RISK FACTORS

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should consider and read carefully all of the risks and uncertainties described below, as well as other information contained in this prospectus, including our annual financial statements, before making an investment decision. The risks described below are not the only ones facing us. The occurrence of any of the following risks or additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial could materially and adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In any such case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment. This prospectus also contains forward-looking statements and estimates that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of specific factors, including the risks and uncertainties described below.

Risks Relating to Our Consolidated Business

Risks Relating to Conditions in the Financial Markets and Economy

Conditions in the global capital markets and the economy could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our business, results of operations or financial condition are materially affected by conditions in the global capital markets and the economy generally. A wide variety of factors continue to impact economic conditions and consumer confidence. These factors include, among others, concerns over the pace of economic growth in the United States, equity market performance, continued low interest rates, uncertainty regarding the U.S. Federal Reserve’s plans to further raise short-term interest rates, the strength of the U.S. dollar, uncertainty created by the actions the Trump administration and Congress may pursue, global economic factors including quantitative easing or similar programs by major central banks or the unwinding of quantitative easing or similar programs, the United Kingdom’s vote to exit (“Brexit”) from the European Union (the “EU”) and other geopolitical issues. Given our interest rate and equity market exposure in our investment and derivatives portfolios and many of our products, these factors could have a material adverse effect on us. Our revenues may decline, our profit margins could erode and we could incur significant losses. The value of our investments and derivatives portfolios may also be impacted by reductions in price transparency, changes in the assumptions or methodology we use to estimate fair value and changes in investor confidence or preferences, which could potentially result in higher realized or unrealized losses and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Market volatility may also make it difficult to transact in or to value certain of our securities if trading becomes less frequent.

Factors such as consumer spending, business investment, government debt and spending, the volatility and strength of the equity markets, interest rates, deflation and inflation all affect the business and economic environment and, ultimately, the amount and profitability of our business. In an economic downturn characterized by higher unemployment, lower family income, lower corporate earnings, lower business investment and lower consumer spending, the demand for our retirement, protection or investment products and our investment returns could be materially and adversely affected. The profitability of many of our retirement, protection and investment products depends in part on the value of the General Account and Separate Accounts supporting them, which may fluctuate substantially depending on any of the foregoing conditions. In addition, a change in market conditions could cause a change in consumer sentiment and adversely affect sales and could cause the actual persistency of these products to vary from their anticipated persistency (the probability that a product will remain in force from one period to the next) and adversely affect profitability. Changing economic conditions or adverse public perception of financial institutions can influence customer behavior, which can result in, among other things, an increase or decrease in the levels of claims, lapses, deposits, surrenders and withdrawals in certain products, any of which could adversely affect profitability. Our policyholders may choose to defer paying insurance premiums or stop paying insurance premiums altogether. In addition, market conditions

26

may affect the availability and cost of reinsurance protections and the availability and performance of hedging instruments in ways that could materially and adversely affect our profitability.

Accordingly, both market and economic factors may affect our business results by adversely affecting our business volumes, profitability, cash flow, capitalization and overall financial condition. Disruptions in one market or asset class can also spread to other markets or asset classes. Upheavals and stagnation in the financial markets could also materially affect our financial condition (including our liquidity and capital levels) as a result of the impact of such events on our assets and liabilities.

Equity market declines and volatility may materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The S&P 500, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq Composite are on an eight-year bull market run and are at or near record high levels. A market correction or bear market could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. Declines or volatility in the equity markets can negatively impact our investment returns as well as our business, results of operations or financial condition. For example, equity market declines or volatility could, among other things, decrease the AV of our annuity and variable life contracts which, in turn, would reduce the amount of revenue we derive from fees charged on those account and asset values. Our variable annuity business in particular is highly sensitive to equity markets, and a sustained weakness or stagnation in equity markets could decrease our revenues and earnings with respect to those products. At the same time, for variable annuity contracts that include GMxB features, equity market declines increase the amount of our potential obligations related to such GMxB features and could increase the cost of executing GMxB-related hedges beyond what was anticipated in the pricing of the products being hedged. This could result in an increase in claims and reserves related to those contracts, net of any reinsurance reimbursements or proceeds from our hedging programs. We may not be able to effectively mitigate, including through our hedging strategies, and we may sometimes choose based on economic considerations and other factors not to fully mitigate the equity market volatility of our portfolio. Equity market declines and volatility may also influence policyholder behavior, which may adversely impact the levels of surrenders, withdrawals and amounts of withdrawals of our annuity and variable life contracts or cause policyholders to reallocate a portion of their account balances to more conservative investment options (which may have lower fees), which could negatively impact our future profitability or increase our benefit obligations particularly if they were to remain in such options during an equity market increase. Market volatility can negatively impact the value of equity securities we hold for investment which could in turn reduce the statutory capital of certain of our insurance subsidiaries. In addition, equity market volatility could reduce demand for variable products relative to fixed products, lead to changes in estimates underlying our calculations of DAC that, in turn, could accelerate our DAC amortization and reduce our current earnings and result in changes to the fair value of our GMIB reinsurance contracts and GMxB liabilities, which could increase the volatility of our earnings. Lastly, periods of high market volatility or adverse conditions could decrease the availability or increase the cost of derivatives.

Interest rate fluctuations or prolonged periods of low interest rates may materially and adversely impact our business, consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

We are affected by the monetary policies of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve Board”) and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (collectively, with the Federal Reserve Board, the “Federal Reserve”) and other major central banks, including the unwinding of quantitative easing programs, as such policies may adversely impact the level of interest rates and, as discussed below, the income we earn on our investments or the level of product sales.

27

Some of our retirement and protection products and certain of our investment products, and our investment returns, are sensitive to interest rate fluctuations, and changes in interest rates may adversely affect our investment returns and results of operations, including in the following respects:

28

Recent periods have been characterized by low interest rates. A prolonged period during which interest rates remain low may result in greater costs associated with our variable annuity products with GMxB features; higher costs for some derivative instruments used to hedge certain of our product risks; or shortfalls in investment income on assets supporting policy obligations as our portfolio earnings decline over time, each of which may require us to record charges to increase reserves. In addition, an extended period of declining interest rates or a prolonged period of low 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. GAAP. Any future 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. In addition to compressing spreads and reducing net investment income, such an environment may cause certain policies to remain in force for longer periods than we anticipated in our pricing, potentially resulting in greater claims costs than we expected and resulting in lower overall returns on business in force.

