RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the following risks and other information in this prospectus, including our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes, before you decide to purchase our common stock. Additional risks and uncertainties of which we are not presently aware or that we currently deem immaterial could also affect our business operations and financial condition. If any of these risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially affected. As a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could lose part or all of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Business—General

Continued difficult conditions in the global capital markets and the economy generally have affected and may continue to affect our business and results of operations.

Our business and results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the global capital markets and the economy generally. Concerns over the slow economic recovery, the level of U.S. national debt, the European sovereign debt crisis, the ability of certain countries to remain in the euro zone, unemployment, the availability and cost of credit, the U.S. housing market, inflation levels, energy costs and geopolitical issues have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and the markets. In 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”) lowered its long term sovereign credit rating on the United States from AAA to AA+. In addition, significant concerns regarding the sovereign debt of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, as well as certain other countries, are ongoing and in some cases have required countries to obtain emergency financing. The financial turmoil in Europe continues to be a threat to global capital markets and remains a challenge to global financial stability. If these or other countries require additional financial support or if sovereign credit ratings continue to decline, yields on the sovereign debt of certain countries may continue to increase, the cost of borrowing may increase and credit may become more limited. Additionally, the possibility of capital market volatility spreading through a highly integrated and interdependent banking system remains elevated. In the event of any default or similar event with respect to a sovereign issuer, some financial institutions may suffer significant losses for which they would require additional capital, which may not be available. These factors, combined with volatile oil prices, reduced business and consumer confidence and continued high unemployment, have negatively impacted the U.S. economy. Our results of operations, investment portfolio and AUM are exposed to these risks and may be adversely affected as a result. In addition, in the event of extreme prolonged market events, such as the recent global credit crisis, we could incur significant losses.

Even in the absence of a market downturn, our insurance, annuity, retirement and investment products, as well as our investment returns and our access to and cost of financing, are sensitive to equity, fixed income, real estate and other market fluctuations and general economic and political conditions. These fluctuations and conditions could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, including in the following respects:

-16-

Table of Contents

We believe a continuation of the current low interest rate environment would also negatively affect our financial performance. For example, should the 10-year Treasury yield remain at     % through the end of 2015, we estimate that the operating income of our ongoing business would be reduced by     % in 2013, 2014 and 2015 from our current expectations. See “Business—Operating Return on Capital Goal.” This estimated reduction in operating income primarily reflects (1) lower investment income, as we invest new premiums and reinvest proceeds from maturing investments at rates lower than the yield on our current investment portfolio, and (2) higher amortization of DAC/VOBA. We believe reduced crediting rates offset the lower investment income, but that such reductions would only be partially effective due to the presence of minimum credited rates on many of our products. Under this scenario, we do not currently expect that loss recognition testing will result in charges to net income. These estimates do not assume any changes to our long-term DAC assumptions and do not reflect significant management actions, other than reductions to crediting rates.

-17-

Table of Contents

Continuing market turmoil has resulted in, and may continue to raise the possibility of, legislative, regulatory and governmental actions. We cannot predict whether or when such actions may occur, or what impact, if any, such actions could have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Adverse capital and credit market conditions may impact our ability to access liquidity and capital, as well as the cost of credit and capital.

Adverse capital market conditions may affect the availability and cost of borrowed funds, thereby impacting our ability to support or grow our businesses. We need liquidity to pay our operating expenses, interest on our debt and dividends on our capital stock, maintain our securities lending activities and replace certain maturing liabilities. Without sufficient liquidity, we will be forced to curtail our operations and our business will suffer. As a holding company with no direct operations, our principal assets are the capital stock of our subsidiaries. Payments of dividends and advances or repayment of funds to us by our insurance subsidiaries are restricted by the applicable laws and regulations of their respective jurisdictions, including laws establishing minimum solvency and liquidity thresholds.

-18-

Table of Contents

For our insurance and other subsidiaries, the principal sources of liquidity are insurance premiums and fees, annuity deposits and cash flow from investments and assets. At the holding company level, sources of liquidity in normal markets also include a variety of short-term liquid investments and short- and long-term instruments, including credit facilities, commercial paper, equity securities and medium- and long-term debt.

In the event current resources do not satisfy our needs, we may have to seek additional financing. The availability of additional financing will depend on a variety of factors such as market conditions, the general availability of credit, the volume of trading activities, the overall availability of credit to the financial services industry and our credit ratings and credit capacity, as well as the possibility that customers or lenders could develop a negative perception of our long- or short-term financial prospects. Similarly, our access to funds may be limited if regulatory authorities or rating agencies take negative actions against us. If our internal sources of liquidity prove to be insufficient, there is a risk that we may not be able to successfully obtain additional financing on favorable terms, or at all. Any actions we might take to access financing may cause rating agencies to reevaluate our ratings.

Disruptions, uncertainty or volatility in the capital and credit markets, such as that experienced over the past few years, may also limit our access to capital. Such market conditions may in the future limit our ability to raise additional capital to support business growth, or to counter-balance the consequences of losses or increased regulatory reserves and rating agency capital requirements. This could force us to (1) delay raising capital, (2) reduce, cancel or postpone interest payments on our debt, (3) issue capital of different types or under different terms than we would otherwise or (4) incur a higher cost of capital than in a more stable market environment. This would have the potential to decrease both our profitability and our financial flexibility. Our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, statutory capital and rating agency capital position could be materially and adversely affected by disruptions in the financial markets.

Interest rate volatility may adversely affect our profitability.

Changes in prevailing interest rates may negatively affect our business including the level of net interest margin we earn. In a period of changing interest rates, interest expense may increase and interest credited to policyholders may change at different rates than the interest earned on assets. Accordingly, changes in interest rates could decrease net interest margin. 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, all of which also ultimately affect earnings. In addition, our insurance and annuity products and certain of our retirement and investment products are sensitive to inflation rate fluctuations. A sustained increase in the inflation rate in our principal markets may also negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operation. For example, a sustained increase in the inflation rate may result in an increase in nominal market interest rates. A 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.

During periods of declining interest rates, life insurance and annuity products may be relatively more attractive to consumers due to minimum guarantees that are frequently mandated by regulators, resulting in increased premium payments on products with flexible premium features and a higher percentage of insurance and annuity contracts remaining in force from year-to-year than we anticipated in our pricing, potentially resulting in greater claims costs than we expected and asset liability cash flow mismatches. A decrease in interest rates may also require additional provisions for guarantees included in life insurance and annuity contracts, as the guarantees become more valuable to policyholders. During a period of decreasing interest rates, our investment earnings may decrease because the interest earnings on our recently purchased fixed income investments will likely have declined in parallel with market interest rates. In addition, a prolonged low interest rate period may result in higher costs for certain derivative instruments that may be used to hedge certain of our product risks. Residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and callable fixed income securities in our investment portfolios will be more likely to be prepaid or redeemed as borrowers seek to borrow at lower interest rates. Consequently, we may be required to reinvest the proceeds in securities bearing lower interest rates. Accordingly, during periods of declining interest rates, our profitability may suffer as the result of a decrease in

-19-

Table of Contents

the spread between interest rates credited to policyholders and contract owners and returns on our investment portfolios. An extended period of declining interest rates may also cause us to change our long-term view of the interest rates that we can earn on our investments. Such a change in our view would cause us to change the long-term interest rate that we assume in our calculation of insurance assets and liabilities under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). This revision would result in increased reserves, accelerated amortization of DAC and other unfavorable consequences. In addition, certain statutory capital and reserve requirements are based on formulas or models that consider interest rates, and an extended period of low interest rates may increase the statutory capital we are required to hold and the amount of assets we must maintain to support statutory reserves.

Conversely, in periods of rapidly increasing interest rates, policy loans, withdrawals from, and/or surrenders of, life insurance and annuity contracts and certain guaranteed investment contracts (“GICs”) may increase as policyholders choose to seek higher investment returns. Obtaining cash to satisfy these obligations may require us to liquidate fixed income investments at a time when market prices for those assets are depressed because of increases in interest rates. This may result in realized investment losses. Regardless of whether we realize an investment loss, such cash payments would result in a decrease in total invested assets and may decrease our net income and capitalization levels. Premature withdrawals may also cause us to accelerate amortization of DAC, which would also reduce our net income. An increase in market interest rates could also have a material adverse effect on the value of our investment portfolio by, for example, decreasing the estimated fair values of the fixed income securities within our investment portfolio. An increase in market interest rates could also create a significant collateral posting requirement associated with our interest rate hedge programs, which could materially and adversely affect liquidity. In addition, an increase in market interest rates could require us to pay higher interest rates on debt securities we may issue in the financial markets from time to time to finance our operations, which would increase our interest expenses and reduce our results of operations. Lastly, an increase in interest rates could result in decreased fee income associated with a decline in the value of variable annuity account balances invested in fixed income funds.

A downgrade or a potential downgrade in our financial strength or credit ratings could result in a loss of business and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Ratings are important to our business. Credit ratings represent the opinions of rating agencies regarding an entity’s ability to repay its indebtedness. Our credit ratings are important to our ability to raise capital through the issuance of debt and to the cost of such financing. Financial strength ratings, which are sometimes referred to as “claims-paying” ratings, represent the opinions of rating agencies regarding the financial ability of an insurance company to meet its obligations under an insurance policy. Financial strength ratings are important factors affecting public confidence in insurers, including our insurance company subsidiaries. The financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries are important to our ability to sell our products and services to our customers. Ratings are not recommendations to buy our securities. Each of the rating agencies reviews its ratings periodically, and our current ratings may not be maintained in the future.

Our ratings could be downgraded at any time and without notice by any rating agency. For example, in December 2011, both S&P and Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) downgraded the financial strength ratings of our insurance companies as a result of the announcement by ING Group regarding the financial impact of the change in policyholder behavior assumptions in our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment, which resulted in a charge of €1.1 billion against the results of that segment, as reflected in ING Group’s 2011 financial statements reported under International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). For a description of material rating actions that have occurred from the beginning of 2011 through the date of this filing, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Liquidity and Capital Resources— Ratings.”

We receive explicit guarantees of our commercial paper program and certain credit facilities from ING Verzekeringen N.V. (“ING V”), a wholly owned subsidiary of ING Group and our indirect parent. A downgrade of the credit rating of ING V could impact our ability to issue commercial paper or increase the amount of

-20-

Table of Contents

collateral that we are required to provide under these credit facilities. Also, ING Bank N.V. (“ING Bank”), an affiliate, provides certain letter of credit (“LOC”) facilities to the Company, including without limitation, a $1.5 billion contingent capital LOC. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Contingent Capital Letter of Credit.” A downgrade of ING Bank could negatively impact our ability to utilize these facilities as reinsurance collateral. On June 15, 2012, Moody’s downgraded the long-term debt ratings of ING Group from A1 to A3 with negative outlook and ING Bank from Aa3 to A2 with negative outlook. At the same time, Moody’s took negative ratings actions with respect to a number of European-based banking organizations. On November 16, 2012, S&P lowered their starting point for ratings for commercial banks operating in the Netherlands to bbb from a- and therefore revised the outlook on ING Bank to negative and affirmed the respective A+ and A counterparty credit ratings. At the same time S&P took various ratings actions on Dutch banks. For information on additional collateral requirements in case of a downgrade of our or ING V’s ratings, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Potential Impact of a Ratings Downgrade.”

A downgrade of the financial strength rating of one of our principal insurance subsidiaries could affect our competitive position by making it more difficult for us to market our products as potential customers may select companies with higher financial strength ratings and by leading to increased withdrawals by current customers seeking companies with higher financial strength ratings. This could lead to a decrease in AUM and result in lower fee income. Furthermore, sales of assets to meet customer withdrawal demands could also result in losses, depending on market conditions. In addition, a downgrade in either our financial strength or credit ratings could potentially, among other things, increase our borrowing costs and make it more difficult to access financing; adversely affect access to the commercial paper market or the availability of LOCs and other financial guarantees; result in additional collateral requirements, or other required payments or termination rights under derivative contracts or other agreements; and/or impair, or cause the termination of, our relationships with creditors, broker-dealers, distributors, reinsurers or trading counterparties, which could potentially negatively affect our profitability, liquidity and/or capital. In addition, we use assumptions of market participants in estimating the fair value of our liabilities, including insurance liabilities that are classified as embedded derivatives under GAAP. These assumptions include our nonperformance risk (i.e., the risk that the obligations will not be fulfilled). Therefore, changes in our credit or financial strength ratings may affect the fair value of our liabilities.

As rating agencies continue to evaluate the financial services industry, it is possible that rating agencies will heighten the level of scrutiny that they apply to financial institutions, increase the frequency and scope of their credit reviews, request additional information from the companies that they rate and potentially adjust upward the capital and other requirements employed in the rating agency models for maintenance of certain ratings levels. It is possible that the outcome of any such review of us would have additional adverse ratings consequences, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. We may need to take actions in response to changing standards or capital requirements set by any of the rating agencies which could cause our business and operations to suffer. We cannot predict what additional actions rating agencies may take, or what actions we may take in response to the actions of rating agencies.

Because we operate in highly competitive markets, we may not be able to increase or maintain our market share, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

In each of our businesses we face intense competition, including from domestic and foreign insurance companies, broker-dealers, financial advisors, asset managers and diversified financial institutions, both for the ultimate customers for our products and for distribution through independent distribution channels. We compete based on a number of factors including brand recognition, reputation, quality of service, quality of investment advice, investment performance of our products, product features, scope of distribution, price, perceived financial strength and credit ratings. 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 profitability. Many of our competitors are large and well-established and some have greater market share or breadth of distribution, offer a broader range of products, services or features, assume a greater level of risk, or have higher claims-paying or credit ratings than we do.

-21-

Table of Contents

In recent years, there has been substantial consolidation among companies in the financial services industry resulting in increased competition from large, well-capitalized financial services firms. Future economic turmoil may accelerate additional consolidation activity. Many of our competitors also have been able to increase their distribution systems through mergers or contractual arrangements. Furthermore, larger competitors may have lower operating costs and have an ability to absorb greater risk, while maintaining financial strength ratings, allowing them to price products more competitively. These competitive pressures could result in increased pressure on the pricing of certain of our products and services, and could harm our ability to maintain or increase profitability. In addition, if our financial strength and credit ratings are lower than our competitors, we may experience increased surrenders and/or a significant decline in sales. The competitive landscape in which we operate may be further affected by the government sponsored programs in the United States and similar governmental actions outside of the United States in response to the dislocations in financial markets. Competitors that receive governmental financing, guarantees or other assistance, or that are not subject to the same regulatory constraints, may have or obtain pricing or other competitive advantages. Due to the competitive nature of the financial services industry, there can be no assurance that we will continue to effectively compete within the industry or that competition will not have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our risk management policies and procedures, including hedging programs, may prove inadequate for the risks we face, which could negatively affect our business or result in losses.

We have developed risk management policies and procedures, including hedging programs that utilize derivative financial instruments, and expect to continue to do so in the future. Nonetheless, our policies and procedures to identify, monitor and manage risks may not be fully effective, particularly during extremely turbulent times. Many of our methods of managing risk and exposures are based upon observed historical market behavior or statistics based on historical models. As a result, these methods may not predict future exposures, which could be significantly greater than historical measures indicate. Other risk management methods depend on the evaluation of information regarding markets, customers, catastrophe occurrence or other matters that is publicly available or otherwise accessible to us. This information may not always be accurate, complete, up-to-date or properly evaluated. Management of operational, legal and regulatory risks requires, among other things, policies and procedures to record and verify large numbers of transactions and events. These policies and procedures may not be fully effective.

