acquired “control” of the company. This statutory presumption of control may be rebutted by a showing that control does not, in fact, exist. The state insurance regulators, however, may find that “control” exists in circumstances in which a person owns or controls less than 10% of voting securities.

These laws and regulations may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent a change of control involving us, including through unsolicited transactions that some of our shareholders might consider desirable.

Restrictions on Paying Dividends

As a holding company with no significant business operations of our own, we depend on dividends from our subsidiaries to meet our obligations. State insurance statutes also typically place restrictions and limitations on the amount of dividends or other distributions payable by insurance company subsidiaries to their parent companies. Dividends in excess of prescribed limits and transactions above a specified size between an insurer and its affiliates require the approval of the insurance regulator in the insurer’s state of domicile. For example, under the Michigan Insurance Code, DIFS must approve insurance companies' requests to pay a dividend or distribution out of earned surplus. The insurance statutes of New York permit payment of ordinary dividends without regulatory approval if they meet one of two standards. One standard allows a domestic stock life insurer to pay an ordinary dividend out of earned surplus. The second standard allows an insurer to pay an ordinary dividend out of other than earned surplus if such insurer does not have sufficient positive earned surplus to pay an ordinary dividend. However, dividends in excess of prescribed limits, based on prior year’s earnings and surplus of the insurance company, are considered extraordinary transactions and require explicit approval from the applicable regulator. See Item 1A. Risk Factors –“Risks Related to Ratings, Liquidity and Capital Management -- As a holding company, Jackson Financial depends on the ability of its subsidiaries to pay dividends and make other distributions to meet its obligations and liquidity needs.”

Broker-Dealer, Investment Adviser, Mutual Fund and Securities Regulation

We and certain policies and contracts offered by us are subject to regulation under the federal and state securities laws and regulations. Regulators administering these laws and regulations may conduct examinations of our operations and make requests for information. The primary intent of these laws and regulations is to protect investors in the securities markets and generally grant supervisory agencies broad administrative powers, including the power to limit or restrict the conduct of business for failure to comply.

Governmental regulatory authorities may institute administrative or judicial proceedings that may result in censure, fines, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, trading prohibitions, the suspension or expulsion of a broker-dealer or member, its officers, registered representatives or employees or other similar sanctions.

Broker-Dealer Regulation

JNLD is registered as a broker-dealer with the SEC, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is registered as a broker-dealer in all applicable states. JNLD is also a member of, and subject to regulation by, FINRA, a self-regulatory organization subject to SEC oversight. The SEC and FINRA also regulate the sales practices of broker-dealers. In recent years, both the SEC and FINRA have intensified their scrutiny of sales practices relating to variable annuities and variable life insurance. In addition, broker-dealers are also subject to regulation by state securities administrators in those states in which they conduct business, who may also conduct examinations and direct inquiries to broker-dealers.

Investment Adviser Regulation

Jackson National Asset Management LLC ("JNAM") is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser pursuant to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"). The investment companies (mutual funds) for which JNAM serves as an investment adviser are subject to SEC registration and regulation pursuant to the Securities Act, and the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”). The mutual funds advised by JNAM comprise the investment options within the variable products offered by Jackson National Life. In addition, each variable annuity and variable life product is subject to SEC registration and regulation.

PPM America, Inc. ("PPM") is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act. PPM serves as the investment adviser to Jackson National Life and as the primary U.S. institutional investment adviser for certain other affiliated insurance company accounts. PPM also acts as a sub-adviser to certain U.S. mutual funds for which JNAM serves as investment adviser. In addition, PPM serves as an investment adviser and sub-adviser to our former parent's Asian affiliates and other institutional clients primarily for U.S. focused portfolios. PPM has established a distribution function to further extend its investment advisory capabilities to the institutional marketplace with separate account and institutional product offerings. The U.S. mutual funds for which PPM serves as adviser and sub-adviser are subject to U.S. federal regulation, and similar vehicles organized outside of the U.S. are also subject to regulation under applicable local law.

The business of our investment adviser subsidiaries will be impacted by SEC regulatory initiatives with respect to the investment management business. In addition to rules discussed elsewhere, the SEC has adopted rules that include (i) new monthly and annual reporting requirements for certain U.S. registered funds; (ii) enhanced reporting regimes for investment advisers; (iii) implementing liquidity risk management programs for exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) and open-end funds, other than money market funds; (iv) reforms relating to money market funds that require institutional and prime money market funds to use a floating net asset value ("NAV"), and permit money market funds to impose liquidity fees and redemption gates; (v) significant amendments to rules regarding advertisements by investment advisers; and (vi) significant changes to the regulations applicable to the use of derivatives by U.S. registered funds. As noted above, the SEC has also recently proposed comprehensive reforms to improve cybersecurity risk management for registered investment advisers and registered funds. These rules increased the reporting and disclosure requirements for our investment adviser subsidiaries. These increased regulatory and compliance burdens could be costly and may impede the growth of our investment adviser subsidiaries.

The SEC, beginning in late 2020, instituted a comprehensive regulatory agenda focusing on Environmental, Social, and Governance ("ESG") issues. As part of this agenda, in March 2022, the SEC proposed a series of regulations requiring additional disclosures concerning climate change for public companies. The regulations include extensive disclosures concerning the estimated impact of climate change on businesses and how companies manage and govern climate change risk. In addition, the SEC announced a number of actions, including forming an enforcement task force designed to harmonize the efforts of the SEC’s divisions and offices, consider potential comprehensive changes to ESG disclosure guidance, announce ESG as an examination priority, address shareholder rights, create accountability in statements and conduct, and solicit comments to potential changes to the “names rule” under the Investment Company Act to reflect the effect of ESG factors on a fund’s investment objectives and performance. The SEC's Division of Examinations subsequently issued a risk alert highlighting ESG deficiencies, internal control weaknesses and effective practices identified during recent examinations of investment advisers, registered investment companies and private funds. The SEC's regulatory asset management agenda, including items that have been implemented in 2022 and those that are under consideration, may impact the growth of our investment advisory business due to the increased regulatory and compliance burdens.

Commodities Regulation

JNAM is registered as a “commodity pool operator” with the National Futures Association (“NFA”) pursuant to the Commodity Futures Trade Commission (“CFTC”) regulations and acts as a commodity pool operator with respect to the operation of certain of the mutual funds. The CFTC is a federal agency whose responsibilities include the regulation of commodity interests and enforcement of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1974. The NFA is a self-regulatory organization to which the CFTC has delegated, among other things, the administration and enforcement of commodity regulatory registration requirements and the regulation of its members. JNAM and the mutual funds have incurred additional regulatory compliance and reporting expenses as a result, which could reduce investment returns or harm the mutual fund’s ability to implement its investment strategy.