We manage interest rate risk as part of our asset and liability management strategies, which include (i) maintaining an investment portfolio with diversified maturities that has a weighted average duration that is within an acceptable range of the duration of our estimated liability cash flow profile given our risk appetite and (ii) our hedging programs. For certain of our liability portfolios, it is not possible to invest assets to the full liability duration, thereby creating some asset/liability mismatch. Where a liability cash flow may exceed the maturity of available assets, as is the case with certain retirement products, we may support such liabilities with equity investments, derivatives or interest rate mismatch strategies. We take measures to manage the economic risks of investing in a changing interest rate environment, but we may not be able to mitigate the interest rate risk of our fixed income investments relative to our interest sensitive liabilities. Widening credit spreads, if not offset by equal or greater declines in the risk-free interest rate, would also cause the total interest rate payable on newly issued securities to increase, and thus would have the same effect as an increase in underlying interest rates.

Market conditions and other factors could materially and adversely affect our goodwill, which in turn could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Business and market conditions may impact the amount of goodwill we carry in our consolidated balance sheet related to the Investment Management and Research segment. To the extent that securities valuations are depressed for prolonged periods of time or market conditions deteriorate, or that AB experiences significant net redemptions, its AUM, revenues, profitability and unit price will be adversely affected. Although the price of an AB Holding Unit is just one factor in the calculation of fair value of AB Holding Units and AB Units, if AB Holding Unit price levels were to decline significantly, reaching the conclusion that fair value exceeds carrying value will, over time, become more difficult. In addition, control premiums, industry earnings multiples and discount rates are impacted by economic conditions. As a result, subsequent impairment tests may occur more frequently and be based on more negative assumptions and future cash flow projections, and may result in an impairment of goodwill. An impairment may result in a material charge to our earnings, which would materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Because the value of certain of our businesses is significantly impacted by such factors as the state of the financial markets and ongoing operating performance, significant deterioration or prolonged weakness in the financial markets or economy generally, or our failure to meet financial and operating targets, could adversely impact goodwill impairment testing and also may require more frequent testing for impairment. Any impairment would reduce the recorded goodwill amount with a corresponding charge to earnings, which could be material.

29

Adverse capital and credit market conditions may significantly affect our ability to meet liquidity needs, our access to capital and our cost of capital.

The capital and credit markets may experience, and have experienced, varying degrees of volatility and disruption. In some cases, the markets have exerted downward pressure on availability of liquidity and credit capacity for certain issuers. We need liquidity to pay our operating expenses (including potential hedging losses), interest expenses and any distributions on our capital stock and to capitalize our insurance subsidiaries. Without sufficient liquidity, we could be required to curtail our operations and our business would suffer. In addition, following this offering, AXA will not guarantee the indebtedness we issue or borrow or provide intra-company financing, and we will need to rely on the capital markets and third-party lenders.

While we expect that our future liquidity needs will be satisfied primarily through cash generated by our operations, borrowings from third parties and dividends and distributions from our subsidiaries, it is possible that the level of cash and securities we maintain when combined with expected cash inflows from investments and operations will not be adequate to meet our anticipated short-term and long-term benefit and expense payment obligations. If current resources are insufficient to satisfy our needs, we may access financing sources such as bank debt or the capital markets. The availability of additional financing would 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, interest rates, credit spreads, our credit ratings and credit capacity, as well as the possibility that our stockholders, customers or lenders could develop a negative perception of our long- or short-term financial prospects if we incur large investment losses or if the level of our business activity decreases due to a market downturn. Similarly, our access to funds may be rendered more costly or impaired if rating agencies downgrade our ratings or if regulatory authorities take certain actions against us. If we are unable to access capital markets to issue new debt, refinance existing debt or sell additional shares as needed, or if we are unable to obtain such financing on acceptable terms, our business could be adversely impacted.

Volatility in the capital markets may also consume liquidity as we pay hedge losses and meet collateral requirements related to market movements. Our subsidiaries maintain hedging programs to reduce their net economic exposure under long-term liabilities to risk factors such as interest rates and equity market levels. We expect these hedging programs to incur losses in certain market scenarios, creating a need to pay cash settlements or post collateral to counterparties. Although our liabilities will also be reduced in these scenarios, this reduction is not immediate, and so in the short term hedging losses will reduce available liquidity. Liquidity may also be consumed by increased required contributions to captive reinsurance trusts. For more details, see “—Risks Relating to Our Retirement and Protection Businesses—Risks Relating to Our Reinsurance and Hedging Programs—Our reinsurance arrangements with affiliated captives may be adversely impacted by changes to policyholder behavior assumptions under the reinsured contracts, the performance of their hedging program, their liquidity needs, their overall financial results and changes in regulatory requirements regarding the use of captives.”

Disruptions, uncertainty or volatility in the capital and credit markets 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 (i) delay raising capital, (ii) miss payments on our debt or reduce or eliminate dividends paid on our capital stock, (iii) issue capital of different types or under different terms than we would otherwise or (iv) incur a higher cost of capital than would prevail in a more stable market environment. This would have the potential to decrease both our profitability and our financial flexibility. Our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, statutory capital or rating agency capital position could be materially and adversely affected by disruptions in the financial markets.

Future changes in our credit ratings are possible, and any downgrade to our ratings is likely to increase our borrowing costs and limit our access to the capital markets and could be detrimental to our business relationships

30

with distribution partners. If this occurs, we may be forced to incur unanticipated costs or revise our strategic plans, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Risks Relating to Our Operations

As a holding company, Holdings depends on the ability of its subsidiaries to transfer funds to it to meet its obligations.