We employ various strategies, including hedging and reinsurance, with the objective of mitigating risks inherent in our business and operations. These risks include current or future changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities, current or future changes in cash flows, the effect of interest rates, equity markets and credit spread changes, the occurrence of credit defaults, currency fluctuations and changes in mortality and longevity. We seek to control these risks by, among other things, entering into reinsurance contracts and derivative instruments, such as swaps, options, futures and forward contracts. See “—Reinsurance subjects us to the credit risk of reinsurers and may not be available, affordable or adequate to protect us against losses” for a description of risks associated with our use of reinsurance. Developing an effective strategy for dealing with these risks is complex, and no strategy can completely insulate us from such risks. Our hedging strategies also rely on assumptions and projections regarding our assets, liabilities, general market factors and the creditworthiness of our counterparties that may prove to be incorrect or prove to be inadequate. Accordingly, our hedging activities may not have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations or financial condition. Hedging strategies involve transaction costs and other costs, and if we terminate a hedging arrangement, we may also be required to pay additional costs, such as transaction fees or breakage costs. We may incur losses on transactions after taking into account our hedging strategies. In particular, certain of our hedging strategies focus on the protection of regulatory reserves and rating agency capital, rather than GAAP earnings. Because our regulatory reserves and the variable annuity guarantee hedge program target react differently to changes in market movements, in addition to our variable annuity guarantee hedge program, we have executed a capital hedge overlay (“CHO”) program to generally target this differential. As GAAP accounting differs from the methods used to determine regulatory reserves and rating agency capital requirements, our hedge programs may create earnings volatility in

-22-

Table of Contents

our GAAP financial statements. Further, the nature, timing, design or execution of our hedging transactions could actually increase our risks and losses. Our hedging strategies and the derivatives that we use, or may use in the future, may not adequately mitigate or offset the hedged risk and our hedging transactions may result in losses.

Past or future misconduct by our employees, registered representatives of our broker-dealer subsidiaries or employees of our vendors could result in violations of law by us or our subsidiaries, 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. Our compensation policies and practices are reviewed by us as part of our overall risk management program, but it is possible that such compensation policies and practices could inadvertently incentivize excessive or inappropriate risk taking. If our associates take excessive or inappropriate risks, those risks could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The inability of counterparties to meet their financial obligations could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Third parties that owe us money, securities or other assets may not pay or perform under their obligations. These parties include the issuers or guarantors of securities we hold, customers, reinsurers, trading counterparties, securities lending and repurchase counterparties, counterparties under swaps, credit default and other derivative contracts, clearing agents, exchanges, clearing houses and other financial intermediaries. Defaults by one or more of these parties on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, downturns in the economy or real estate values, operational failure or other factors, or even rumors about potential defaults by one or more of these parties, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

We routinely execute a high volume of transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial and investment banks, mutual and hedge funds, institutional clients, insurance companies and other institutions, resulting in large daily settlement amounts and significant credit exposure. As a result, we face concentration risk with respect to specific counterparties and customers. A default by, or even concerns about the creditworthiness of, one or more of these counterparties or customers could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or liquidity. We also have exposure to a number of financial institutions in the form of unsecured debt instruments, derivative transactions and equity investments. There is no assurance that losses on, or impairments to the carrying value of, these assets would not materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

In addition, we enter into a variety of derivative instruments with a number of counterparties in order to hedge various risks, including equity and interest rate market risk features within many of our insurance and annuity products. Amounts that we expect to collect under current and future contracts are subject to counterparty risk. Our obligations under our products are not changed by our hedging activities and we are liable for our obligations even if our derivative counterparties do not pay us.

We are also subject to the risk that our rights against third parties may not be enforceable in all circumstances. The deterioration or perceived deterioration in the credit quality of third parties whose securities or obligations we hold could result in losses and/or adversely affect our ability to rehypothecate or otherwise use those securities or obligations for liquidity purposes. While in many cases we are permitted to require additional collateral from counterparties that experience financial difficulty, disputes may arise as to the amount of collateral we are entitled to receive and the value of pledged assets. Our credit risk may also be exacerbated when the collateral we hold cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure that is due to us, which is most likely to occur during periods of illiquidity and depressed asset valuations, such as those experienced during the recent financial crisis. The termination of

-23-

Table of Contents

contracts and the foreclosure on collateral may subject us to claims for the improper exercise of rights under the contracts. Bankruptcies, downgrades and disputes with counterparties as to the valuation of collateral tend to increase in times of market stress and illiquidity.

Requirements to post collateral or make payments related to changes in market value of specified assets may adversely affect liquidity.

The amount of collateral we may be required to post under short-term financing agreements and derivative transactions may increase under certain circumstances. Pursuant to the terms of some transactions, we could be required to make payment to our counterparties related to any change in the market value of the specified collateral assets. Such requirements could have an adverse effect on liquidity. Furthermore, with respect to any such payments, we may have unsecured risk to the counterparty as these amounts may not be required to be segregated from the counterparty’s other funds, may not be held in a third-party custodial account and may not be required to be paid to us by the counterparty until the termination of the transaction. Additionally, the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and the resultant changes in collateral requirements may increase the need for liquidity and eligible collateral assets in excess of what is already being held.

For a discussion on certain obligations we have with respect to the posting of collateral upon the occurrence of certain events, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Potential Impact of a ratings Downgrade.”

Our investment portfolio is subject to several risks that may diminish the value of our invested assets and the investment returns credited to customers, which could reduce our sales, revenues, AUM and results of operations.

Fixed income securities represent a significant portion of our investment portfolio. We are subject to the risk that the issuers, or guarantors, of fixed income securities we own may default on principal and interest payments they owe us. We are also subject to the risk that the underlying collateral within ABS, including mortgage-backed securities, may default on principal and interest payments causing an adverse change in cash flows. The occurrence of a major economic downturn, acts of corporate malfeasance, widening mortgage or credit spreads, or other events that adversely affect the issuers, guarantors or underlying collateral of these securities could cause the estimated fair value of our fixed income securities portfolio and our earnings to decline and the default rate of the fixed income securities in our investment portfolio to increase. A ratings downgrade affecting issuers or guarantors of securities in our investment portfolio, or similar trends that could worsen the credit quality of such issuers, or guarantors could also have a similar effect. Similarly, a ratings downgrade affecting a security we hold could indicate the credit quality of that security has deteriorated and could increase the capital we must hold to support that security to maintain our RBC ratio. See —“A decrease in the RBC ratio (as a result of a reduction in statutory surplus and/or increase in risk-based capital (“RBC”) requirements) of our insurance subsidiaries could result in increased scrutiny by insurance regulators and rating agencies and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.” We are also subject to the risk that cash flows resulting from the payments on pools of mortgages that serve as collateral underlying the mortgage-backed securities we own may differ from our expectations in timing or size. Cash flow variability arising from an unexpected acceleration in mortgage prepayment behavior can be significant, and could cause a decline in the estimated fair value of certain “interest-only” securities within our mortgage-backed securities portfolio. Any event reducing the estimated fair value of these securities, other than on a temporary basis, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We derive operating revenues from providing investment management and related services. Our revenues depend largely on the value and mix of AUM. Our investment management related revenues are derived primarily from fees based on a percentage of the value of AUM. Any decrease in the value or amount of our AUM because of market volatility or other factors negatively impacts our revenues and income. Global economic

-24-

Table of Contents

conditions, changes in the equity markets, currency exchange rates, interest rates, inflation rates, the yield curve, defaults by derivative counterparties and other factors that are difficult to predict affect the mix, market values and levels of our AUM. The funds we manage may be subject to an unanticipated large number of redemptions as a result of such events, causing the funds to sell securities they hold, possibly at a loss, or draw on any available lines of credit to obtain cash, or use securities held in the applicable fund, to settle these redemptions. We may, in our discretion, also provide financial support to a fund to enable it to maintain sufficient liquidity in such an event. Additionally, changing market conditions may cause a shift in our asset mix towards fixed-income products and a related decline in our revenue and income, as we generally derive higher fee revenues and income from equity products than from fixed-income products we manage. Any decrease in the level of our AUM resulting from price declines, interest rate volatility or uncertainty, increased redemptions or other factors could negatively impact our revenues and income.

From time to time we invest our capital to seed a particular investment strategy or investment portfolio. We may also co-invest in funds or take an equity ownership interest in certain structured finance/investment vehicles that we manage for our customers. Any decrease in the value of such investments could negatively affect our revenues and income.

Our investment performance is critical to the success of our investment management and related services business, as well as to the profitability of our insurance, annuity and retirement products. Poor investment performance as compared to third-party benchmarks or competitor products could lead to a decrease in sales of investment products we manage and lead to redemptions from existing products, generally lowering the overall level of AUM and reducing the management fees we earn. We cannot assure you that past or present investment performance in the investment products we manage will be indicative of future performance. Any poor investment performance may negatively impact our revenues and income.

Some of our investments are relatively illiquid and are in asset classes that have been experiencing significant market valuation fluctuations.

We hold certain assets that may lack liquidity, such as privately placed fixed income securities, commercial mortgage loans, policy loans and limited partnership interests. These asset classes represented 27.7% of the carrying value of our total cash and invested assets as of September 30, 2012. If we require significant amounts of cash on short notice in excess of normal cash requirements or are required to post or return collateral in connection with our investment portfolio, derivatives transactions or securities lending activities, we may have difficulty selling these investments in a timely manner, be forced to sell them for less than we otherwise would have been able to realize, or both.

The reported values of our relatively illiquid types of investments do not necessarily reflect the current market price for the asset. If we were forced to sell certain of our assets in the current market, there can be no assurance that we would be able to sell them for the prices at which we have recorded them and we might be forced to sell them at significantly lower prices.

We invest a portion of our invested assets in investment funds, many of which make private equity investments. The amount and timing of income from such investment funds tends to be uneven as a result of the performance of the underlying investments, including private equity investments. The timing of distributions from the funds, which depends on particular events relating to the underlying investments, as well as the funds’ schedules for making distributions and their needs for cash, can be difficult to predict. As a result, the amount of income that we record from these investments can vary substantially from quarter to quarter. Recent equity and credit market volatility may reduce investment income for these types of investments.

Our CMO-B portfolio exposes us to market and behavior risks.

We manage a portfolio of various collateralized mortgage obligation (“CMO”) tranches in combination with financial derivatives as part of a proprietary strategy we refer to as “CMO-B,” as described under “Investments—

-25-

Table of Contents

CMO-B Portfolio.” As of September 30, 2012, our CMO-B portfolio had $3.9 billion in total assets, consisting of notional or principal securities backed by mortgages secured by single-family residential real estate, and including interest-only securities, principal-only securities, inverse-floating rate (principal) securities and inverse interest-only securities. The CMO-B portfolio is subject to a number of market and behavior risks, including interest rate risk and prepayment risk. Interest rate risk represents the potential for adverse changes in portfolio value resulting from changes in the general level of interest rates. Prepayment risk represents the potential for adverse changes in portfolio value resulting from changes in residential mortgage prepayment speed, which in turn depends on a number of factors, including conditions in both credit markets and housing markets. As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, approximately 30.0% and 32.8%, respectively, of the Company’s CMO holdings were invested in those types of CMOs, such as interest-only or principal-only strips, which are subject to more prepayment and extension risk than traditional CMOs. In addition, government policy changes affecting residential housing and residential housing finance, such as government agency reform and government sponsored refinancing programs, and Federal Reserve Bank purchases of agency mortgage securities, or “QE3”, could alter prepayment behavior and result in adverse changes to portfolio values. While we actively monitor our exposure to these and other risks inherent in this strategy, we cannot assure you that our hedging and risk management strategies will be effective; any failure to manage these risks effectively could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, although we believe our CMO-B portfolio has performed well for a number of years, and particularly well since the recent financial crisis, primarily due to persistently low levels of short-term interest rates and mortgage prepayments in an atmosphere of tightened housing-related credit availability, this portfolio may not continue to perform as well in the future.

Defaults or delinquencies in our commercial mortgage loan portfolio may adversely affect our profitability.

The commercial mortgage loans we hold face both default and delinquency risk. We establish loan specific valuation allowances for estimated impairments at the balance sheet date. These valuation allowances are based on the excess carrying value of the loan over the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate, the estimated fair value of the loan’s collateral if the loan is in the process of foreclosure or otherwise collateral dependent, or the loan’s observable market price. We also establish valuation allowances for loan losses when, based on past experience, it is probable that a credit event has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These valuation allowances are based on loan risk characteristics, historical default rates and loss severities, real estate market fundamentals and outlook as well as other relevant factors. As of September 30, 2012, our commercial loan portfolio included $16.7 million (0.2%) of commercial loans that were in the process of foreclosure. No other commercial mortgage loans were 90 or more days past due. The performance of our commercial mortgage loan investments may fluctuate in the future. In addition, legislative proposals that would allow or require modifications to the terms of commercial mortgage loans could be enacted. We cannot predict whether these proposals will be adopted, or what impact, if any, such laws, if enacted, could have on our business or investments. An increase in the delinquency and default rate of our commercial mortgage loan portfolio could adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.

Further, any geographic or sector concentration of our commercial mortgage loans may have adverse effects on our investment portfolios and consequently on our results of operations or financial condition. While we generally seek to mitigate the risk of sector concentration by having a broadly diversified portfolio, events or developments that have a negative effect on any particular geographic region or sector may have a greater adverse effect on the investment portfolios to the extent that the portfolios are concentrated, which could affect our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, liability under environmental protection laws resulting from our commercial mortgage loan portfolio and real estate investments could affect our results of operations or financial condition. Under the laws of several states, contamination of a property may give rise to a lien on the property to secure recovery of the costs of cleanup. In some states, such a lien has priority over the lien of an existing mortgage against the property, which would impair our ability to foreclose on that property should the related loan be in default. In addition, under the laws of some states and under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, we may be liable for costs of addressing releases or threatened releases

-26-

Table of Contents

of hazardous substances that require remedy at a property securing a mortgage loan held by us, regardless of whether or not the environmental damage or threat was caused by the obligor, which could harm our results of operations and financial condition. We also may face this liability after foreclosing on a property securing a mortgage loan held by us.

Our investment management business operations are complex and a failure to properly perform services could have an adverse effect on our revenues and income.

Our investment management and related services include, among other things, portfolio management, investment advice, fund administration, shareholder services, transfer agency, underwriting, distribution, custodial, trustee and other fiduciary services. In order to be competitive, we must properly perform our administrative and related responsibilities, including recordkeeping and accounting, security pricing, corporate actions, compliance with investment restrictions, daily net asset value computations, account reconciliations and required distributions to fund shareholders. Further, certain of our subsidiaries may act as general partner for various investment partnerships, which may subject them to liability for the partnerships’ liabilities. If we fail to properly perform and monitor our investment management operations, our business could suffer and our revenues and income could be adversely affected.

Our products and services are complex and are frequently sold through intermediaries, and a failure to properly perform services or the misrepresentation of our products or services could have an adverse effect on our revenues and income.

Many of our products and services are complex and are frequently sold through intermediaries. In particular, our insurance businesses are reliant on intermediaries to describe and explain their products to potential customers. The intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of our products and services in advertising materials or other external communications, or inappropriate activities by our personnel or an intermediary, could adversely affect our reputation and business prospects, as well as lead to potential regulatory actions or litigation.

Revenues, earnings and income from our investment management business operations could be adversely affected if the terms of our asset management agreements are significantly altered or the agreements are terminated.

Our revenues from our investment management business operations are dependent on fees earned under asset management and related services agreements that we have with the clients and funds we advise. Operating revenues for this segment were $403.0 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and $491.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, and could be adversely affected if these agreements are altered significantly or terminated. The decline in revenue that might result from alteration or termination of our asset management services agreements could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial condition. Operating income (loss) before income taxes was $103.3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and $87.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. In addition, under certain laws, most notably the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Advisers Act”), advisory contracts may require approval or consent from clients or fund shareholders in the event of an assignment of the contract or a change in control of the investment adviser. Were a transaction to result in an assignment or change in control, the inability to obtain consent or approval from clients or shareholders of mutual funds or other investment funds could result in a significant reduction in advisory fees.

The valuation of many of our financial instruments includes methodologies, estimations and assumptions that are subject to differing interpretations and could result in changes to investment valuations that may materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The following financial instruments are carried at fair value in our financial statements: fixed income securities, equity securities, derivatives, embedded derivatives, assets and liabilities related to consolidated

-27-

Table of Contents

investment entities, and separate account assets. We have categorized these instruments into a three-level hierarchy, based on the priority of the inputs to the respective valuation technique. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3), while quoted prices in markets that are not active or valuation techniques requiring inputs that are observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability are Level 2.