Holdings is the holding company for all of our operations and is a legal entity separate from its subsidiaries. Dividends and other distributions from Holdings’ subsidiaries are the principal sources of funds available to Holdings to pay principal and interest on its outstanding indebtedness, to pay corporate operating expenses, to pay any stockholder dividends, to repurchase stock and to meet its other obligations. The inability to receive dividends from our subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The subsidiaries of Holdings have no obligation to pay amounts due on the debt of Holdings or to make funds available to Holdings for such payments. For our insurance and other subsidiaries, the principal sources of liquidity are fee income, insurance premiums and investment income. The ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or other distributions to Holdings 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 Holdings will further depend on their ability to meet applicable regulatory standards and receive regulatory approvals, as discussed below under “—Risks Relating to Our Retirement and Protection Businesses—Risks Relating to the Products We Offer, Our Structure and Product Distribution—The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends and other distributions to Holdings is limited by state insurance laws, and our insurance subsidiaries may not generate sufficient statutory earnings or have sufficient statutory surplus to enable them to pay ordinary dividends.” For example, a significant portion of our economic ownership interest and all of our general partnership interest in AB are held directly or indirectly by our insurance company subsidiaries. Any dividends paid by AB to our insurance company subsidiaries will be subject to applicable regulatory restrictions on dividends of those subsidiaries and may not be available to Holdings.

If the ability of our insurance or non-insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions or payments to 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 sufficient cash by these means. This could materially and adversely affect our ability to pay our obligations.

Our historical consolidated financial data are not necessarily representative of the results we would have achieved as a stand-alone 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 stand-alone company during the periods presented or those we will achieve in the future. For example, we anticipate 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, Non-GAAP Operating ROE and Non-GAAP Operating ROC by segment, are not necessarily indicative of the performance we may achieve as a stand-alone 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. 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.

31

As a result of misstatements in our previously issued annual and interim financial statements due to the material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we have (i) restated the annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, (ii) restated the interim financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and for the six months ended June 30, 2017, (iii) revised the annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015 and (iv) revised the interim financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and for the six months ended June 30, 2016, in each case that were reported in the preliminary prospectus included in the first amendment of our registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC on February 14, 2018. On February 14, 2018, as a result of misstatements in our previously issued financial statements due to the material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we also (a) restated the interim financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and (b) revised the annual financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and the interim financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 2016, in each case that were reported in the preliminary prospectus included in our initial registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC on November 13, 2017. See “—Risks Relating to Our Common Stock and This Offering—During the course of preparing our U.S. GAAP financial statements for this offering, we identified two material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If our remediation of these material weaknesses is not effective, we may not be able to report our financial condition or results of operations accurately or on a timely basis, which could materially and adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the price of our common stock” and “—Risks Relating to Our Common Stock and This Offering—Fulfilling our obligations incident to being a public company, including with respect to the requirements of and related rules under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” and the Dodd-Frank Act, will be expensive and time-consuming, and any delays or difficulties in satisfying these obligations could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations and our stock price.”

Further misstatements in previously issued financial statements that we may discover in the future, as a result of such material weaknesses or any other reason, could result in further revisions or restatements of our financial statements and cause us to fail to meet our periodic reporting obligations with the SEC on a timely basis following this offering. This could reduce our ability to obtain financing, restrict our access to the capital markets, cause investors to lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and materially and adversely affect the price of our common stock.

We expect to incur indebtedness in connection with the Recapitalization, which will increase our costs, and the degree to which we will be leveraged following completion of the Reorganization Transactions and this offering could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

As of December 31, 2017, on a pro forma basis giving effect to the Reorganization Transactions, we would have had $5.2 billion of indebtedness (including approximately $3.8 billion of indebtedness from the issuance in April 2018 of $800 million aggregate principal amount of 3.900% Senior Notes due 2023, $1.5 billion aggregate principal amount of 4.350% Senior Notes due 2028 and $1.5 billion aggregate principal amount of 5.000% Senior Notes due 2048 (together, the “Notes”) and $300 million of term loan borrowings we expect to incur in connection with the Recapitalization), with a significant portion of the proceeds of such indebtedness being used to replace financing that is provided or guaranteed by AXA and its affiliates. We have historically relied upon AXA for financing and for other financial support functions. After this offering, we will not be able to rely on AXA’s earnings, assets or cash flow, and we will be responsible for servicing our own indebtedness, obtaining and maintaining sufficient working capital and paying any dividends. In addition, despite our indebtedness levels, we may be able to incur substantially more indebtedness under the terms of our debt agreements. Any such incurrence of additional indebtedness may increase the risks created by our level of indebtedness.

In February 2018, we entered into a $3.9 billion two-year senior unsecured delayed draw term loan agreement (the “two-year term loan agreement”), a $500 million three-year senior unsecured delayed draw term loan agreement (the “three-year term loan agreement” and, together with the two-year term loan agreement, the “term loan agreements”) and a $2.5 billion five-year senior unsecured revolving credit facility (the “revolving credit facility” and, together with the term loan agreements, the “Credit Facilities”). The Credit Facilities contain

32

certain administrative, reporting, legal and financial covenants, including requirements to maintain a specified minimum consolidated net worth and to maintain a ratio of indebtedness to total capitalization not in excess of a specified percentage, and limitations on the dollar amount of indebtedness that may be incurred by our subsidiaries and the dollar amount of secured indebtedness that may be incurred by the Company, which could restrict our operations and use of funds. Borrowings under the term loan agreements may be made only prior to this offering. In April 2018, we terminated the two-year term loan agreement, and, in May 2018, we intend to borrow $300 million under the three-year term loan agreement. In April 2018, we also issued the Notes to third party investors. See “Recapitalization” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

The right to borrow funds under the Credit Facilities is subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, including compliance with all covenants, and the ability to borrow thereunder is also subject to the continued ability of the lenders that are or will be parties to the Credit Facilities to provide funds. Failure to comply with the covenants in the Credit Facilities or fulfill the conditions to borrowings, or the failure of lenders to fund their lending commitments (whether due to insolvency, illiquidity or other reasons) in the amounts provided for under the terms of the Credit Facilities, would restrict the ability to access the Credit Facilities when needed and, consequently, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our ability to make payments on and to refinance our indebtedness, including the debt retained or incurred pursuant to the Recapitalization as well as any future indebtedness that we may incur, will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future from operations, financing or asset sales. Our ability to generate cash to meet our debt obligations in the future is sensitive to capital market returns, primarily due to our variable annuity business.

Overall, our ability to generate cash is subject to general economic, financial market, competitive, legislative, regulatory, client behavior and other factors that are beyond our control. We may not generate sufficient funds to service our debt and meet our business needs, such as funding working capital or the expansion of our operations. If we are not able to repay or refinance our debt as it becomes due, we may be forced to take unfavorable actions, including significant business and legal entity restructuring, limited new business investment, selling assets or dedicating an unsustainable level of our cash flow from operations to the payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness. In addition, our ability to withstand competitive pressures and to react to changes in the insurance industry could be impaired. In the event we default, the lenders who hold our debt could also accelerate amounts due, which could potentially trigger a default or acceleration of the maturity of our other debt.

In addition, the level of our indebtedness could put us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that are less leveraged than us. These competitors could have greater financial flexibility to pursue strategic acquisitions and secure additional financing for their operations. The level of our indebtedness could also impede our ability to withstand downturns in our industry or the economy in general.

A violation or breach of the representations, warranties or covenants contained in any of our Credit Facilities or letter of credit facilities could result in a default or event of default, which would require a waiver or amendment with the consent of our lenders. The failure to obtain any such waiver or amendment would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

In April 2018, we entered into waiver letter agreements with the lenders under each of our Credit Facilities and the letter of credit facilities, pursuant to which the lenders waived certain defaults or events of default under such facilities resulting from the restatement of our annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016, the restatement of our interim financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and for the six months ended June 30, 2017, the failure to furnish audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 on a timely basis as required by such facilities and related matters. There can be no assurance that our lenders will provide such waivers in the future. For a discussion of the restatement to our 2016 annual

33

financial statements, see note 1 to the notes to our annual financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. For a discussion of the material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, see “—Risks Relating to Our Common Stock and This Offering—During the course of preparing our U.S. GAAP financial statements for this offering, we identified two material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If our remediation of these material weaknesses is not effective, we may not be able to report our financial condition or results of operations accurately or on a timely basis, which could materially and adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the price of our common stock.”

Representations and warranties that prove to be incorrect when made or a breach of any of the covenants under any of the agreements under which AXA Equitable Life conducts its derivative transactions (its “Derivatives Agreements”) could result in an event of default under such agreements. Generally, if an event of default were to occur and be continuing under a Derivatives Agreements, the counterparty may designate an early termination date in respect of all outstanding transactions under the Derivatives Agreements. If an early termination date were designated by a substantial majority of AXA Equitable Life’s counterparties, AXA Equitable Life would have to implement changes to its hedging program. AXA Equitable Life restated its annual financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 and sought waiver letter agreements with the counterparties to its Derivatives Agreements to waive any events of default resulting from such restatement. AXA Equitable Life has obtained all such waivers.

Representations and warranties that prove to be incorrect when made or a breach of any of the covenants under any of our Credit Facilities or letter of credit facilities or any of our subsidiaries’ credit facilities or their Derivatives Agreements could result in a future default or event of default under such facilities. If a default or event of default were to occur and be continuing, we would not be permitted to borrow under our Credit Facilities or letter of credit facilities and our subsidiaries would not be permitted to borrow under their credit facilities or execute transactions under their Derivatives Agreements. In addition, until an event of default is cured or waived, the administrative agent under our Credit Facilities or our subsidiaries’ credit facilities, the lenders under the letter of credit facilities or the counterparties to the Derivatives Agreements would be entitled to take various actions, including the acceleration of amounts due under such agreements and the termination of commitments to extend credit. If our indebtedness were accelerated, we could not be certain that we will have sufficient funds available to pay the accelerated indebtedness or that we will have the ability to refinance the accelerated indebtedness on terms favorable to us or at all. A default or event of default under one of our Credit Facilities or letter of credit facilities or one of our subsidiaries’ credit facilities or Derivatives Agreements could also result in a cross-default under other material agreements. The inability to borrow under our Credit Facilities or letter of credit facilities, the inability of any of our subsidiaries to borrow under its credit facilities or execute derivatives transactions, the acceleration of indebtedness outstanding thereunder or a cross-default could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Elements of our business strategy are new and may not be effective in accomplishing our objectives, and we may not be able to improve our Non-GAAP Operating ROE as expected, including as a result of assumptions that may prove not to be accurate.

We intend to use our competitive strengths to grow our earnings base and actively manage our capital with the goal of generating attractive risk-adjusted returns for our stockholders. We will seek to achieve this growth by increasing sales through organic growth, by diversifying our product offerings and leveraging and expanding our distribution platform, executing on expense optimization initiatives, optimizing our General Account portfolio, actively managing risk to protect capital and returning capital to our stockholders. See “Business—Our Strategy.”

There can be no assurance that our strategy will be successful, as it may not adequately alleviate the risks relating to volatility of, and capital requirements with respect to, variable annuities and the risk of loss with respect to the use of derivatives in hedging transactions. We may not be able to reduce our operating expenses to the extent we expect or without impacting our ability to serve our clients and grow our businesses. In addition,

34

we may not be successful in increasing the return on our General Account meaningfully or at all. Moreover, our ability to pay dividends or repurchase shares is subject to certain restrictions and limitations, including as a result of regulatory requirements, which may prevent us from returning the expected or any capital to our stockholders for the indefinite future. For these reasons, no assurances can be given that we will be able to execute our strategy or that our strategy will achieve our objectives, including our financial goals.

We have established certain financial goals, including targeted Non-GAAP Operating ROE and return of capital to stockholders, that we believe measure the execution of our strategy, as set forth in “Business—Financial Goals.” These goals are based on a number of important assumptions, including assumptions regarding interest rates and market performance. Actual results related to these goals may vary depending on various factors, including actual capital market outcomes, changes in actuarial models or emergence of actual experience, changes in regulation as well as other risks and factors discussed in “Business—Financial Goals.” There can be no assurance that we will achieve those financial goals.

Failure to protect the confidentiality of customer information or proprietary business information could adversely affect our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our businesses and relationships with customers are dependent upon our ability to maintain the confidentiality of our and our customers’ proprietary business 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, including New York and Arizona, have enacted laws, which vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, to safeguard the privacy and security of personal information.