Factors considered in estimating fair values of securities, and derivatives and embedded derivatives related to our securities include coupon rate, maturity, principal paydown including prepayments, estimated duration, call provisions, sinking fund requirements, credit rating, industry sector of the issuer and quoted market prices of comparable securities. Factors considered in estimating the fair values of embedded derivatives and derivatives related to product guarantees (collectively, “guaranteed benefit derivatives”) include risk-free interest rates, long-term equity implied volatility, interest rate implied volatility, correlations among mutual funds associated with variable annuity contracts and actuarial assumptions such as mortality rates, lapse rates and benefit utilization, as well as the amount and timing of policyholder deposits and partial withdrawals. The impact of our risk of nonperformance is also reflected in the estimated fair value of guaranteed benefit derivatives. In many situations, inputs used to measure the fair value of an asset or liability may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In these situations, we will determine the level in which the fair value falls based upon the lowest level input that is significant to the determination of the fair value.

The determinations of fair values are made at a specific point in time, based on available market information and judgments about financial instruments, including estimates of the timing and amounts of expected future cash flows and the credit standing of the issuer or counterparty. The use of different methodologies and assumptions may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts.

During periods of market disruption, including periods of rapidly changing credit spreads or illiquidity, it has been and will likely continue to be difficult to value certain of our securities, such as certain mortgage-backed securities, if trading becomes less frequent and/or market data becomes less observable. There may be certain asset classes that were in active markets with significant observable data that could become illiquid in a difficult financial environment. In such cases, more securities may fall to Level 3 and thus require more subjectivity and management judgment in determining fair value. As such, valuations may include inputs and assumptions that are less observable or require greater estimation, thereby resulting in values that may differ materially from the value at which the investments may be ultimately sold. Further, rapidly changing and unprecedented credit and equity market conditions could materially impact the valuation of securities as reported within the financial statements, and the period-to-period changes in value could vary significantly. Decreases in value could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. As of September 30, 2012, 7.4%, 91.3% and 1.3% of our available-for-sale securities were considered to be Level 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

The determination of the amount of allowances and impairments taken on our investments is subjective and could materially and adversely impact our results of operations or financial condition. Gross unrealized losses may be realized or result in future impairments, resulting in a reduction in our net income (loss).

We evaluate investment securities held by us for impairment on a quarterly basis. This review is subjective and requires a high degree of judgment. For fixed income securities held, an impairment loss is recognized if the fair value of the debt security is less than the carrying value and we no longer have the intent to hold the debt security; if it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the debt security before recovery of the amortized cost basis; or if a credit loss has occurred.

When we do not intend to sell a security in an unrealized loss position, potential credit related other-than-temporary impairments are considered using a variety of factors, including the length of time and extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, adverse conditions specifically related to the industry, geographic area in which the issuer conducts business, financial condition of the issuer or underlying collateral of a security,

-28-

Table of Contents

payment structure of the security, changes in credit rating of the security by the rating agencies, volatility of the fair value changes and other events that adversely affect the issuer. In addition, we take into account relevant broad market and economic data in making impairment decisions.

As part of the impairment review process, we utilize a variety of assumptions and estimates to make a judgment on how fixed income securities will perform in the future. It is possible that securities in our fixed income portfolio will perform worse than our expectations. There is an ongoing risk that further declines in fair value may occur and additional other-than- temporary impairments may be recorded in future periods, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Furthermore, historical trends may not be indicative of future impairments or allowances.

Fixed income and equity securities classified as available-for-sale are reported at their estimated fair value. Unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities are recognized as a component of other comprehensive income (loss) and are therefore excluded from net income (loss). The accumulated change in estimated fair value of these available-for-sale securities is recognized in net income (loss) when the gain or loss is realized upon the sale of the security or in the event that the decline in estimated fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary (“OTTI”) and an impairment charge to earnings is taken. Such realized losses or impairments may have a material adverse effect on our net income (loss) in a particular quarterly or annual period. For example, for the nine months ended September 30, 2012, we recorded OTTI of $25.8 million in net realized capital losses, compared to $399.4 million in OTTI in the comparable 2011 period. We recorded OTTI of $502.7 million, $890.8 million and $1,618.6 million in net realized capital losses in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Our participation in a securities lending program and a reverse repurchase program subjects us to potential liquidity and other risks.

We participate in a securities lending program whereby blocks of securities, which are included in fixed income securities and short-term investments, are loaned to third-party borrowers, primarily major brokerage firms and commercial banks. We generally obtain cash collateral in an amount equal to 102% of the estimated fair value of the loaned securities, which is obtained at the inception of a loan and maintained at a level greater than or equal to 100% for the duration of the loan. The cash collateral received is typically invested in fixed income securities. A return of loaned securities by a borrower would require us to liquidate the investments held as collateral and return the cash collateral associated with such loaned securities.

We also participate in a reverse repurchase program for our general account whereby we sell fixed income securities to third-party repurchase counterparties, primarily major brokerage firms and commercial banks, with a concurrent agreement to repurchase those same securities at a determined future date. Our policy requires that, at all times during the term of the reverse repurchase agreements, cash or other types of collateral types provided is sufficient to allow the counterparty to fund substantially all of the cost of purchasing replacement assets. The cash proceeds received under the reverse repurchase program are typically invested in fixed income securities and cannot be returned prior to the scheduled repurchase date; however, market conditions on the repurchase date may limit our ability to enter into new agreements. The repurchase of securities or our inability to enter into new reverse repurchase agreements would require us to return the cash collateral proceeds associated with such transactions on the repurchase or maturity date.

For both securities lending and reverse repurchase transactions, in some cases, the maturity of the securities held as invested collateral (i.e., securities that we have purchased with cash collateral received) may exceed the term of the related securities on loan and the estimated fair value may fall below the amount of cash received as collateral and invested. If we are required to return significant amounts of cash collateral on short notice and we are forced to sell securities to meet the return obligation, we may have difficulty selling such collateral that is invested in securities in a timely manner, 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, or both. In addition, under adverse capital market and economic conditions, liquidity may broadly deteriorate, which would further restrict

-29-

Table of Contents

our ability to sell securities. If we decrease the amount of our securities lending and reverse repurchase activities over time, the amount of net investment income generated by these activities will also likely decline. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Securities Lending.”

Differences between actual claims experience and reserving assumptions may adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

We establish and hold reserves to pay future policy benefits and claims. Our reserves do not represent an exact calculation of liability, but rather are actuarial or statistical estimates based on data and models that include many assumptions and projections, which are inherently uncertain and involve the exercise of significant judgment, including assumptions as to the levels and/or timing of receipt or payment of premiums, benefits, claims, expenses, interest credits, investment results (including equity market returns), retirement, mortality, morbidity and persistency. We periodically review the adequacy of reserves and the underlying assumptions. We cannot, however, determine with precision the amounts that we will pay for, or the timing of payment of, actual benefits, claims and expenses or whether the assets supporting our policy liabilities, together with future premiums, will grow to the level assumed prior to payment of benefits or claims. If actual experience differs significantly from assumptions or estimates, reserves may not be adequate. If we conclude that our reserves, together with future premiums, are insufficient to cover future policy benefits and claims, we would be required to increase our reserves and incur income statement charges for the period in which we make the determination, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We may face significant losses if mortality rates, morbidity rates, persistency rates or other underwriting assumptions differ significantly from our pricing expectations.

We set prices for many of our insurance and annuity products based upon expected claims and payment patterns, using assumptions for mortality rates, or likelihood of death, and morbidity rates, or likelihood of sickness, of our policyholders. In addition to the potential effect of natural or man-made disasters, significant changes in mortality or morbidity could emerge gradually over time due to changes in the natural environment, the health habits of the insured population, technologies and treatments for disease or disability, the economic environment, or other factors. The long-term profitability of our insurance and annuity products depends upon how our actual mortality rates, and to a lesser extent actual morbidity rates, compare to our pricing assumptions. In addition, prolonged or severe adverse mortality or morbidity experience could result in increased reinsurance costs, and ultimately, reinsurers might not offer coverage at all. If we are unable to maintain our current level of reinsurance or purchase new reinsurance protection in amounts that we consider sufficient, we would have to accept an increase in our net risk exposures, revise our pricing to reflect higher reinsurance premiums, or otherwise modify our product offering.

Pricing of our insurance and annuity products is also based in part upon expected persistency of these products, which is the probability that a policy will remain in force from one period to the next. Persistency of our annuity products may be significantly and adversely impacted by the increasing value of guaranteed minimum benefits contained in many of our variable annuity products due to poor equity market performance or extended periods of low interest rates as well as other factors. The minimum interest rate guarantees in our fixed annuities may also be more valuable in extended periods of low interest rates. Persistency could be adversely affected generally by developments adversely affecting customer perception of us. Results may also vary based on differences between actual and expected premium deposits and withdrawals for these products. Many of our deferred annuity products also contain optional benefits that may be exercised at certain points within a contract. We set prices for such products using assumptions for the rate of election of deferred annuity living benefits and other optional benefits offered to our contract owners. The profitability of our deferred annuity products may be less than expected, depending upon how actual contract owner decisions to elect or delay the utilization of such benefits compare to our pricing assumptions. The development of a secondary market for life insurance, including stranger-owned life insurance, life settlements or “viaticals” and investor-owned life insurance, and the potential development of third-party investor strategies in the annuities business, could also adversely affect the

-30-

Table of Contents

profitability of existing business and our pricing assumptions for new business. Actual persistency that is lower than our persistency assumptions could have an adverse effect on profitability, especially in the early years of a policy, primarily because we would be required to accelerate the amortization of expenses we defer in connection with the acquisition of the policy. Actual persistency that is higher than our persistency assumptions could have an adverse effect on profitability in the later years of a block of business because the anticipated claims experience is higher in these later years. If actual persistency is significantly different from that assumed in our current reserving assumptions, our reserves for future policy benefits may prove to be inadequate. Although some of our products permit us to increase premiums or adjust other charges and credits during the life of the policy, the adjustments permitted under the terms of the policies may not be sufficient to maintain profitability. Many of our products, however, do not permit us to increase premiums or adjust charges and credits during the life of the policy or during the initial guarantee term of the policy. Even if permitted under the policy, we may not be able or willing to raise premiums or adjust other charges for regulatory or competitive reasons.

Pricing of our products is also based on long-term assumptions regarding interest rates, investment returns and operating costs. Management establishes target returns for each product based upon these factors, the other underwriting assumptions noted above and the average amount of regulatory and rating agency capital that we must hold to support in-force contracts. We monitor and manage pricing and sales to achieve target returns. Profitability from new business emerges over a period of years, depending on the nature and life of the product, and is subject to variability as actual results may differ from pricing assumptions. Our profitability depends on multiple factors, including the comparison of actual mortality, morbidity and persistency rates and policyholder behavior to our assumptions; the adequacy of investment margins; our management of market and credit risks associated with investments; our ability to maintain premiums and contract charges at a level adequate to cover mortality, benefits and contract administration expenses; the adequacy of contract charges and availability of revenue from providers of investment options offered in variable contracts to cover the cost of product features and other expenses; and management of operating costs and expenses.

Unfavorable developments in interest rates, credit spreads and policyholder behavior can result in adverse financial consequences related to our stable value products, and our hedging program and risk mitigation features may not successfully offset these consequences.

We offer stable value products primarily as a fixed rate, liquid asset allocation option for employees of our plan sponsor customers within the defined contribution funding plans offered by our Retirement business. These products are designed to provide a guaranteed annual credited rate (currently between zero and three percent) on the invested assets in addition to enabling participants the right to withdraw and transfer funds at book value.

The sensitivity of our statutory reserves and surplus established for the stable value products to changes in interest rates, credit spreads and policyholder behavior will vary depending on the magnitude of these changes, as well as on the book value of assets, the market value of assets, the guaranteed credited rates available to customers and other product features. Realization or re-measurement of these risks may result in an increase in the reserves for stable value products, and could materially and adversely affect our financial position or results of operations. In particular, in low interest rate environments, we bear exposure to the risk that the credited rate exceeds the earned rate on guaranteed annual credited rate products, and, in a rising interest rate environment, we are exposed to the risk of financial disintermediation through a potential increase in the level of book value withdrawals.

To the extent that our hedging program and other risk mitigating features do not operate as intended or are not fully effective, we remain exposed to the risks described above.

We may be required to accelerate the amortization of DAC, deferred sales inducements (“DSI”) and/or VOBA, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

DAC represents the incremental costs related directly to the acquisition of new and renewal insurance and annuity contracts. DSI represents amounts that are credited to a policyholder’s account balance as an inducement

-31-

Table of Contents

to purchase a contract. VOBA represents the present value of estimated cash flows embedded in acquired business, plus renewal commissions and certain other costs on such acquired business. Capitalized costs associated with DAC, DSI and VOBA are amortized in proportion to actual and estimated gross profits, gross premiums or gross revenues depending on the type of contract. Management, on an ongoing basis, tests the DAC, DSI and VOBA recorded on our balance sheets to determine if these amounts are recoverable under current assumptions. In addition, management regularly reviews the estimates and assumptions underlying DAC, DSI and VOBA. The projection of estimated gross profits, gross premiums or gross revenues requires the use of certain assumptions, principally related to separate account fund returns in excess of amounts credited to policyholders, policyholder behavior such as surrender and lapse rates, interest margin, expense margin, mortality, future impairments and hedging costs. Estimating future gross profits, gross premiums or gross revenues is a complex process requiring considerable judgment and the forecasting of events well into the future. If these assumptions prove to be inaccurate, if an estimation technique used to estimate future gross profits, gross premiums or gross revenues is changed, or if significant or sustained equity market declines occur and/or persist, we could be required to accelerate the amortization of DAC, DSI and VOBA, which would result in a charge to earnings. Such adjustments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Reinsurance subjects us to the credit risk of reinsurers and may not be available, affordable or adequate to protect us against losses.

We cede life insurance policies and annuity contracts to other insurance companies through reinsurance. However, we remain liable to the underlying policyholders, even if the reinsurer defaults on its obligations with respect to the ceded business. If a reinsurer fails to meet its obligations under the reinsurance contract, we will be forced to cover the claims on the reinsured policies. In addition, a reinsurer insolvency may cause us to lose our reserve credits on the ceded business, in which case we would be required to establish additional reserves.

In addition, if a reinsurer loses its accredited reinsurer status in any state where were we are licensed to do business, we will not be entitled to take credit for reinsurance in that state if the reinsurer does not post sufficient qualifying assets in a qualifying trust or post qualifying LOCs, and we would be required to establish additional reserves. Similarly, the credit for reinsurance taken by our insurance subsidiaries under affiliated and unaffiliated offshore reinsurance agreements is, under certain conditions, dependent upon the offshore reinsurer’s ability to obtain and provide sufficient qualifying assets in a qualifying trust or qualifying letters of credit issued by qualifying lending banks. The cost of letters of credit, when available, continues to be very expensive in the current economic environment. Because of this, our affiliated offshore reinsurer has established and will continue to pursue alternative sources for qualifying reinsurance collateral. If these steps are unsuccessful, or if unaffiliated non-accredited reinsurers that have reinsured business from our insurance subsidiaries are unsuccessful in obtaining sources of qualifying reinsurance collateral, our insurance subsidiaries might not be able to obtain full reserve credit. Loss of reserve credit by an insurance subsidiary would require it to establish additional reserves and would result in a decrease in the level of its capital, which could have a material adverse effect on our profitability, results of operations and financial condition.

We had $467.2 million and $609.6 million of unsecured unaffiliated reinsurance recoverable balances at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These reinsurance recoverable balances are periodically assessed for uncollectability and there were no significant allowances for uncollectible reinsurance as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

The collectability of reinsurance recoverables is subject to uncertainty arising from a number of factors, including whether the insured losses meet the qualifying conditions of the reinsurance contract, whether reinsurers or their affiliates have the financial capacity and willingness to make payments under the terms of the reinsurance contract, and the degree to which our reinsurance balances are secured by sufficient qualifying assets in qualifying trusts or qualifying LOCs issued by qualifying lender banks. Although a substantial portion of our reinsurance exposure is secured by assets held in trusts or LOCs, the inability to collect a material recovery from a reinsurer could have a material adverse effect on our profitability, results of operation and financial condition.