We retain confidential information in our information systems and in cloud-based systems (including customer transactional data and personal information about our customers, the employees and customers of our customers, and our own employees). We rely on commercial technologies and third parties to maintain the security of those systems. Anyone who is able to circumvent our security measures and penetrate our information systems, or the cloud-based systems we use, could access, view, misappropriate, alter or delete any information in the systems, including personally identifiable customer information and proprietary business information. It is possible that an employee, contractor or representative could, intentionally or unintentionally, disclose or misappropriate personal information or other confidential information. Our employees, distribution partners and other vendors may use portable computers or mobile devices which may contain similar information to that in our information systems, and these devices have been and can be lost, stolen or damaged. In addition, an increasing number of states require that customers be notified if a security breach results in the inappropriate disclosure of personally identifiable customer information. Any compromise of the security of our information systems, or the cloud-based systems we use, through cyber-attacks or for any other reason that results in inappropriate disclosure of personally identifiable customer information could damage our reputation in the marketplace, deter people from purchasing our products, subject us to significant civil and criminal liability and require us to incur significant technical, legal and other expenses any of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our own operational failures or those of service providers on which we rely, including failures arising out of human error, could disrupt our business, damage our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Weaknesses or failures in our internal processes or systems could lead to disruption of our operations, liability to clients, exposure to disciplinary action or harm to our reputation. Our business is highly dependent on our ability to process, on a daily basis, large numbers of transactions, many of which are highly complex, across numerous and diverse markets. These transactions generally must comply with client investment guidelines, as well as stringent legal and regulatory standards.

35

Weaknesses or failures within a vendor’s internal processes or systems, or inadequate business continuity plans, can materially disrupt our business operations. In addition, vendors may lack the necessary infrastructure or resources to effectively safeguard our confidential data. If we are unable to effectively manage the risks associated with such third-party relationships, we may suffer fines, disciplinary action and reputational damage.

Our obligations to clients require us to exercise skill, care and prudence in performing our services. The large number of transactions we process makes it highly likely that errors will occasionally occur. If we make a mistake in performing our services that causes financial harm to a client, we have a duty to act promptly to put the client in the position the client would have been in had we not made the error. The occurrence of mistakes, particularly significant ones, can have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our information systems may fail or their security may be compromised, which could materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our business is highly dependent upon the effective operation of our information systems. We also have arrangements in place with outside vendors and other service providers through which we share and receive information. We rely on these systems throughout our business for a variety of functions, including processing claims and applications, providing information to customers and third-party distribution firms, performing actuarial analyses and modeling, hedging, performing operational tasks ( e.g. , processing transactions and calculating net asset value) and maintaining financial records. Our information systems and those of our outside vendors and service providers may be vulnerable to physical or cyber-attacks, computer viruses or other computer related attacks, programming errors and similar disruptive problems. In some cases, such physical and electronic break-ins, cyber-attacks or other security breaches may not be immediately detected. In addition, we could experience a failure of one or 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. The failure of these systems for any reason could cause significant interruptions to our operations, which could result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, a failure of these systems could lead to the possibility of litigation or regulatory investigations or actions, including regulatory actions by state and federal governmental authorities. While we take preventative measures to avoid cyber-attacks and other security breaches, we cannot guarantee that such measures will successfully prevent an attack or breach.

Many of the software applications that we use in our business are licensed from, and supported, upgraded and maintained by, vendors. A suspension or termination of certain of these licenses or the related support, upgrades and maintenance could cause temporary system delays or interruptions. Additionally, technology rapidly evolves and we cannot guarantee that our competitors may not implement more advanced technology platforms for their products and services, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage and materially and adversely affect our results of operations and business prospects.

Our service providers, including service providers to whom we outsource certain of our functions, are also subject to the risks outlined above, any one of which could result in our incurring substantial costs and other negative consequences, including a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

On February 16, 2017, the NYDFS issued final Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies that require banks, insurance companies and other financial services institutions regulated by the NYDFS, including us, to, among other things, establish and maintain a cybersecurity policy “designed to protect consumers and ensure the safety and soundness of New York State’s financial services industry.” The regulation went into effect on March 1, 2017 and has transition periods ranging from 180 days to two years. We have a cybersecurity policy in place outlining our policies and procedures for the protection of our information systems

36

and information stored on those systems that comports with the regulation. In accordance with the regulation, our Chief Information Security Officer reports to the Board. In addition to New York’s cybersecurity regulation, the NAIC recently adopted the Insurance Data Security Model Law in October 2017. Under the model law, companies that are compliant with the NYDFS cybersecurity regulation are deemed also to be in compliance with the model law. The purpose of the model law is to establish standards for data security and for the investigation and notification of insurance commissioners of cybersecurity events involving unauthorized access to, or the misuse of, certain nonpublic information. We expect that states will begin adopting the model law, although it cannot be predicted whether or not, or in what form or when, they will do so. We are currently evaluating these regulations and their potential impact on our operations, and, with respect to the NYDFS regulations, we have already begun implementing compliance procedures for those portions of the regulation not subject to a transition period. Depending on our assessment of these and other potential implementation requirements, we and other financial services companies may be required to incur significant expense in order to comply with these regulatory mandates.

Central banks in Europe and Japan have in recent years begun to pursue negative interest rate policies, and the Federal Open Market Committee has not ruled out the possibility that the Federal Reserve would adopt a negative interest rate policy for the United States, at some point in the future, if circumstances so warranted. Because negative interest rates are largely unprecedented, there is uncertainty as to whether the technology used by financial institutions, including us, could operate correctly in such a scenario. Should negative interest rates emerge, our hardware or software, or the hardware or software used by our contractual counterparties and financial services providers, may not function as expected or at all. In such a case, our business, results of operations or financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

We face competition from other insurance companies, banks, asset managers and other financial institutions, which may adversely impact our market share and consolidated results of operations.

There is strong competition among insurers, banks, asset managers, brokerage firms and other financial institutions and financial services providers seeking clients for the types of products and services we provide. Competition is intense among a broad range of financial institutions and other financial service providers for retirement and other savings dollars. As a result, this competition makes it especially difficult to provide unique retirement and protection or asset management products because, once such products are made available to the public, they often are reproduced and offered by our competitors. As with any highly competitive market, competitive pricing structures are important. If competitors charge lower fees for similar products or strategies, we may decide to reduce the fees on our own products or strategies (either directly on a gross basis or on a net basis through fee waivers) in order to retain or attract customers. Such fee reductions, or other effects of competition, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Competition may adversely impact our market share and 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, have greater financial resources, have higher claims-paying or credit ratings, have better brand recognition or have more established relationships with clients than we do. We may also face competition from new market entrants or non-traditional or online competitors, which may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our ability to compete is dependent on numerous factors including, among others, the successful implementation of our strategy; our financial strength as evidenced, in part, by our financial and claims-paying ratings; new regulations or different interpretations of existing regulations; our access to diversified sources of distribution; our size and scale; our product quality, range, features/functionality and price; our ability to bring customized products to the market quickly; our technological capabilities; our ability to explain complicated products and features to our distribution channels and customers; crediting rates on our fixed products; the visibility, recognition and understanding of our brands in the marketplace; our reputation and quality of service; the tax-favored status certain of our products receive under current federal and state laws; and, with respect to

37

variable annuity and insurance products, mutual funds and other investment products, investment options, flexibility and investment management performance.