-32-

Table of Contents

The premium rates and other fees that we charge are based, in part, on the assumption that reinsurance will be available at a certain cost. Some of our reinsurance contracts contain provisions that limit the reinsurer’s ability to increase rates on in-force business; however, some do not. If a reinsurer raises the rates that it charges on a block of in-force business, our profitability may be negatively impacted if we are not able to pass the increased costs on to our customers. If reinsurers raise the rates that they charge on new business, we may be forced to raise the premiums that we charge, which could have a negative impact on our competitive position.

A decrease in the RBC ratio (as a result of a reduction in statutory surplus and/or increase in risk-based capital (“RBC”) requirements) of our insurance subsidiaries could result in increased scrutiny by insurance regulators and rating agencies and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The NAIC has established regulations that provide minimum capitalization requirements based on RBC formulas for insurance companies. The RBC formula for life insurance companies establishes capital requirements relating to asset, insurance, interest rate and business risks, including equity, interest rate and expense recovery risks associated with variable annuities and group annuities that contain guaranteed minimum death and living benefits. Each of our insurance subsidiaries is subject to RBC standards and/or other minimum statutory capital and surplus requirements imposed under the laws of its respective jurisdiction of domicile.

In any particular year, statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors, including the amount of statutory income or losses generated by the insurance subsidiary (which itself is sensitive to equity market and credit market conditions), the amount of additional capital such insurer must hold to support business growth, changes in equity market levels, the value and credit ratings of certain fixed-income and equity securities in its investment portfolio, the value of certain derivative instruments that do not receive hedge accounting and changes in interest rates, as well as changes to the RBC formulas and the interpretation of the NAIC’s instructions with respect to RBC calculation methodologies. Many of these factors are outside of our control. Our financial strength and credit ratings are significantly influenced by statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios. In addition, rating agencies may implement changes to their own internal models, which differ from the RBC capital model that have the effect of increasing or decreasing the amount of statutory capital we or our insurance subsidiaries should hold relative to the rating agencies’ expectations. In extreme scenarios of equity market declines, sustained periods of low interest rates, rapidly rising interest rates or credit spread widening, the amount of additional statutory reserves that an insurance subsidiary is required to hold for certain types of GICs and variable annuity guarantees and stable value contracts may increase at a greater than linear rate. This increase in reserves would decrease the statutory surplus available for use in calculating the subsidiary’s RBC ratios. To the extent that an insurance subsidiary’s RBC ratios are deemed to be insufficient, we may seek to take actions either to increase the capitalization of the insurer or to reduce the capitalization requirements. If we were unable to accomplish such actions, the rating agencies may view this as a reason for a ratings downgrade.

The failure of any of our insurance subsidiaries to meet its applicable RBC requirements or minimum capital and surplus requirements could subject it to further examination or corrective action imposed by insurance regulators, including limitations on its ability to write additional business, supervision by regulators or seizure or liquidation. Any corrective action imposed could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. A decline in RBC ratios also limits the ability of an insurance subsidiary to make dividends or distributions to us and could be a factor in causing ratings agencies to downgrade the insurer’s financial strength ratings, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our statutory reserve financings may be subject to cost increases and new financings may be subject to limited market capacity.

We have financing facilities in place for our previously written business and have remaining capacity in existing facilities to support writings through the end of 2012 or later. However certain of these facilities mature

-33-

Table of Contents

prior to the run off of the reserve liability so that we are subject to cost increases or unavailability of capacity upon the refinancing. If we are unable to refinance such facilities, or if the cost of such facilities were to significantly increase, we would be required to increase statutory reserves or incur higher operating or tax costs. For more details, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Letter of Credit Facilities and Subsidiary Credit Support Arrangements.”

A significant portion of our institutional funding originates from two Federal Home Loan Banks, which subjects us to liquidity risks associated with sourcing a large concentration of our funding from two counterparties.

A significant portion of our institutional funding agreements originates from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines (each an “FHLB”), which primarily serve as a source of funding for our Closed Block Institutional Spread Products segment. As of September 30, 2012, we had issued $3.1 billion of non-putable funding agreements and obtained a $265 million LOC in exchange for eligible collateral in the form of cash, mortgage backed securities and U.S. Treasury securities. Should the FHLBs choose to change their definition of eligible collateral, or if the market value of the pledged collateral decreases in value due to changes in interest rates or credit ratings, we may be required to post additional amounts of collateral in the form of cash or other eligible collateral. Additionally, we may be required to find other sources to replace this funding if we lose access to FHLB funding. This could occur if our creditworthiness falls below either of the FHLB’s requirements or if legislative or other political actions cause changes to the FHLBs’ mandate or to the eligibility of life insurance companies to be members of the FHLB system.

Any failure to protect the confidentiality of customer information could adversely affect our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

Our businesses and relationships with customers are dependent upon our ability to maintain the confidentiality of our and our customers’ trade secrets and confidential information (including customer transactional data and personal data about our employees, our customers and the employees and customers of our customers). Pursuant to federal laws, various federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies have established rules protecting the privacy and security of personal information. In addition, most states have enacted laws, which vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, to safeguard the privacy and security of personal information. Certain of our employees and contractors and many sales representatives of our broker-dealer subsidiaries have access to and routinely process personal information of customers through a variety of media, including the internet and software applications. We rely on various internal processes and controls to protect the confidentiality of customer information that is accessible to, or in the possession of, us, our employees, contractors and sales representatives. It is possible that an employee, contractor or sales representative could, intentionally or unintentionally, disclose or misappropriate confidential customer information. If we fail to maintain adequate internal controls, including any failure to implement newly-required additional controls, or if our employees, contractors or sales representatives fail to comply with our policies and procedures, misappropriation or intentional or unintentional inappropriate disclosure or misuse of customer information could occur. Such internal control inadequacies or non-compliance could materially damage our reputation, result in regulatory action or lead to civil or criminal penalties, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Changes in accounting standards could adversely impact our reported results of operations and our reported financial condition.

Our financial statements are subject to the application of GAAP, which is periodically revised or expanded. Accordingly, from time to time we are required to adopt new or revised accounting standards issued by recognized authoritative bodies, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”). For example, the adoption of the provision of Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2010-26, Financial Services: Insurance (Accounting Standards Codification ^™ (“ASC”) Topic 944): “Accounting for Costs Associated with Acquiring or

-34-

Table of Contents

Renewing Insurance Contracts” decreased our retained earnings by $1.2 billion as of January 1, 2011. It is possible that future accounting standards we are required to adopt could change the current accounting treatment that we apply to our consolidated financial statements and that such changes could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, FASB is working on several projects with the International Accounting Standards Board, which could result in significant changes as GAAP converges with IFRS, including how we account for our insurance policies, annuity contracts and financial instruments and how our financial statements are presented. Furthermore, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is considering whether and how to incorporate IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system. The changes to GAAP and ultimate conversion to IFRS, if undertaken, could affect the way we account for and report significant areas of our business, could impose special demands on us in the areas of governance, employee training, internal controls and disclosure and will likely affect how we manage our business.

We may be required to establish an additional valuation allowance against the deferred income tax asset if our business does not generate sufficient taxable income or if our tax planning strategies are modified. Increases in the deferred tax valuation allowance could have a material adverse effect on results of operations and financial condition.

Deferred income tax represents the tax effect of the differences between the book and tax basis of assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets represent the tax benefit of future deductible temporary differences, operating loss carryforwards and tax credits carryforward. We periodically evaluate and test our ability to realize our deferred tax assets. Deferred tax assets are reduced by a valuation allowance if, based on the weight of evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion, or all, of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. In assessing the more likely than not criteria, we consider future taxable income as well as prudent tax planning strategies. Future facts, circumstances, tax law changes and FASB developments may result in an increase in the valuation allowance. An increase in the valuation allowance could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

As of December 31, 2011, we have recognized deferred tax assets based on tax planning related to unrealized gains on investment assets. To the extent these unrealized gains decrease, the tax benefit will be reduced by increasing the tax valuation allowance. For example, if interest rates increase, the amount of the unrealized gains will, most likely, decrease, with all other things constant. The decrease in the deferred tax asset may be recorded as a tax expense in tax on continuing operations based on the intra period tax allocation rules described in ASC Topic 740, “Income Taxes”.

We expect that our ability to use beneficial U.S. tax attributes will be subject to limitations.

Section 382 (“Section 382”) and Section 383 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Internal Revenue Code”) operate as anti-abuse rules, the general purpose of which is to prevent trafficking in tax losses and credits, but which can apply without regard to whether a “loss trafficking” transaction occurs or is intended. These rules are triggered when an “ownership change” —generally defined as when the ownership of a company, or its parent, changes by more than 50% (measured by value) on a cumulative basis in any three year period—occurs. If triggered, the amount of the taxable income for any post-change year which may be offset by a pre-change loss is subject to an annual limitation. Generally speaking, this limitation is derived by multiplying the fair market value of the stock of the taxpayer immediately before the date of the ownership change by the applicable federal long-term tax-exempt rate. In addition, to the extent that a company has a net unrealized built-in loss or deduction at the time of an ownership change, sections 382 and 383 limit the utilization of any such loss or deduction which is realized and recognized during the 5-year period following the ownership change.

Based on the expected size of this offering, we do not believe an ownership change will occur at the time of the offering. Under the current base case for ING Group’s divestiture of its remaining ownership stake in the

-35-

Table of Contents

Company, however, it is likely that an ownership change will occur by December 31, 2014. As discussed in “Summary—ING Group Restructuring Plan with European Commission,” ING Group is required, under the terms of the 2012 Amended Restructuring Plan, to fully divest its ownership of the Company by the end of 2016.

In addition, in November 2008, ING Group issued €10 billion of core Tier 1 securities to the Dutch State in connection with a capital infusion that would need to be taken into account for purposes of determining if an ownership change has occurred. ING Group redeemed approximately half (€5 billion) of these securities in December 2009 and issued new shares to the public at that time, and an additional 20% (€2 billion) in May 2011 and, 7.5% (€0.75 billion) in November 2012. As part of the 2012 Amended Restructuring Plan, ING Group has committed to repay the remaining €2.25 billion of Core Tier I securities, plus a 50% premium in three equal tranches in the next three years. The redemption by ING Group of an additional amount of these securities may, depending on the facts and circumstances, trigger an ownership change, as described above.

Under GAAP, as of December 31, 2011, our tax attributes included gross deferred tax assets of $5.8 billion, against which there was an offsetting valuation allowance of $2.9 billion, and gross deferred tax liabilities of $3.4 billion. Although we are uncertain as to the ultimate financial impact of an ownership change, we estimate that the deferred tax asset potentially subject to an additional tax valuation allowance would have been approximately $850.0 million if measured at September 30, 2012. Such an additional tax valuation allowance may be recorded as a tax expense in tax on continuing operations. The actual impact on the valuation allowance is dependent mainly on the level of unrealized capital gains and losses at the time of the ownership change, the calculated limitation, the estimated reversal pattern of capital losses otherwise supported by tax planning strategies, the estimated reversal pattern of unrealized capital gains comprising such strategies, and the estimated reversal pattern of unrealized built-in capital losses subject to the limitation.

Under statutory accounting, we estimate that the deferred tax asset potentially subject to an additional tax valuation allowance would be approximately $201 million if measured at September 30, 2012. The reduction in the deferred tax asset as a consequence of such an additional tax valuation allowance could adversely impact our insurance company subsidiaries’ ability to pay dividends or other distributions (directly or indirectly) to ING U.S., Inc. This in turn could negatively impact our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders and to service our debt. The actual impact on the valuation allowance is dependent mainly on the level of unrealized gains and losses at the time of the ownership change and the calculated Section 382 limitation.

Numerous aspects of the application of Section 382 are subject to potential challenge by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Among these is our calculation of the value of the Company at the time of an ownership change. If the IRS were to successfully challenge this valuation, the annual limitation calculated for purposes of Section 382 could be reduced.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will contain provisions designed to preserve our ability to use beneficial U.S. tax attributes and avoid triggering the Section 382 limitation prior to the time when ING Group’s divestment of its remaining ownership stake in the Company would otherwise trigger the limitation, thus limiting the amount of our common stock that an investor can acquire. See “Description of Capital Stock—Ownership Limitations.”

We are unable to offset our U.S. taxable income against the losses of one of our reinsurance subsidiaries.

As described in “—Risks Related to Our Closed Block Variable Annuity Segment” and “Business—Closed Blocks—Closed Block Variable Annuity,” we may incur losses in the future in our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment. We expect that a significant portion of any such loss would be realized in SLDI, a subsidiary domiciled in the Cayman Islands. SLDI has made an election to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, U.S. federal income tax law does not allow the operating losses of a foreign company making such an election to offset the taxable income of its U.S. affiliates. Through a reinsurance arrangement, SLDI is obligated to indemnify one of our other U.S. subsidiaries in the event of losses. To the extent SLDI remains a

-36-

Table of Contents

foreign entity and has operating losses that exceed its taxable income, the losses would not be available to offset taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes and would increase our effective tax rate.

Our business may be negatively affected by adverse publicity or increased governmental and regulatory actions with respect to us, other well-known companies or the financial services industry in general.

Governmental scrutiny with respect to matters relating to compensation and other business practices in the financial services industry has increased dramatically in the past several years and has resulted in more aggressive and intense regulatory supervision and the application and enforcement of more stringent standards. The recent financial crisis and the current political and public sentiment regarding financial institutions has resulted in a significant amount of adverse press coverage, as well as adverse statements or charges by regulators and elected officials. Press coverage and other public statements that assert some form of wrongdoing, regardless of the factual basis for the assertions being made, could result in some type of inquiry or investigation by regulators, legislators and/or law enforcement officials or in lawsuits. Responding to these inquiries, investigations and lawsuits, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the proceeding, is time-consuming and expensive and can divert the time and effort of our senior management from its business. Future legislation or regulation or governmental views on compensation may result in us altering compensation practices in ways that could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain talented employees. Adverse publicity, governmental scrutiny, pending or future investigations by regulators or law enforcement agencies and/or legal proceedings involving us or our affiliates, including ING Group, can also have a negative impact on our reputation and on the morale and performance of employees, and on business retention and new sales, which could adversely affect our businesses and results of operations.

Litigation may adversely affect our profitability and financial condition.

We are, and may be in the future, subject to legal actions in the ordinary course of insurance, investment management and other business operations. Some of these legal proceedings may be brought on behalf of a class. Plaintiffs may seek large or indeterminate amounts of damage, including compensatory, liquidated, treble and/or punitive damages. Our reserves for litigation may prove to be inadequate. It is possible that our results of operations or cash flow in a particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable resolution of pending litigation depending, in part, upon the results of operations or cash flow for such period. Given the large or indeterminate amounts sometimes sought, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is also possible that in certain cases an ultimate unfavorable resolution of one or more pending litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

A loss of, or significant change in, key product distribution relationships could materially affect sales.

We distribute certain products under agreements with affiliated distributors and other members of the financial services industry that are not affiliated with us. We compete with other financial institutions to attract and retain commercial relationships in each of these channels, and our success in competing for sales through these distribution intermediaries depends upon factors such as the amount of sales commissions and fees we pay, the breadth of our product offerings, the strength of our brand, our perceived stability and financial strength ratings, and the marketing and services we provide to, and the strength of the relationships we maintain with, individual distributors. An interruption or significant change in certain key relationships could materially affect our ability to market our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition. Distributors may elect to alter, reduce or terminate their distribution relationships with us, including for such reasons as changes in our distribution strategy, adverse developments in our business, adverse rating agency actions or concerns about market-related risks. Alternatively, we may terminate one or more distribution agreements due to, for example, a loss of confidence in, or a change in control of, one of the distributors, which could reduce sales.

We are also at risk that key distribution partners may merge or change their business models in ways that affect how our products are sold, either in response to changing business priorities or as a result of shifts in

-37-

Table of Contents

regulatory supervision or potential changes in state and federal laws and regulations regarding standards of conduct applicable to distributors when providing investment advice to retail and other customers.

The occurrence of natural or man-made disasters may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We are exposed to various risks arising from natural disasters, including hurricanes, climate change, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes and pandemic disease, as well as man-made disasters and core infrastructure failures, including acts of terrorism, military actions, power grid and telephone/internet infrastructure failures, which may adversely affect AUM, results of operations and financial condition by causing, among other things:

There can be no assurance that our business continuation and crisis management plan or insurance coverages would be effective in mitigating any negative effects on operations or profitability in the event of a disaster, nor can we provide assurance that the business continuation and crisis management plans of the independent distributors and outside vendors on whom we rely for certain services and products would be effective in mitigating any negative effects on the provision of such services and products in the event of a disaster.

Claims resulting from a catastrophic event could also materially harm the financial condition of our reinsurers, which would increase the probability of default on reinsurance recoveries. Our ability to write new business could also be adversely affected.

In addition, the jurisdictions in which our insurance subsidiaries are admitted to transact business require life insurers doing business within the jurisdiction to participate in guaranty associations, which raise funds to pay contractual benefits owed pursuant to insurance policies issued by impaired, insolvent or failed insurers. It is possible that a catastrophic event could require extraordinary assessments on our insurance companies, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The loss of key personnel could negatively affect our financial results and impair our ability to implement our business strategy.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to attract and retain key people. Intense competition exists for key employees with demonstrated ability, and we may be unable to hire or retain such employees. Our key employees include investment professionals, such as portfolio managers, sales and distribution professionals, actuarial and finance professionals and information technology professionals. While we do not believe that the departure of any particular individual would cause a material adverse effect on our operations, the unexpected loss of several of our senior management, portfolio managers or other key employees could have a material adverse effect on our operations due to the loss of their skills, knowledge of our business, and their years of industry experience as well as the potential difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement employees. We also rely upon the knowledge and experience of employees involved in functions that require technical expertise in order to provide for sound operational controls for our overall enterprise, including the accurate and timely preparation of required regulatory filings and GAAP and statutory financial statements and operation of internal controls. A loss of such employees could adversely impact our ability to execute key operational functions and could adversely affect our operational controls, including internal controls over financial reporting.

-38-

Table of Contents

Interruption or other operational failures in telecommunication, information technology and other operational systems, or a failure to maintain the security, integrity, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data residing on such systems, including as a result of human error, could harm 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, value invested assets and complete certain other components of our GAAP and statutory 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 implementing modifications to an existing system. Despite the implementation of security and back-up measures, our information technology systems may be vulnerable to physical or electronic intrusions, viruses or other attacks, programming errors and similar disruptions. 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, epidemics, computer viruses and electrical/telecommunications outages). All of these risks are also applicable where we rely on outside vendors to provide services to us and our customers. 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, results of operations and financial condition.

We retain confidential information in our information technology systems, and we rely on industry standard commercial technologies to maintain the security of those systems. Anyone who is 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. In addition, an increasing number of jurisdictions require that customers be notified if a security breach results in the disclosure of personally identifiable customer information. Any compromise of the security of our information technology systems that results in inappropriate disclosure or use of personally identifiable customer information could damage our reputation 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.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property and may be subject to infringement claims.

We rely on a combination of contractual rights with third parties and copyright, trademark, patent and trade secret laws to establish and protect our intellectual property. Although we endeavor to protect our rights, third parties may infringe or misappropriate our intellectual property. We may have to litigate to enforce and protect our copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets and know-how or to determine their scope, validity or enforceability. This would represent a diversion of resources that may be significant and our efforts may not prove successful. The inability to secure or protect our intellectual property assets could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to compete.

We may also be subject to claims by third parties for (i) patent, trademark or copyright infringement, (ii) breach of copyright, trademark or license usage rights, or (iii) misappropriation of trade secrets. Any such claims and any resulting litigation could result in significant expense and liability for damages. If we were found to have infringed or misappropriated a third-party patent or other intellectual property right, we could in some circumstances be enjoined from providing certain products or services to our customers or from utilizing and benefiting from certain methods, processes, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets or licenses. Alternatively, we could be required to enter into costly licensing arrangements with third parties or implement a costly work around. Any of these scenarios could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

-39-

Table of Contents

We may incur further liabilities in respect of our defined benefit retirement plans if the value of plan assets is not sufficient to cover potential obligations, including as a result of differences between results underlying actuarial assumptions and models.

We operate various defined benefit retirement plans covering a significant number of our employees. The liability recognized in our consolidated balance sheet in respect of our defined benefit plans is the present value of the defined benefit obligations at the balance sheet date, less the fair value of each plan’s assets, together with adjustments for unrecognized actuarial gains and losses and unrecognized past service costs. We determine our defined benefit plan obligations based on external actuarial models and calculations using the projected unit credit method. Inherent in these actuarial models are assumptions including discount rates, rates of increase in future salary and benefit levels, mortality rates, consumer price index and the expected return on plan assets. These assumptions are updated annually based on available market data and the expected performance of plan assets. Nevertheless, the actuarial assumptions may differ significantly from actual results due to changes in market conditions, economic and mortality trends and other assumptions. Any changes in these assumptions could have a significant impact on our present and future liabilities to and costs associated with our defined benefit retirement plans and may result in increased expenses and reduce our profitability.

When contributing to the plan, we will take into consideration the minimum and maximum amounts required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), the attained funding target percentage of the plan, the variable-rate premiums that may be required by the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”), and any funding relief that might be enacted by Congress, such as the interest rate stabilization corridor rules used for discounting pension liabilities contained in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (“MAP-21”). Based on our actuarial assumptions, if we were to incorporate the provisions of MAP-21, we expect that it would reduce the required contributions to the plan in 2013; however, using the MAP-21 funding relief in the near term could lead to increased PBGC variable-rate premiums and/or increases in plan funding in the years following 2013.

Although our retail variable annuity products are now managed within our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment, we continue to offer variable annuity products and other products with similar features in our ongoing business.

In 2009, we decided to cease sales of retail variable annuities with substantial guarantee features and now manage that business within our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment. However, we continue to offer variable annuity products in our ongoing business as well as products that have some of the features of variable annuities such as guaranteed benefits. For example, certain of the deferred annuities sold by our Retirement segment are on group and individual variable annuity policy forms, since these product types allow customers to allocate their retirement savings to a variety of different investment options. These products may contain guaranteed death benefit features, but they do not offer guaranteed living benefit features of the type found within the Closed Block Variable Annuity segment.

The Retirement segment has recently introduced an optional guaranteed retirement income portfolio (“GRIP”) feature that, if elected by an employee of one of our plan sponsor customers, provides guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits (“GLWB”) to such employees. The GLWB is offered through a multi-insurer model, whereby we and two unaffiliated insurers provide GLWB coverage to participating employees. In contrast to the retail guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits for life (“GMWBL”) provisions formerly offered by the Closed Block Variable Annuity segment, the GLWB provisions within GRIP do not offer rollup benefits; furthermore, we reprice the GLWB amount purchased by contributions to the GRIP feature on a quarterly basis. In addition, the investment elections available to participating employees have substantially less flexibility than the elections offered to retail customers of the Closed Block Variable Annuity segment. We also have the right to cease accepting new contributions to the GRIP feature, subject to providing 180 days advance notice to the plan sponsor.

Our Annuities segment also offers optional living benefit provisions on its indexed annuity products.

-40-

Table of Contents

To the extent that these risk-control provisions do not mitigate the risks of the GLWB and to the extent that we continue to offer variable annuity products and products with similar features in our ongoing business, the risks described below under “—Risks Related to Our Closed Block Variable Annuity Segment” will impact our ongoing business.

Risks Related to Our Closed Block Variable Annuity Segment

Although we no longer actively market retail variable annuities, our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity will continue to be affected by our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment for the foreseeable future.

Our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment consists of retail variable annuity insurance policies sold primarily from 2001 to early 2010, when the block entered run-off. This segment represented 18.2% of our total AUM as of September 30, 2012, income (loss) before income taxes was ($525.0) million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012, and ($564.5) million, ($220.2) million and ($1,864.8) million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Revenues for the segment were ($138.1) million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and $794.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. See “Business—Closed Blocks—Closed Block Variable Annuity.” These products offered long-term savings vehicles in which customers (policyholders) made deposits that were invested, largely at the customer’s direction, in a variety of U.S. and international equity, fixed income, real estate and other investment options. In addition, these products provided customers with the option to purchase living benefit riders, including GMWBL, guaranteed minimum income benefits (“GMIB”), guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits (“GMAB”) and guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits (“GMWB”). All retail variable annuity products include guaranteed minimum death benefits (“GMDB”). In 2009, we decided to cease sales of retail variable annuity products with substantial guarantee features. In early 2010, we ceased all new sales of these products with substantial guarantees, although we continue to accept new deposits in accordance with, and subject to the limitations of, the provisions of existing contracts.

Market movements and actuarial assumption changes (including, with respect to policyholder behavior and mortality) can result in material adverse impacts to our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. Because policyholders have various contractual rights to defer withdrawals, annuitization and/or maturity of their contracts, the nature and period of contract maturity is subject to policyholder behavior and is therefore indeterminate. Future market movements and changes in actuarial assumptions can result in significant earnings and liquidity impacts, as well as increases in regulatory reserve and capital requirements for the Closed Block Variable Annuity segment. The latter may necessitate additional capital contributions into the business and/or adversely impact dividend capacity.

Our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment is subject to market risks.

Our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment is subject to a number of market risks, primarily associated with U.S. and other global equity market values and interest rates. For example, declining equity market values, increasing equity market volatility and declining interest rates can result in an increase in the valuation of future policy benefits, reducing our net income. Declining market values for bonds and equities also reduce the account balances of our variable annuity contracts, and since we collect fees and risk charges based on these account balances, our net income may be further reduced.

Declining interest rates, increased equity market volatility and declining equity market values may also subject us to increased hedging costs. Market events can cause an increase in the amount of statutory reserves that our insurance subsidiaries are required to hold for variable annuity guarantees, lowering their statutory surplus, which would adversely impact their ability to pay dividends to us.

-41-

Table of Contents

The performance of our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment depends on assumptions that may not be accurate.

Our Closed Block Variable Annuity segment is subject to risks associated with the future behavior of policyholders and future claims payment patterns, using assumptions for mortality experience, lapse rates, GMIB annuitization rates, and GMWB/GMWBL withdrawal rates. We are required to make assumptions about these behaviors and patterns, which may not reflect the actual behaviors and patterns we experience in the future.

In particular, we have only minimal experience on policyholder behavior for our GMIB and GMWBL products and, as a result, future experience could lead to significant changes in our assumptions. Our GMIB contracts have a ten-year waiting period before annuitization is available, with most of these GMIB contracts issued during the period 2004 to 2006. These contracts first become eligible to annuitize during the period 2014 to 2016, but contain significant incentives to delay annuitization beyond the first eligibility date. As a result, to date we have only a statistically small sample of experience used to set annuitization rates. Therefore, we anticipate that observable experience data will become statistically credible later this decade, when a large volume of GMIB benefits begin to reach their maximum benefit over the four-year period from 2019 to 2022. It is possible, however, that policyholders may choose to annuitize soon after the first annuitization date, rather than delay annuitization to receive increased guarantee benefits, in which case we may have statistically credible experience as early as in the period from 2014 to 2016.

Similarly, most of our GMWBL contracts are still in the first three to five policy years, so our assumptions for withdrawal from contracts with GMWBL benefits may change as experience emerges over the next five to seven years. In addition, like our GMIB contracts, many of our GMWBL contracts contain significant incentives to delay withdrawal. We expect customer decisions on annuitization and withdrawal will be influenced by customers’ financial plans and needs as well as by interest rate and market conditions over time and by the availability and features of competing products. If emerging experience deviates from our assumptions on either GMIB annuitization or GMWBL withdrawal, we could experience losses and a significant increase to reserve and capital requirements.

We also make estimates of expected lapse of these products, which is the probability that a policy will not remain in force from one period to the next. Lapse rates of our annuity products may be significantly impacted by the value of guaranteed minimum benefits relative to the value of the underlying separate accounts (account value or account balance). In general, policies with guarantees that are “in the money” (i.e., where the notional benefit amount is in excess of the account value) are assumed to be less likely to lapse. Conversely, “out of the money” guarantees are assumed to be more likely to lapse as the policyholder has less incentive to retain the policy. Lapse rates could also be adversely affected generally by developments that affect customer perception of us.

We make estimates of expected election rates of living benefits for these products and of the rate of election of certain optional benefits that may be exercised. The profitability of our deferred annuity products depends upon actual contract owner decisions to elect or delay the utilization of such benefits. The development of a secondary market for third-party investor strategies in the annuities business could also adversely affect the profitability of existing business by reducing lapse rates of in-the-money contracts in excess of current expectations or by causing living benefits to be elected at points in time that are more unfavorable than our current expectations. Actual lapse rates that are lower than our lapse rate assumptions could have an adverse effect on profitability in the later years of a block of business because the anticipated claims experience may be higher than expected in these later years. If actual lapse rates are significantly different from that assumed in our current reserving assumptions, our reserves for future policy benefits may prove to be inadequate.

Our variable annuity lapse rate experience has varied significantly over the period from 2006 to the present, reflecting among other factors, both pre- and post-financial crisis experience. During the early years of this period, our variable annuity policyholder lapse rate experience was higher than our current best estimate of policyholder lapse behavior would have indicated; in the later part of this period, after mid-2009, it was lower. Management’s current best estimate of variable annuity policyholder lapse behavior incorporates actual

-42-

Table of Contents

experience over the entire period, as we believe that over the duration of the Closed Block Variable Annuity policies we will experience the full range of policyholder behavior and market conditions. If our future experience were to approximate our lapse experience from later in the period, we would likely need to increase reserves by an amount that could be material.

We review overall policyholder experience annually (including lapse, annuitization, withdrawal and mortality), or more frequently if necessary. As customer experience continues to materialize, we may adjust our assumptions. The magnitude of any required changes could be material and adverse to the results of operations or financial condition of the Company. We increased reserves in the fourth quarter of 2011 after a comprehensive review of our assumptions relating to lapses, mortality, annuitization of income benefits and utilization of withdrawal benefits. The review in 2011 included an analysis of a larger body of actual experience than was previously available, including a longer period with low equity markets and interest rates, which we believe provided greater insight into anticipated policyholder behavior for contracts that are in the money. This resulted in an increase of GAAP reserves of $741 million and gross U.S. statutory reserves of $2,776 million in the fourth quarter of 2011. It is possible that future assumption changes could produce reserve changes of this magnitude or even greater.

During the third quarter of 2012 we conducted a periodic review of actuarial assumptions, including policyholder behavior assumptions. As a result of this review, we increased GAAP reserves by $114.6 million as of September 30, 2012, driven primarily by an update to lapse rates on variable annuity contracts with lifetime living benefit guarantees. The same update to lapse rates, implemented in isolation, would have increased U.S. statutory reserves by approximately $150 million. However, the net change for U.S. statutory reserves was not material, due to offsetting revisions to projection model inputs. This change in lapse assumptions, taken together with the update to lapse assumptions we made in late 2011, moved our assumptions to be in line with lapse experience over the study period of 2006 to present. Although we believe it is appropriate to consider actual experience over that entire period in setting our assumptions, this recent change also causes our assumption to move considerably closer to our actual lapse experience for the period from mid-2009 to present. We will continue to monitor the emergence of experience. We review our assumptions at least annually, and, if necessary, update our assumptions more frequently as additional information becomes available. If adjustments to assumptions are necessary, which is ordinary course for interest-sensitive long-dated liabilities, we anticipate that the financial impact of such a change will likely be in a range, either up or down, that is generally consistent with the impact experienced in the third quarter of 2012. However, as described in the previous paragraph, future reserve increases in connection with experience updates could be material and adverse to the results of operations or financial condition of the Company. Any such increase to reserves could require us to make material additional capital contributions to one or more of our insurance company subsidiaries or could otherwise be material and adverse to the results of operations or financial condition of the Company.

Our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program currently focuses on the protection of regulatory reserves and rating agency capital from market movements and less on the GAAP earnings impact of this block, which could result in materially lower or more volatile GAAP earnings.