Many of our competitors also have been able to increase their distribution systems through mergers, acquisitions, partnerships or other 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 or a significant decline in sales. The competitive landscape in which we operate may be further affected by government sponsored programs or regulatory changes in the United States and similar governmental actions outside of the United States. 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 materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We may also face competition from new entrants into our markets, many of whom are leveraging digital technology that may challenge the position of traditional financial service companies, including us, by providing new services or creating new distribution channels.

Our inability to recruit, motivate and retain key employees and experienced and productive financial professionals may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our business depends on our ability to attract, motivate and retain highly skilled, and often highly specialized, technical, investment, managerial and executive personnel, and there is no assurance that we will be able to do so. Financial professionals associated with AXA Advisors, AXA Network and Bernstein financial advisors and our key employees are key factors driving our sales. AB’s professionals often maintain strong, personal relationships with investors in AB’s products and other members of the business community so their departure may cause AB to lose client accounts or result in fewer opportunities to win new business. Intense competition exists among insurers and other financial services companies for financial professionals and key employees. Companies compete for financial professionals principally with respect to compensation policies, products and sales support. Competition is particularly intense in the hiring and retention of experienced financial professionals. Our ability to incentivize our employees and financial professionals may be adversely affected by tax reform. We cannot provide assurances that we will be successful in our respective efforts to recruit, motivate and retain key employees and top financial professionals and the loss of such employees and professionals could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

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 U.S. GAAP and statutory financial statements and operation of internal controls. A loss of such employees, including as a result of shifting our real estate footprint away from the New York metropolitan area, could adversely impact our ability to execute key operational functions and could adversely affect our operational controls, including internal control over financial reporting.

Misconduct by our employees or financial professionals could expose us to significant legal liability and reputational harm.

Past or future misconduct by our employees, financial professionals, agents, intermediaries, representatives of our broker-dealer subsidiaries or employees of our vendors could result in violations of law by us or our subsidiaries, regulatory sanctions or serious reputational or financial harm and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. We employ controls and procedures designed to monitor

38

employees’ and financial professionals’ business decisions and to prevent us from taking excessive or inappropriate risks, including with respect to information security, but employees 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 employees or financial professionals take excessive or inappropriate risks, those risks could harm our reputation, subject us to significant civil or criminal liability and require us to incur significant technical, legal and other expenses.

We may engage in strategic transactions that could pose risks and present financial, managerial and operational challenges.

We may consider potential strategic transactions, including acquisitions, dispositions, mergers, consolidations, joint ventures and similar transactions, some of which may be material. These transactions may not be effective and could result in decreased earnings and harm to our competitive position. In addition, these transactions, if undertaken, may involve a number of risks and present financial, managerial and operational challenges, including:

Acquisitions also pose the risk that any business we acquire may lose customers or employees or could underperform relative to expectations. Additionally, the loss of investment personnel poses the risk that we may lose the AUM we expected to manage, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. Furthermore, strategic transactions may require us to increase our leverage or, if we issue shares to fund an acquisition, would dilute the holdings of the existing stockholders. Any of the above could cause us to fail to realize the benefits anticipated from any such transaction.

This prospectus contains financial goals, reserves and cash flow projections, which are based on certain assumptions and estimates, including as to market conditions, likely utilization of GMxB product features, overall lapse rates and mortality and longevity experience. Our actual experience in the future may deviate from our assumptions and estimates and may impact our reserves, earnings and capitalization and may increase the volatility of our results and expose us to increased counterparty risk.

Our financial goals and our reserves and cash flow projections set forth in this prospectus are based on certain assumptions and estimates, including as to market conditions, likely utilization of GMxB product features, overall lapse rates and mortality and longevity experience. These forward-looking statements are estimates and are not intended to predict the future financial performance of our variable annuity hedging program or to represent an opinion of market value.

We present a sensitivity analysis of the estimated cash flows, assets and liabilities associated with our in-force variable annuity business in this prospectus. See “Business—Segment Information—Individual Retirement—Supplemental Information on Our In-Force Variable Annuity Business.” The scenarios represented in our sensitivity analysis were selected for illustrative purposes only and they do not purport to encompass all of the many factors that may bear upon a market value and are based on a series of assumptions as to the future. It should be recognized that actual future results may differ from those shown, on account of changes in the operating and economic environments and natural variations in experience. The results shown are presented as of December 31, 2017, and no assurance can be given that future experience will be in line with the assumptions made.

39

The policyholder behavior assumptions embedded in our cash flow sensitivities represent our current best estimate for our in-force business. The following policyholder options are examples of those included in our sensitivities: lapse, partial lapse, dollar-for-dollar withdrawals and voluntary annuitizations. These assumptions are dynamic and vary depending on the NAR of the contract and our expectation of how a customer will utilize their embedded options across the various scenarios. A change in our cash flows could result to the extent emerging experience deviates from these policyholder assumptions.

Our business could be materially and adversely affected by the occurrence of a catastrophe, including natural or man-made disasters.

Any catastrophic event, such as pandemic diseases, terrorist attacks, floods, severe storms or hurricanes or computer cyber-terrorism, could have a material and adverse effect on our business in several respects:

In the event of a disaster, such as a natural catastrophe, epidemic, industrial accident, blackout, computer virus, terrorist attack, cyber-attack or war, unanticipated problems with our disaster recovery systems could have a material adverse impact on our ability to conduct business and on our results of operations and financial position, particularly if those problems affect our computer-based data processing, transmission, storage and retrieval systems and destroy valuable data. Our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our operations and the communities in which they are located. This may include a disruption involving electrical, communications, transportation or other services we may use or third parties with which we conduct business. If a disruption occurs in one location and our employees in that location are unable to occupy our offices or communicate with or travel to other locations, our ability to conduct business with and on behalf of our clients may suffer, and we may not be able to successfully implement contingency plans that depend on communication or travel. Furthermore, unauthorized access to our systems as a result of a security breach, the failure of our systems, or the loss of data could give rise to legal proceedings or regulatory penalties under laws protecting the privacy of personal information, disrupt operations and damage our reputation.

Our operations require experienced, professional staff. Loss of a substantial number of such persons or an inability to provide properly equipped places for them to work may, by disrupting our operations, adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, our property and business interruption insurance may not be adequate to compensate us for all losses, failures or breaches that may occur.

40

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property and may be subject to infringement claims by a third party.

We rely on a combination of contractual rights, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws to establish and protect our intellectual property. Third parties may infringe or misappropriate our intellectual property. The loss of intellectual property protection or the inability to secure or enforce the protection of our intellectual property assets could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to compete. Third parties may have, or may eventually be issued, patents or other protections that could be infringed by our products, methods, processes or services or could limit our ability to offer certain product features. In recent years, there has been increasing intellectual property litigation in the financial services industry challenging, among other things, product designs and business processes. 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 using and benefiting from certain patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets or licenses. Alternatively, we could be required to enter into costly licensing arrangements with third parties or implement a costly alternative. Any of these scenarios could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The insurance that we maintain may not fully cover all potential exposures.

We maintain property, business interruption, cyber, casualty and other types of insurance, but such insurance may not cover all risks associated with the operation of our business. Our coverage is subject to exclusions and limitations, including higher self-insured retentions or deductibles and maximum limits and liabilities covered. In addition, from time to time, various types of insurance may not be available on commercially acceptable terms or, in some cases, at all. We are potentially at additional risk if one or more of our insurance carriers fail. Additionally, severe disruptions in the domestic and global financial markets could adversely impact the ratings and survival of some insurers. Future downgrades in the ratings of enough insurers could adversely impact both the availability of appropriate insurance coverage and its cost. In the future, we may not be able to obtain coverage at current levels, if at all, and our premiums may increase significantly on coverage that we maintain. We can make no assurance that a claim or claims will be covered by our insurance policies or, if covered, will not exceed the limits of available insurance coverage, or that our insurers will remain solvent and meet their obligations. Currently, we are party to certain joint insurance arrangements with AXA; accordingly, if AXA ceases to own a majority of our outstanding common stock, we may need to obtain stand-alone insurance coverage, which may be at a higher price for the same coverage, which would increase our costs and may materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Changes in accounting standards could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the principles of which are revised from time to time. 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”). In the future, new accounting pronouncements, as well as new interpretations of existing accounting pronouncements, may have material adverse effects on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

FASB is working on several projects which could result in significant changes in U.S. GAAP, including how we account for our insurance contracts and financial instruments and how our financial statements are presented. The changes to U.S. GAAP 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.

In addition, AXA, our parent company, prepares consolidated financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). From time to time, AXA may be required to adopt new or

41

revised accounting standards issued by recognized authoritative bodies, including the International Accounting Standards Board. In the future, new accounting pronouncements, as well as new interpretations of existing accounting pronouncements, may have material adverse effects on AXA’s business, results of operations or financial condition which could impact the way we conduct our business (including, for example, which products we offer), our competitive position, our hedging program and the way we manage capital.

Certain of our administrative operations and offices are located internationally, subjecting us to various international risks and increased compliance and regulatory risks and costs.

We have various offices in other countries and certain of our administrative operations are located in India. In the future, we may seek to expand operations in India or other countries. As a result of these operations, we may be exposed to economic, operating, regulatory and political risks in those countries, such as foreign investment restrictions, substantial fluctuations in economic growth, high levels of inflation, volatile currency exchange rates and instability, including civil unrest, terrorist acts or acts of war, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The political or regulatory climate in the United States could also change such that it would no longer be lawful or practical for us to use international operations in the manner in which they are currently conducted. If we had to curtail or cease operations in India and transfer some or all of these operations to another geographic area, we would incur significant transition costs as well as higher future overhead costs that could adversely affect us.

In many foreign countries, particularly in those with developing economies, it may be common to engage in business practices that are prohibited by laws and regulations applicable to us, such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (the “FCPA”) and similar anti-bribery laws. Any violations of the FCPA or other anti-bribery laws by us, our employees, subsidiaries or local agents, could have a material adverse effect on our business and reputation and result in substantial financial penalties or other sanctions.

Our investment advisory agreements with clients, and our selling and distribution agreements with various financial intermediaries and consultants, are subject to termination or non-renewal on short notice.

AB derives most of its revenues pursuant to written investment management agreements (or other arrangements) with institutional investors, mutual funds and private wealth clients. In addition, as part of our variable annuity products, AXA Equitable FMG enters into written investment management agreements (or other arrangements) with mutual funds.

Generally, these investment management agreements, including AB’s agreements with AXA and its subsidiaries (AB’s largest client), are terminable without penalty at any time or upon relatively short notice by either party. For example, an investment management contract with an SEC-registered investment company (a “RIC”) may be terminated at any time, without payment of any penalty, by the RIC’s board of directors or by vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the RIC on not more than 60 days’ notice. The investment management agreements pursuant to which AB and AXA Equitable FMG manage RICs must be renewed and approved by the RICs’ boards of directors (including a majority of the independent directors) annually. A significant majority of the directors are independent. Consequently, there can be no assurance that the board of directors of each RIC will approve the investment management agreement each year, or will not condition its approval on revised terms that may be adverse to us.

Also, as required by the Investment Company Act, each investment advisory agreement with a RIC automatically terminates upon its assignment, although new investment advisory agreements may be approved by the RIC’s board of directors or trustees and stockholders. An “assignment” includes a sale of a control block of the voting stock of the investment adviser or its parent company. In the event of a future sale by AXA to a third party of a controlling interest in our common stock or if future sales by AXA of our common stock were deemed to be an actual or constructive assignment, these termination provisions could be triggered, which may adversely affect AB’s and AXA Equitable FMG’s ability to realize the value of their respective investment advisory

42

agreements. In addition, the actual or constructive transfer of our general partnership interest in AB would constitute an assignment.