Our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program currently focuses on the protection of regulatory reserves and rating agency capital from equity market movements and less on the GAAP earnings impact of this block. GAAP accounting differs from the methods used to determine regulatory and rating agency capital measures. Therefore our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedge program may create earnings volatility in our GAAP financial statements, or produce lower GAAP income or even GAAP losses compared to what our unhedged results would have been. In general, in any given period rising equity market values can produce losses in our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program that substantially exceed the benefit we derive from the associated decrease in valuation of the future policy benefits associated with Closed Block Variable Annuity products on a GAAP basis, and the impact of declining equity markets can produce gains in our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program that substantially exceed the loss we derive from the associated increase in valuation of the future policy benefits on a GAAP basis. We recorded net gains (losses) related to incurred

-43-

Table of Contents

guaranteed benefits and guaranteed benefit hedging, including the CHO program, but excluding the effect of nonperformance risk, of ($1,209.8) million and ($541.5) million for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, and ($2,192.2) million, ($1,493.9) million and ($693.4) million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition—Results of Operations—Company Consolidated.”

Our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program may not be effective and may be more costly than anticipated.

We periodically re-evaluate our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program to respond to changing market conditions and balance the trade-offs among several important factors, including regulatory reserves, rating agency capital, underlying economics, earnings and other factors. While our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program is intended to balance numerous critical metrics, we are subject to the risk that our strategies and other management decisions may prove ineffective or that unexpected policyholder behavior, alone or in combination with unfavorable market events, may produce losses or unanticipated cash needs beyond the scope of the risk management strategies employed. In addition, our Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program does not hedge certain non-market risks inherent in this segment, including business, credit, insurance and operational risks; any of these risks could cause us to experience unanticipated losses or cash needs. For example, hedging counterparties may fail to perform their obligations resulting in unhedged exposures and losses on positions that are not collateralized. Finally, the cost of the Closed Block Variable Annuity hedging program itself may be greater than anticipated as adverse market conditions can limit the availability and increase the costs of the hedging instruments we employ, and such costs may not be recovered in the pricing of the underlying products being hedged. For example, the cost of hedging guaranteed minimum benefits increases as market volatilities increase and/or interest rates decrease, resulting in a reduction to net income.

Risks Related to Regulation

Our businesses and those of our parent company and its affiliates are heavily regulated and changes in regulation or the application of regulation may reduce our profitability.

We are subject to detailed insurance, asset management and other financial services laws and government regulation. In addition to the insurance, asset management and other regulations and laws specific to the industries in which we operate, regulatory agencies have broad administrative power over many aspects of our business, which may include ethical issues, money laundering, privacy, recordkeeping and marketing and sales practices. Also, bank regulators and other supervisory authorities in the United States and elsewhere continue to scrutinize payment processing and other transactions under regulations governing such matters as money-laundering, prohibited transactions with countries subject to sanctions, and bribery or other anti-corruption measures. The financial market dislocations we have experienced have produced, and are expected to continue to produce, extensive changes in existing laws and regulations applicable to our businesses.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is time consuming and personnel-intensive, and changes in laws and regulations may materially increase the cost of compliance and other expenses of doing business. There are a number of risks that may arise where applicable regulations may be unclear, subject to multiple interpretations or under development or where regulations may conflict with one another, where regulators revise their previous guidance or courts overturn previous rulings, which could result in our failure to meet applicable standards. Regulators and other authorities have the power to bring administrative or judicial proceedings against us, which could result, among other things, in suspension or revocation of our licenses, cease and desist orders, fines, civil penalties, criminal penalties or other disciplinary action which could materially harm our results of operations and financial condition. If we fail to address, or appear to fail to address, appropriately any of these matters, our reputation could be harmed and we could be subject to additional legal risk, which could increase the size and number of claims and damages asserted against us or subject us to enforcement actions, fines and penalties. See “Regulation” for further discussion of the impact of regulations on our businesses.

-44-

Table of Contents

As long as we remain affiliated with ING Group, we may be subject to laws, regulations and restrictions to which we would not be subject as a standalone enterprise. These restrictions could be extensive and include limitations on the activities we may conduct and the way in which we organize and operate our businesses. Various jurisdictions in which ING Group and its subsidiaries operate, including the United States, apply prudential and other regulations to the holding companies and affiliates of financial institutions. If the applicable laws and regulations in any of these jurisdictions, or the application or interpretation of such laws and regulations by applicable regulators and other authorities, were to change, or if ING Group or one of its subsidiaries (other than the Company) were to change the nature of the regulated activities they conduct, we could in the future become subject to restrictions to which we are not currently subject, and to which we would not be subject as a standalone enterprise. This could require us to incur material compliance, reporting or other costs or to forego certain types of material revenues or could otherwise be material and adverse to us. We do not have any control over the activities conducted by ING Group or its subsidiaries (other than the Company). As one source of potential change in the regulations applied to ING Group and its subsidiaries, we expect that in March 2014 the European Central Bank will assume responsibility for part of the prudential supervision of ING Bank and its holding company ING Group that is currently exercised by the Dutch Central Bank ( De Nederlandsche Bank , DNB). It is uncertain if and how this new supervisory structure will impact the Company.

Our insurance businesses are heavily regulated, and changes in regulation in the United States, enforcement actions and regulatory investigations may reduce profitability.

Our insurance operations are subject to comprehensive regulation and supervision throughout the United States. State insurance laws regulate most aspects of our insurance businesses, and our insurance subsidiaries are regulated by the insurance departments of the states in which they are domiciled and the states in which they are licensed. The primary purpose of state regulation is to protect policyholders, and not necessarily to protect creditors and investors. See “Regulation—Insurance Regulation.”

State insurance guaranty associations have the right to assess insurance companies doing business in their state in order to help pay the obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants. Because the amount and timing of an assessment is beyond our control, liabilities we have currently established for these potential assessments may not be adequate.

State insurance regulators and the NAIC regularly reexamine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Changes in these laws and regulations, or in interpretations thereof, are often made for the benefit of the consumer at the expense of the insurer and could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. For example, in October 2011, the NAIC established a subgroup to study insurers’ use of captives and special purpose vehicles to transfer insurance risk in relation to existing state laws and regulations, and to establish appropriate regulatory requirements to address concerns identified in the study. We cannot predict what actions and regulatory changes will result from this study and what impact such changes will have on our financial condition and results of operations.

Insurance regulators have implemented, or begun to implement significant changes in the way in which insurers must determine statutory reserves and capital, particularly for products with contractual guarantees such as variable annuities and universal life policies, and are considering further potentially significant changes in these requirements. The NAIC is currently working on comprehensive reforms related to life insurance reserves and the accounting for such reserves. The timing and extent of further changes to statutory reserves and reporting requirements are uncertain.

In addition, state insurance regulators are becoming more active in adopting and enforcing suitability standards with respect to sales of fixed, indexed and variable annuities. In particular, the NAIC has adopted a revised Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation (“SAT”), which will, if enacted by the states, place new responsibilities upon issuing insurance companies with respect to the suitability of annuity sales, including responsibilities for training agents. Several states have already enacted laws based on the SAT.

-45-

Table of Contents

In addition to the foregoing risks, the financial services industry is the focus of increased regulatory scrutiny as various state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations conduct inquiries and investigations into the products and practices of the financial services industries. See the Note for Commitments and Contingencies in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 for a description of certain regulatory inquiries affecting the Company. It is possible that future regulatory inquiries or investigations involving the insurance industry generally, or the Company specifically, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

In some cases, this regulatory scrutiny has led to legislation and regulation, or proposed legislation and regulation that could significantly affect the financial services industry, or has resulted in regulatory penalties, settlements and litigation. New laws, regulations and other regulatory actions aimed at the business practices under scrutiny could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. The adoption of new laws and regulations, enforcement actions, or litigation, whether or not involving us, could influence the manner in which we distribute our products, result in negative coverage of the industry by the media, cause significant harm to our reputation and materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our products are subject to extensive regulation and failure to meet any of the complex product requirements may reduce profitability.

Our insurance, annuity, retirement and investment products are subject to a complex and extensive array of state and federal tax, securities, insurance and employee benefit plan laws and regulations, which are administered and enforced by a number of different governmental and self-regulatory authorities, including state insurance regulators, state securities administrators, state banking authorities, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the IRS and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”).

For example, U.S. federal income tax law imposes requirements relating to insurance and annuity product design, administration and investments that are conditions for beneficial tax treatment of such products under the Internal Revenue Code. Additionally, state and federal securities and insurance laws impose requirements relating to insurance and annuity product design, offering and distribution and administration. Failure to administer product features in accordance with contract provisions or applicable law, or to meet any of these complex tax, securities, or insurance requirements 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, interruption of our operations or adversely impact profitability.

The Dodd-Frank Act, its implementing regulations and other financial regulatory reform initiatives could have adverse consequences for the financial services industry, including us and/or materially affect our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. It effects comprehensive changes to the regulation of financial services in the United States. The Dodd-Frank Act directs existing and newly-created government agencies and bodies to perform studies and promulgate a multitude of regulations implementing the law, a process that is underway and is expected to continue over the next few years. While some studies have already been completed and the rule-making process is well underway, there continues to be significant uncertainty regarding the results of ongoing studies and the ultimate requirements of regulations that have not yet been adopted. We cannot predict with certainty how the Dodd-Frank Act and such regulations will affect the financial markets generally, or impact our business, ratings, results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. Key aspects we have identified to date of the Dodd-Frank Act’s potential impact on us include:

-46-

Table of Contents

Although the full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act cannot be determined until the various studies mandated by the law are conducted and implementing regulations are adopted, many of the legislation’s requirements could have profound and/or adverse consequences for the financial services industry, including for us. The Dodd-Frank Act could make it more expensive for us to conduct business, require us to make changes to our business model

-47-

Table of Contents

or satisfy increased capital requirements, subject us to greater regulatory scrutiny or to potential increases in whistleblower claims in light of the increased awards available to whistleblowers under the Act and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

See “Regulation” for further discussion of the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our businesses.

In addition to the Dodd-Frank Act, regulators and lawmakers in non-U.S. jurisdictions are engaged in addressing the causes of the recent financial crisis and means of avoiding such crises in the future. Although currently we are not directly subject to non-U.S. regulation, we may be significantly affected by foreign regulatory actions, due to our being under the control of ING Group. We are unable to predict how any such regulations could affect the way ING Group conducts its business and manages capital, or to what extent any resulting changes in the way ING Group conducts its business or manages capital could affect our business, our relationship with ING Group or our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. For a further discussion of foreign regulation and its potential effect on us while we are controlled by ING Group, including the impact of the Solvency II Directive, see “Regulation—International and National Regulatory Initiatives that May Affect Us as a Consequence of our Affiliation with ING Group.”

Changes in U.S. federal and state securities laws and regulations may affect our operations and our profitability.

U.S. federal and state securities laws apply to sales of our mutual funds and to our variable annuity and variable life insurance products (which are considered to be both insurance products and securities) as well as to sales of third-party investment products. As a result, some of our subsidiaries and the products they offer are subject to regulation under these federal and state securities laws. Our insurance subsidiaries’ separate accounts are registered as investment companies under the Investment Company Act. Some variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies issued by our insurance subsidiaries also are registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). Other subsidiaries are registered as broker-dealers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), are members of, and subject to, regulation by FINRA, and are also registered as broker-dealers in various states, as applicable. In addition, some of our subsidiaries are registered as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act.

Securities laws and regulations are primarily intended to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and to protect investors in the securities markets or investment advisory or brokerage clients. These laws and regulations generally grant supervisory agencies broad administrative powers, including the power to limit or restrict the conduct of business for failure to comply with those laws and regulations. A number of changes have recently been proposed to the laws and regulations that govern the conduct of our variable insurance products business and our distributors that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the SEC to establish a standard of conduct applicable to brokers and dealers when providing personalized investment advice to retail customers. This standard of conduct would be to act in the best interest of the customer without regard to the financial or other interest of the broker or dealer providing the advice. Further, proposals have been made that the SEC establish a self-regulatory organization with respect to registered investment advisers, which could increase the level of regulatory oversight over them. Changes to these laws or regulations that restrict the conduct of our business could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Changes to regulations under ERISA could adversely affect our distribution model by restricting our ability to provide customers with advice.

The prohibited transaction rules of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code generally restrict the provision of investment advice to ERISA plans and participants and IRAs if the investment recommendation results in fees paid to the individual advisor, his or her firm or their affiliates that vary according to the investment recommendation chosen. In March 2010, the DOL issued proposed regulations which provide limited relief from

-48-

Table of Contents

these investment advice restrictions. The DOL issued final rules in October of 2011 and did not provide additional relief regarding these restrictions. As a result, the ability of our investment advisory subsidiaries and their advisory representatives to provide investment advice to ERISA plans and participants, and with respect to IRAs, will likely be significantly restricted. Also, the fee and revenue arrangements of certain advisory programs may be required to be revenue neutral, resulting in potential lost revenues for these investment advisers and their affiliates.

Other proposed regulatory initiatives under ERISA may negatively impact our broker-dealer subsidiaries. In particular, the DOL issued a proposed regulation in October 2010 that would, if adopted as proposed, significantly broaden the circumstances under which a person or entity providing investment advice with respect to ERISA plans or IRAs would be deemed a fiduciary under ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code. Although the DOL has withdrawn this proposal, it has indicated its intent to re-propose the regulation in a modified form. If adopted, the proposed regulations may make it easier for the DOL in enforcement actions, and for plaintiffs’ attorneys in ERISA litigation, to attempt to extend fiduciary status to advisors who would not be deemed fiduciaries under current regulations.

In addition, the DOL has issued a number of regulations recently, and may issue additional similar regulations, that increase the level of disclosure that must be provided to plan sponsors and participants. These ERISA disclosure requirements will likely increase the regulatory and compliance burden upon us, resulting in increased costs.

Changes in U.S. pension laws and regulations may affect our results of operations and our profitability.

Congress from time to time considers pension reform legislation that could decrease the attractiveness of certain of our retirement products and services to retirement plan sponsors and administrators or have an unfavorable effect on our ability to earn revenues from these products and services. In this regard, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 made significant changes in employer pension funding obligations associated with defined benefit pension plans that are likely to increase sponsors’ costs of maintaining these plans and imposed certain requirements on defined contribution plans. Over time, these changes could negatively impact our sales of defined benefit or defined contribution plan products and services and cause sponsors to discontinue existing plans for which we provide insurance, asset management, administrative, or other services. Certain tax-favored savings initiatives that have been proposed could hinder sales and persistency of our products and services that support employment based retirement plans.

The Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 also includes certain provisions for defined benefit pension plan funding relief. These provisions may impact the likelihood of corporate plan sponsors terminating their plans and/or engaging in transactions to partially or fully transfer pension obligations to an insurance company. As part of our retirement services segment, we offer general account and separate account group annuity products that enable a plan sponsor to transfer these risks, often in connection with the termination of defined benefit pension plans. Consequently, this legislation could indirectly affect the mix of our business, with fewer closeouts and more non-guaranteed funding products, and adversely impact our results of operations.

We may not be able to mitigate the reserve strain associated with Regulation XXX and NAIC Actuarial Guideline 38, potentially resulting in a negative impact on our capital position or in a need to increase prices and/or reduce sales of term or universal life products.

The NAIC Model Regulation entitled “Valuation of Life Insurance Policies,” commonly known as “Regulation XXX” or “XXX,” requires insurers to establish additional statutory reserves for certain term life insurance policies with long-term premium guarantees and for certain universal life policies with secondary guarantees. In addition, NAIC Actuarial Guideline 38 (“AG38”) clarifies the application of XXX with respect to certain universal life insurance policies with secondary guarantees. Many of our newly issued term insurance products and an increasing number of our universal life insurance products are affected by XXX and AG38,

-49-

Table of Contents

respectively. The application of both XXX and AG38 involves numerous interpretations. At times, there may be differences of opinion between management and state insurance departments regarding the application of these and other actuarial standards. Such differences of opinion may lead to a state insurance regulator requiring greater reserves to support insurance liabilities than management estimated.

The NAIC has adopted revisions to AG38, specifically regarding reserving for certain universal life secondary guarantee products. Reserves on in-force business as of December 31, 2012 are now subject to a floor calculation based on assumptions consistent with a new principles-based reserving framework developed by the NAIC. Reserves on business written after December 31, 2012 will be calculated using a modified formulaic approach. We have not completed our analysis of the impact of these revisions on our reserves, and the revisions may require us to increase our statutory reserves for universal life policies with secondary guarantees. Further, changes in the method of calculating reserves may also impact the future profitability and sales of our universal life policies with secondary guarantees.

We have implemented reinsurance and capital management actions to mitigate the capital impact of XXX and AG38, including the use of LOCs and the implementation of other transactions that provide acceptable collateral to support the reinsurance of the liabilities to wholly owned reinsurance captives or to third party reinsurers. These arrangements are subject to review by state insurance regulators and rating agencies. For example, the NAIC has recently established a subgroup to study the use of captives and special purpose vehicles to transfer insurance risk in relation to existing state laws and regulations. Rating agencies may include a portion of these LOCs or other collateral in their calculation of leverage calculations, which could increase their assessment of our leverage ratios and potentially impact our ratings. We cannot provide assurance that there will not be regulatory or rating agency challenges to the reinsurance and capital management actions we have taken to date or that acceptable collateral obtained through such transactions will continue to be available or available on a cost-effective basis. The result of those potential challenges, as well as the inability to obtain acceptable collateral, could require us to increase statutory reserves, incur higher operating and/or tax costs or reduce sales.

Certain of the reserve financing facilities we have put in place will mature prior to the run off of the liabilities they support. As a result, we cannot provide assurance that we will be able to continue to implement actions either to mitigate the impact of XXX and AG38 on future sales of term and universal life insurance products or maintain collateral support related to our captives or existing third party reinsurance arrangements to which one of our captive reinsurance subsidiaries is a party. If we are unable to continue to implement those actions or maintain existing collateral support, we may be required to increase statutory reserves or incur higher operating costs than we currently anticipate. Because term and universal life insurance are particularly price-sensitive products, any increase in premiums charged on these products to compensate us for the increased statutory reserve requirements or higher costs of reinsurance may result in a significant loss of volume and materially and adversely affect our life insurance business .

The full NAIC membership adopted a new Valuation Manual (“VM”) in December 2012. VM will change the reserving methodology for life insurance by giving greater credence to an insurer’s realized past experience, anticipated future experience and current economic conditions. The NAIC is expected to increase the use of Principles-Based Reserving (“PBR”) approaches such as VM in the future. We, along with other life insurers, have studied the impact of PBR, but since VM is still subject to change as it is adopted by the various states, we are unable to predict its impact on the future profitability and sales of our life insurance policies, however, it is possible that this approach will result in more volatility in our financial results given the greater weight it places on current economic conditions. See “Regulation—Insurance Regulation—Financial Regulation.”

Changes in tax laws could increase our tax costs, impact the ability of our insurance company subsidiaries to make distributions to ING U.S., Inc. or make our insurance, annuity and investment products less attractive to customers.

Changes in tax laws could increase our taxes and our effective tax rates. For example, the Obama Administration has proposed modifying the dividends received deduction for life insurance company separate

-50-

Table of Contents

accounts, and such a modification could significantly reduce the dividends received deduction that we are able to claim for dividends received in separate accounts. We have also entered into agreements with the IRS to resolve issues related to tax accounting matters, such as whether certain derivative transactions qualify for hedge treatment, the proper treatment of valid tax hedge gains and losses and “other than temporary impairment” losses, which agreements may be superseded by future enacted laws, regulations or public guidance that increases our taxes and our effective tax rates. Further, changes in tax rates could affect the amount of our deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities. One such change relates to the current debate over corporate tax reform and corporate tax rates. A reduction in the top federal tax rate would result in lower statutory deferred tax assets. Such a reduction in the statutory deferred tax asset may impact the ability of the affected insurance subsidiaries to make distributions to us and consequently could negatively impact our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders and to service our debt.

Changes in tax laws could make some of our insurance, annuity and investment products less attractive to customers. Current U.S. federal income tax law permits tax-deferred accumulation of income earned under life insurance and annuity products, and permits exclusion from taxation of death benefits paid under life insurance contracts. Changes in tax laws that restrict these tax benefits could make some of our products less attractive to customers. Reductions in individual income tax rates or estate tax rates could also make some of our products less advantageous to customers.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was recently passed to avert the “fiscal cliff” and made permanent the marginal income tax rates for individuals, as well as the estate tax threshold and applicable rate. Although we do not consider it likely that Congress will revisit these rates in the short term, it is likely to pursue spending cuts (which may take the form of reducing or eliminating tax preferences associated with our industry and products) to offset mandatory spending cuts, as part of any negotiations to raise the federal borrowing limit, and as part of funding the federal government when the current continuing resolution expires. Congress may also consider the same types of spending cuts and revenue raising options on an even larger scale later in 2013 or 2014 if it pursues comprehensive tax reform premised on the notion of reducing corporate and personal rates by reducing tax preferences. We also believe that states that stand to lose tax revenue of their own will exert pressure on the federal government not to enact additional measures as part of comprehensive tax reform that would negatively impact them further. Such a situation may result in even more pressure on raising revenue from tax preferences associated with our Company and products.

Risks Related to Our Separation from, and Continuing Relationship with, ING Group

ING Group’s continuing significant interest in us following this offering may result in conflicts of interest.

Upon the completion of this offering, ING Group will beneficially own approximately     % of our outstanding common stock (     % if the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares is exercised in full). For as long as ING Group continues to beneficially own more than 50% of our outstanding voting stock, ING Group generally will be able to determine the outcome of many corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and the amendment of the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of ING U.S., Inc. ING Group is currently required pursuant to the 2012 Amended Restructuring Plan to divest all of its global insurance and investment management business. See “Summary—ING Group Restructuring Plan with European Commission.” It is thus expected that ING Group will sell its controlling ownership interest in ING U.S., Inc. through one or more additional public offerings of our stock or, possibly, through one or more privately negotiated sales of our stock.

We will elect to be treated as a “controlled company” for purposes of the NYSE corporate governance rules, and accordingly, for as long as ING Group owns more than 50% of our outstanding common stock, we will not be subject to the requirement that a majority of our directors be “independent” as defined under such rules and that we have a compensation committee and a nominating and governance committee that meet the required director independence requirements. In addition, under the provisions of a shareholder agreement that we will enter into with ING Group prior to or concurrently with the completion of this offering, ING Group will have consent rights with respect to certain corporate and business activities that we may undertake, including during

-51-

Table of Contents

periods where ING Group holds less than a majority of our common stock. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Relationship with ING Group Following the Offering—Shareholder Agreement.”

Because ING Group’s interests may differ from those of other stockholders, actions ING Group takes or omits to take with respect to us, for as long as it is our controlling stockholder, including those corporate or business actions requiring its prior affirmative written consent or vote described above, may not be as favorable to other stockholders as they are to ING Group.

Conflicts of interest may arise between us and ING Group in a number of areas relating to our past and ongoing relationships. All of our directors immediately following the offering will have been designated to our Board of Directors by ING Group.                  of these directors are also officers of ING Group. Because of their current or former positions with ING Group, these directors and a number of our officers own substantial amounts of ING Group stock and options to purchase ING Group stock. Ownership interests of our directors or officers in ING Group shares, or service of certain of our directors as officers of ING Group, may create, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest when a director is faced with a decision that could have different implications for the two companies. These potential conflicts could arise, for example, over matters such as the desirability of an acquisition opportunity, employee retention or recruiting, capital management or our dividend policy.

Our continuing relationship with ING Group, our ultimate parent, and with affiliates of ING Group, may affect our ability to operate and finance our business as we deem appropriate and changes with respect to ING Group could negatively impact us.

Following this offering, ING Group will continue to own a substantial majority of our common stock and we will be a consolidated subsidiary of ING Group for purposes of its financial reporting. Circumstances affecting ING Group may have an impact on us and we cannot be certain how further changes in circumstances affecting ING Group may impact us.

In November 2008, the Dutch State purchased non-voting core Tier 1 securities from ING Group for a total consideration of €10 billion and in the first quarter of 2009 ING Group entered into an Alt-A Back-up Facility with the Dutch State (see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Alt-A Back-up Facility”). In connection with the Dutch State Transactions, ING Group accepted certain restrictions regarding the compensation of certain of its senior management positions. In addition, the Dutch State was granted the right to nominate two candidates for appointment to ING Group’s Supervisory Board (the “Supervisory Board”) and the Dutch State’s nominees have veto rights over certain material transactions, including the issuance or repurchase by ING Group of its shares.

In 2009, ING Group was required to submit a restructuring plan to the EC to obtain EC approval for the Dutch State Transactions under the EC state aid rules. On October 26, 2009, ING Group announced its 2009 Restructuring Plan, pursuant to which ING Group is required to divest its insurance and investment management businesses, including the Company. On November 19, 2012, ING Group and the EC announced that the EC approved the 2012 Amended Restructuring Plan. The 2012 Amended Restructuring Plan requires ING Group to divest at least 25% of the Company by December 31, 2013, more than 50% of the Company by December 31, 2014, and 100% of the Company by December 31, 2016. The divestment of 50% of the Company is measured in terms of a divestment of over 50% of the shares of ING U.S., Inc., the loss of ING Group’s majority of directors on ING U.S., Inc.’s board of directors and the accounting deconsolidation of the Company (in line with IFRS accounting rules). In case ING Group does not satisfy its commitment to divest the Company as agreed with the EC, the Dutch State will renotify the recapitalization measure to the EC. In such a case, the EC may require additional restructuring measures or take enforcement action against ING Group, or, at the request of ING Group and the Dutch State, could allow ING Group more time to complete the divestment.

We cannot accurately predict whether any restrictions and limitations imposed on ING Group on account of the Dutch State Transactions, or the implementation of the 2012 Amended Restructuring Plan (or any further

-52-

Table of Contents

amendment thereof), will have a negative effect on our businesses and financial flexibility or result in conflicts between the interests of ING Group and our interests. In addition, it is difficult for us to predict whether any changes to, or termination of, the Dutch State Transactions could occur as a result of the 2012 Amended Restructuring Plan (or any further amendment thereof) and whether any effect on our business would result from that. We also note that we cannot predict the possible effect of ING Group not satisfying its commitment to divest the Company as agreed with the EC, for instance, by having a remaining ownership interest in the Company and its subsidiaries beyond any deadline agreed with the EC.

Our separation from ING Group could adversely affect our business and profitability due to ING Group’s strong brand and reputation.

Prior to the completion of this offering, as a wholly owned subsidiary of ING Group, we have marketed our products and services using the “ING” brand name and logo. We believe the association with ING Group has provided us with preferred status among our customers, vendors and other persons due to ING Group’s globally recognized brand, perceived high quality products and services and strong capital base and financial strength.

This offering could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers, which could result in reduced sales of our products. In connection with this offering, we expect to enter into an IP licensing agreement, pursuant to which we will have a license to use certain trademarks (including the “ING” name and logo) for a limited period of time following the completion of the offering. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Relationship with ING Group Following the Offering—Transitional Intellectual Property Agreement.” Shortly after the consummation of this offering, we intend to begin operational and legal work to rebrand to “        , ” the process of changing all marketing materials, operating materials and legal entity names containing the word “ING” or “Lion” to our new brand name will take approximately 24 months and, together with our anticipated advertising campaigns will cost between $         and $        . Some of our existing policyholders, contract owners and other customers may choose to stop doing business with us, which could increase the rate of surrenders and withdrawals in our policies and contracts. In addition, other potential policyholders and contract owners may decide not to purchase our products because we no longer will be a part of ING Group.

Our separation from ING Group could prompt some third parties to re-price, modify or terminate their distribution or vendor relationships with us. Our ability to attract and retain highly qualified independent sales intermediaries and dedicated sales specialists for our products may also be negatively affected. We may be required to lower the prices of our products, increase our sales commissions and fees, change long-term selling and marketing agreements and take other action to maintain our relationship with our sales intermediaries and distribution partners, all of which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We cannot accurately predict the effect that our separation from ING Group will have on our business, sales intermediaries, customers or employees.

The risks relating to our separation from ING Group could materialize or evolve at any time, including:

-53-

Table of Contents

The terms of our arrangements with ING Group may be more favorable than we will be able to obtain from an unaffiliated third-party. We may be unable to replace the services ING Group provides us in a timely manner or on comparable terms.

As a subsidiary of ING Group, we have benefited, and after this offering will continue to benefit, from certain contractual arrangements between ING Group and ING Bank and various third party vendors. These contractual arrangements permit ING Group affiliates such as the Company to make use of the software licenses and related services provided thereunder. There is no assurance that, once we are no longer entitled to benefit from these arrangements as a result of a Divestment Transaction, we will be able to obtain these services at the same levels or obtain the same benefits through new, independent relationships with third party vendors. Likewise, we may not be able to replace these services and arrangements in a timely manner or on terms and conditions, including cost, as favorable as those we have previously received as a subsidiary of ING Group.

In addition, as described in “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Historical Related Party Transactions—Financing Arrangements—Guarantees,” immediately following this offering we expect that certain of our indebtedness and other obligations will continue to benefit from guarantees provided by ING Group or ING V. As this indebtedness and these obligations mature or are terminated, to the extent we replace them with new indebtedness or other obligations, we do not expect such new indebtedness or other obligations to be guaranteed by ING Group or ING V. Therefore, such new indebtedness or other obligations may be on terms that are less favorable to us than the indebtedness or other obligations being replaced.

ING Group and its directors and officers will have limited liability to us or you for breach of fiduciary duty.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, to be effective upon completion of this offering, will provide that none of our directors will be personally liable to us or our stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty, except for liability for breach of a director’s duty of loyalty, acts or omissions by a director not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law, dividend payments or stock repurchases that are unlawful under Delaware law or any transaction in which a director has derived an improper personal benefit. See “Description of Capital Stock––Limitation of Liability and Indemnification of Directors and Officers.”

If ING Group sells a controlling interest in our company to a third-party in a private transaction, you may not realize any change-of-control premium on shares of our common stock and we may become subject to the control of a presently unknown third-party.

Following the completion of this offering, ING Group will own a substantial majority of our common stock. ING Group will have the ability, should it choose to do so, to sell some or all of its shares of our common stock in a privately negotiated transaction, which, if sufficient in size, could result in a change of control of the Company. The ability of ING Group to privately sell such shares of our common stock, with no requirement for a concurrent offer to be made to acquire all of the shares of our common stock that will be publicly traded hereafter, could prevent you from realizing any change-of-control premium on your shares of our common stock that may otherwise accrue to ING Group upon its private sale of our common stock. Additionally, if ING Group privately sells a significant equity interest in us, we may become subject to the control of a presently unknown third-party. Such third-party may have conflicts of interest with the interests of other stockholders.

We expect to incur incremental costs as a standalone public company.

We will need to replicate or replace certain functions, systems and infrastructure to which we will no longer have the same access after this offering. We will also need to make infrastructure investments in order to operate without the same access to ING Group’s existing operational and administrative infrastructure. These initiatives may be costly to implement. Due to the scope and complexity of the underlying projects relative to these efforts, the amount of total costs could be materially higher than our estimate, and the timing of the incurrence of these costs may be subject to change.

-54-

Table of Contents

ING Group currently performs or supports many important corporate functions for our operations, including investor relations, advertising and brand management, corporate audit, certain risk management functions, corporate insurance, corporate governance and other services. Our Consolidated Financial Statements reflect charges for these services. There is no assurance that, following the completion of this offering, these services will be sustained at the same levels as when we were receiving such services from ING Group or that we will obtain the same benefits. When we begin to operate these functions independently, if we do not have our own adequate systems and business functions in place, or are unable to obtain them from other providers, we may not be able to operate our business effectively or at comparable costs and our profitability may decline. In addition, our business has benefited from ING Group’s purchasing power when procuring goods and services. As a standalone company, we may be unable to obtain such goods and services at comparable prices or on terms as favorable as those obtained prior to this offering, which could decrease our overall profitability.

As a separate public company, we expect to expend additional time and resources to comply with rules and regulations that do not currently apply to us.

As a separate public company, the various rules and regulations of the SEC, as well as the rules of the exchange on which we list our common stock, will require us to implement additional corporate governance practices and adhere to a variety of reporting requirements. Compliance with these public company obligations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and could place additional demands on our finance and accounting staff and on our financial, accounting and information systems.

In particular, as a public company, our management will be required to conduct an annual evaluation of our internal controls over financial reporting and include a report of management on our internal controls in our annual reports on Form 10-K. In addition, we will be required to have our independent registered public accounting firm attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Auditing Standard No. 5. Under current rules, we would be subject to these requirements beginning with our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2014. If we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting, or if our registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with an attestation and an unqualified report as to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could result in a decrease in the value of our common stock.

Our historical consolidated financial data are not necessarily representative of the results we would have achieved as a standalone company and may not be a reliable indicator of our future results.

Our historical consolidated financial data included in this prospectus do not necessarily reflect the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows we would have achieved as a standalone company during the periods presented or those we will achieve in the future. For example, as described in “Recapitalization,” we are in the process of adjusting our capital structure to more closely align with peer U.S. public companies. As a result, financial metrics that are influenced by our capital structure, such as interest expense and return on equity, will not necessarily be indicative for historical periods of the performance we may achieve as a standalone company following this offering. In addition, significant increases may occur in our cost structure as a result of this offering, including costs related to public company reporting, investor relations and compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Also, as described in “—Our separation from ING Group could adversely affect our business and profitability due to ING Group’s strong brand and reputation,” we anticipate incurring substantial expenses in connection with rebranding our Company following this offering.

As a result of these matters, among others, it may be difficult for investors to compare our future results to historical results or to evaluate our relative performance or trends in our business.

-55-

Table of Contents

Risks Related to This Offering and Ownership of Our Common Stock

In addition to the risks included in this section, see “—We expect that our ability to use beneficial U.S. tax attributes will be subject to limitations” relating to provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation that limit the amount of our common stock that an investor can acquire.

Our common stock has no prior public market, and we cannot assure you that an active trading market will develop.

Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our common stock. Although we intend to apply for listing on the NYSE, an active trading market for shares of our common stock may never develop or be sustained following this offering. If an active trading market does not develop, you may have difficulty selling your shares of common stock at an attractive price, or at all. The price for our common stock in this offering will be determined by negotiations among us, the Selling Stockholder and representatives of the underwriters, and it may not be indicative of prices that will prevail in the open market following this offering. Consequently, you may not be able to sell your shares of our common stock at or above the initial public offering price or at any other price, or at the time that you would like to sell. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling our common stock, our ability to motivate our employees and sales representatives through equity incentive awards, and our ability to acquire other companies, products or technologies by using our common stock as consideration.

The price of our common stock may be volatile and may be affected by market conditions beyond our control.

Some factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate, in addition to the other risks mentioned in this section of the prospectus, are:

The stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations in recent years. The market prices of securities of insurance and financial services companies have experienced fluctuations that often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating results of these companies. These market fluctuations could result in extreme volatility in the price of shares of our common stock, which could cause a decline in the value of your investment. You should also be aware that price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of shares of our common stock is low.

-56-

Table of Contents

Future sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock may depress the price of our shares.

If our stockholders sell a large number of shares of our common stock, or if we issue a large number of shares of our common stock in connection with future acquisitions, financings, or other circumstances, the market price of shares of our common stock could decline significantly. Moreover, the perception in the public market that our stockholders might sell shares of our common stock could depress the market price of those shares. In addition, sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by ING Group pursuant to the 2012 Amended Restructuring Plan could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

All the shares sold in this offering will be freely tradable without restriction, except for shares acquired by any of our affiliates, including ING Group. Immediately after this offering, the public market for our common stock will include only the              shares of common stock that are being sold in this offering, or              shares if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full. After the offering, we intend to register              shares of common stock, which are reserved for issuance under our employee benefit plans. Once we register these shares, they can be sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to restrictions under the securities laws applicable to resales by affiliates. In addition, we expect to enter into a registration rights agreement with ING Group pursuant to which we will be obligated to register ING Group’s shares of our common stock for public resale upon request by ING Group, beginning          days following the date of this prospectus. See “Shares Eligible for Future Sale—Registration Rights Agreement.”

We expect that we, ING Group and our directors and executive officers will enter into lock-up arrangements under which we and they will agree that we and they will not sell, directly or indirectly, any common stock for a period of          days from the date of this prospectus (subject to certain exceptions) without the prior written consent of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Goldman, Sachs & Co. See “Underwriting.”

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, of Delaware corporate and of state insurance laws, may prevent or delay an acquisition of us, which could decrease the trading price of our common stock.

State laws, provisions of ING U.S.’s certificate of incorporation and by-laws may delay, deter, prevent or render more difficult a takeover attempt that our stockholders might consider in their best interests. For example, such laws or provisions may prevent our stockholders from receiving the benefit from any premium to the market price of our common stock offered by a bidder in a takeover context. Even in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of these provisions may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock if they are viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.

The insurance laws and regulations of the various states in which our insurance subsidiaries are organized may delay or impede a business combination involving the Company. State insurance laws prohibit an entity from acquiring control of an insurance company without the prior approval of the domestic insurance regulator. Under most states’ statutes, an entity is presumed to have control of an insurance company if it owns, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the voting stock of that insurance company or its parent company. These regulatory restrictions may delay, deter or prevent a potential merger or sale of our company, even if our Board of Directors decides that it is in the best interests of stockholders for us to merge or be sold. These restrictions also may delay sales by us or acquisitions by third parties of our insurance subsidiaries. In addition, the Investment Company Act would require approval by the contract owners of our variable contracts in order to effectuate a change of control of any affiliated investment adviser to a mutual fund underlying our variable contracts. Further, FINRA approval would be necessary for a change of control of any FINRA registered broker-dealer that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of the Company.

Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) may affect the ability of an “interested stockholder” to engage in certain business combinations, including mergers, consolidations or acquisitions of additional shares, for a period of three years following the time that the stockholder becomes an “interested stockholder.” An “interested stockholder” is defined to include persons owning directly or indirectly 15% or more of the outstanding voting stock of a corporation.

-57-

Table of Contents

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws will include provisions that may have anti-takeover effects and may delay, deter or prevent a takeover attempt that our stockholders might consider in their best interests. For example, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws will prohibit stockholders from calling special meetings of our stockholders and, from and after such time as ING Group ceases to beneficially own at least     % of our outstanding common stock, from taking action by written consent.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will also include provisions designed to preserve the benefit of certain tax attributes of the Company, which will limit the amount of our common stock that an investor can acquire. See “Description of Capital Stock—Ownership Limitations.”

Risks Related to Our Holding Company Structure

As holding companies, ING U.S., Inc. and Lion Holdings depend on the ability of their subsidiaries to transfer funds to them to meet their obligations.

ING U.S., Inc. is the holding company for all our operations, and dividends, returns of capital and interest income on intercompany indebtedness from ING U.S., Inc.’s subsidiaries are the principal sources of funds available to ING U.S., Inc. to pay principal and interest on its outstanding indebtedness, to pay corporate operating expenses, to pay any stockholder dividends and to meet its other obligations. These subsidiaries are legally distinct from ING U.S., Inc. and, except in the case of Lion Holdings, which is the guarantor of certain of our outstanding indebtedness, have no obligation to pay amounts due on the debt of ING U.S., Inc. or to make funds available to ING U.S., Inc. for such payments. The ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or other distributions to ING U.S., Inc. in the future will depend on their earnings, tax considerations, covenants contained in any financing or other agreements and applicable regulatory restrictions. In addition, such payments may be limited as a result of claims against our subsidiaries by their creditors, including suppliers, vendors, lessors and employees. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends and make other distributions to ING U.S., Inc. will further depend on their ability to meet applicable regulatory standards and receive regulatory approvals, as discussed below under “—The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends and other distributions to ING U.S., Inc. and Lion Holdings is further limited by state insurance laws” and “—At present, our principal insurance subsidiaries have no capacity to make ordinary dividend payments to ING U.S., Inc. or Lion Holdings, and therefore such insurance subsidiaries must obtain prior approval or notices of non-objection, as the case may be, from their respective state insurance commissioners in order to pay such dividends or other distributions.”

Lion Holdings is wholly owned by ING U.S., Inc. and is also a holding company, and accordingly its ability to make payments under its guarantees of such indebtedness is subject to restrictions and limitations similar to ING U.S., Inc. Neither ING U.S., Inc., nor Lion Holdings, has significant sources of cash flow other than from our subsidiaries that do not guarantee such indebtedness.

If the ability of our insurance or non-insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions or payments to ING U.S., Inc. and Lion Holdings is materially restricted by regulatory requirements, other cash needs, bankruptcy or insolvency, or our need to maintain the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries, or is limited due to operating results or other factors, we may be required to raise cash through the incurrence of debt, the issuance of equity or the sale of assets. However, there is no assurance that we would be able to raise cash by these means. This could materially and adversely affect the ability of ING U.S., Inc. and Lion Holdings to pay their obligations.

The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends and other distributions to ING U.S., Inc. and Lion Holdings is further limited by state insurance laws.

The payment of dividends and other distributions to ING U.S., Inc. and Lion Holdings by our insurance subsidiaries is regulated by state insurance laws and regulations. See “—At present, our principal insurance subsidiaries have no capacity to make ordinary dividend payments to ING U.S., Inc. or Lion Holdings, and

-58-

Table of Contents

therefore such insurance subsidiaries must obtain prior approval or notices of non-objection, as the case may be, from their respective state insurance commissioners in order to pay such dividends or other distributions.”

The jurisdictions in which our insurance subsidiaries are domiciled impose certain restrictions on the ability to pay dividends to their respective parents. These restrictions are based, in part, on the prior year’s statutory income and surplus. In general, dividends up to specified levels are considered ordinary and may be paid without prior regulatory approval. Dividends in larger amounts, or extraordinary dividends, are subject to approval by the insurance commissioner of the relevant state of domicile. Under the insurance laws applicable to our insurance subsidiaries domiciled in Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota, an extraordinary dividend or distribution is defined as a dividend or distribution that, together with other dividends and distributions made within the preceding twelve months, exceeds the greater of (1) 10% of the insurer’s policyholder surplus as of the preceding December 31, or (2) the insurer’s net gain from operations for the twelve-month period ending the preceding December 31, in each case determined in accordance with statutory accounting principles. New York has similar restrictions, except that New York’s statutory definition of extraordinary dividend or distribution is an aggregate amount in any calendar year that exceeds the lesser of (1) 10% of policyholder’s surplus for the twelve-month period ending the preceding December 31, or (2) the insurer’s net gain from operations for the twelve-month period ending the preceding December 31, not including realized capital gains. In addition, under the insurance laws of the states of domicile of our principal insurance subsidiaries, no dividend or other distribution exceeding an amount equal to an insurance company’s earned surplus may be paid without the domiciliary insurance regulator’s prior approval. From time to time, the NAIC and various state insurance regulators have considered, and may in the future consider, proposals to further limit dividend payments that an insurance company may make without regulatory approval. No assurance is given that more stringent restrictions will not be adopted from time to time by jurisdictions in which our insurance subsidiaries are domiciled, and such restrictions could have the effect, under certain circumstances, of significantly reducing dividends or other amounts payable to ING U.S., Inc. or Lion Holdings by our insurance subsidiaries without prior approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, in the future, we may become subject to debt instruments or other agreements that limit the ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions is also limited by our need to maintain the financial strength ratings assigned to such subsidiaries by the rating agencies. These ratings depend to a large extent on the capitalization levels of our insurance subsidiaries.

The payment of dividends by our special purpose financial captive insurance company subsidiaries domiciled in South Carolina and Missouri is regulated by their respective governing licensing orders and restrictions in their respective insurance securitization agreements. Generally, our special purpose financial captive insurance subsidiaries may not declare or pay dividends in any form to their parent companies other than in accordance with their respective insurance securitization transaction agreements and their respective governing licensing orders, and in no event may the dividends decrease the capital of the captive below the minimum capital requirement applicable to it, and, after giving effect to the dividends, the assets of the captive paying the dividend must be sufficient to satisfy its domiciliary insurance regulator that it can meet its obligations. Similarly, our insurance subsidiary in the Cayman Islands is subject to minimum net worth and solvency requirements that limit its ability to pay dividends.

At present, our principal insurance subsidiaries have no capacity to make ordinary dividend payments to ING U.S., Inc. or Lion Holdings, and therefore such insurance subsidiaries must obtain prior approval or notices of non-objection, as the case may be, from their respective state insurance commissioners in order to pay such dividends or other distributions.

As of December 31, 2011, each of our insurance subsidiaries domiciled in Colorado, Iowa and Minnesota had negative earned surplus and did not have capacity to make ordinary dividend payments to ING U.S., Inc. or Lion Holdings without regulatory approval. Our Connecticut-domiciled insurance company, ILIAC, had positive earned surplus as of December 31, 2011 and could have paid a maximum amount of $190.0 million of ordinary dividends to Lion Holdings without regulatory approval at March 31, 2012, but ILIAC’s 2012 distribution

-59-

Table of Contents

request exceeded its year-end 2011 earned surplus and therefore required domiciliary regulatory approval. In the second quarter of 2012, our principal insurance subsidiaries that are domiciled in Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa and Minnesota received regulatory approvals or notices of non-objection, as the case may be, from their respective domiciliary state insurance regulators to make extraordinary distributions to ING U.S., Inc. or Lion Holdings in the aggregate amount of $800.0 million in response to 2012 extraordinary distribution requests. The approved distributions of $800.0 million (including the $190.0 million ordinary dividend capacity of ILIAC) were made on June 26, 2012.

Following payment of such distributions, our principal insurance subsidiaries domiciled in Colorado, Iowa and Minnesota each had negative earned surplus accounts and therefore at the date of this prospectus have no current ordinary dividend capacity. ILIAC’s 2012 extraordinary distribution exceeded its year end 2011 earned surplus and therefore at the date of this prospectus it has no current ordinary dividend capacity. Any further dividends or distributions paid by any of these insurance subsidiaries will be on an extraordinary basis (and, therefore, subject to prior regulatory approval or notice of non-objection, as the case may be) until ordinary dividend capacity is developed. The ability to pay ordinary dividends will require the development by each insurance company of a positive earned surplus account and will be limited to a distribution amount that does not exceed the insurance company’s prior year-end positive earned surplus account and its applicable state insurance ordinary dividend threshold, after taking into account dividends and distributions made within the preceding twelve months.

As of the date of this prospectus, we expect the primary future sources of funds available to meet ongoing cash needs of ING U.S., Inc. and Lion Holdings, including debt service on our outstanding indebtedness, will be extraordinary dividends and distributions from our insurance company subsidiaries (for which the prior approval or notice of non-objection, as the case may be, of our state insurance regulators is required), and dividends and distributions from our non-insurance company subsidiaries. We also expect that, in the near term, ILIAC, one of our principal insurance company subsidiaries, will have some limited ordinary dividend capacity (for which prior regulatory approval is not required). We are in the process of engaging with the state insurance regulators of our principal insurance subsidiaries to seek approval for additional extraordinary distributions to be paid to ING U.S., Inc. or Lion Holdings, as the case may be, immediately prior to this offering. In addition, we are engaging with such regulators to seek approval for enhanced ordinary dividend and distribution paying capacity from our principal insurance company subsidiaries following this offering.

There can be no assurance that any of our insurance subsidiaries will receive approval for any extraordinary distribution payments or enhanced ordinary dividend or distribution paying capacity in the future or that the ability of our insurance subsidiaries, including ILIAC, to pay ordinary dividends will otherwise be restored. Factors that could cause state insurance regulators to deny requests for the payment of extraordinary distributions or for enhanced ordinary dividend or distribution paying capacity could include, for example, concerns over the actual or future financial health of our insurance subsidiaries, increases (whether actual or forecasted) in loss ratios experienced by our insurance subsidiaries and regulatory concerns with the conduct of our insurance subsidiaries’ businesses. Similarly, operating results or other factors outside our control could have a negative adverse effect on the ability of our insurance subsidiaries to regain their ability to pay ordinary dividends.

-60-

Table of Contents