The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Advisers Act”), may also require approval or consent of advisory contracts by clients in the event of an “assignment” of the contract (including a sale of a control block of the voting stock of the investment adviser or its parent company) or a change in control of the investment adviser. Were the sale of our common stock by AXA or another transaction to result in an assignment or change in control, the inability to obtain consent or approval from clients or stockholders of RICs or other clients could result in a significant reduction in advisory fees.

AXA has announced its intention to sell all of its interest in the Company over time with intended sales of shares of our common stock subsequent to this offering, subject to the 180-day lock-up period and market conditions. Prior to when such sales trigger an assignment as described above, we and AB will need to seek requisite consents or approvals for such assignment. We may not be successful in obtaining such consents or approvals which would result in terminations of the relevant contracts. Such terminations could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Similarly, we enter into selling and distribution agreements with securities firms, brokers, banks and other financial intermediaries that are terminable by either party upon notice (generally 30 days) and do not obligate the financial intermediary to sell any specific amount of our products. These intermediaries generally offer their clients investment products that compete with our products. In addition, certain institutional investors rely on consultants to advise them about choosing an investment adviser and some of AB’s services may not be considered among the best choices by these consultants. As a result, investment consultants may advise their clients to move their assets invested with AB to other investment advisers, which could result in significant net outflows.

Finally, AB’s Private Wealth Services relies on referrals from financial planners, registered investment advisers and other professionals. We cannot be certain that we will continue to have access to, or receive referrals from, these third parties.

Risks Relating to Credit, Counterparties and Investments

Our counterparties’ requirements to pledge collateral or make payments related to declines in estimated fair value of derivative contracts exposes us to counterparty credit risk and may adversely affect our liquidity.

We use derivatives and other instruments to help us mitigate various business risks. Our transactions with financial and other institutions generally specify the circumstances under which the parties are required to pledge collateral related to any decline in the market value of the derivatives contracts. If our counterparties fail or refuse to honor their obligations under these contracts, we could face significant losses to the extent collateral agreements do not fully offset our exposures and our hedges of the related risk will be ineffective. Such failure could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Additionally, the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and other regulations may increase the need for liquidity and for the amount of collateral assets in excess of current levels.

We may be materially and adversely affected by changes in the actual or perceived soundness or condition of other financial institutions and market participants.

A default by any financial institution or by a sovereign could lead to additional defaults by other market participants. The failure of any financial institution could disrupt securities markets or clearance and settlement systems and lead to a chain of defaults, because the commercial and financial soundness of many financial institutions may be closely related as a result of credit, trading, clearing or other relationships. Even the perceived

43

lack of creditworthiness of a financial institution may lead to market-wide liquidity problems and losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. This risk is sometimes referred to as “systemic risk” and may adversely affect financial intermediaries, such as clearing agencies, clearing houses, banks, securities firms and exchanges with which we interact on a daily basis. Systemic risk could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise new funding and on our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, such a failure could impact future product sales as a potential result of reduced confidence in the financial services industry. Regulatory changes implemented to address systemic risk could also cause market participants to curtail their participation in certain market activities, which could decrease market liquidity and increase trading and other costs.

Losses due to defaults, errors or omissions by third parties and affiliates, including outsourcing relationships, could materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We depend on third parties and affiliates that owe us money, securities or other assets to pay or perform under their obligations. These parties include the issuers whose securities we hold in our investment portfolios, borrowers under the mortgage loans we make, customers, trading counterparties, counterparties under swap and other derivatives contracts, reinsurers, 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 business, results of operations or financial condition.

We also depend on third parties and affiliates in other contexts, including as distribution partners. For example, in establishing the amount of the liabilities and reserves associated with the risks assumed in connection with reinsurance pools and arrangements, we rely on the accuracy and timely delivery of data and other information from ceding companies. In addition, as investment manager and administrator of several mutual funds, we rely on various affiliated and unaffiliated subadvisers to provide day-to-day portfolio management services for each investment portfolio.

We rely on various counterparties and other vendors to augment our existing investment, operational, financial and technological capabilities, but the use of a vendor does not diminish our responsibility to ensure that client and regulatory obligations are met. Default rates, credit downgrades and disputes with counterparties as to the valuation of collateral increase significantly in times of market stress. Disruptions in the financial markets and other economic challenges may cause our counterparties and other vendors to experience significant cash flow problems or even render them insolvent, which may expose us to significant costs and impair our ability to conduct business.

Losses associated with defaults or other failures by these third parties and outsourcing partners upon whom we rely could materially adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

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 or adversely affect our ability to 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 derivatives 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 financial crisis. The termination of 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.

44

Gross unrealized losses on fixed maturity and equity securities may be realized or result in future impairments, resulting in a reduction in our net earnings.

Fixed maturity and equity securities classified as available-for-sale are reported at 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 earnings. Our gross unrealized losses on fixed maturity and equity securities at December 31, 2017 were approximately $324 million. The accumulated change in estimated fair value of these available-for-sale securities is recognized in net earnings 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 and an impairment charge to earnings is taken. Realized losses or impairments may have a material adverse effect on our net earnings in a particular quarterly or annual period.

The occurrence of a major economic downturn, acts of corporate malfeasance, widening credit risk spreads, or other events that adversely affect the issuers or guarantors of securities we own or the underlying collateral of structured securities we own could cause the estimated fair value of our fixed maturity securities portfolio and corresponding earnings to decline and cause the default rate of the fixed maturity securities in our investment portfolio to increase. A ratings downgrade affecting issuers or guarantors of particular securities we hold, or similar trends that could worsen the credit quality of issuers, such as the corporate issuers of securities in our investment portfolio, could also have a similar effect. With economic uncertainty, credit quality of issuers or guarantors could be adversely affected. 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 insurance companies’ RBC levels. Levels of write-downs or impairments are impacted by intent to sell, or our assessment of the likelihood that we will be required to sell, fixed maturity securities, as well as our intent and ability to hold equity securities which have declined in value until recovery. Realized losses or impairments on these securities may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition in, or at the end of, any quarterly or annual period.

Some of our investments are relatively illiquid and may be difficult to sell, or to sell in significant amounts at acceptable prices, to generate cash to meet our needs.

We hold certain investments that may lack liquidity, such as privately placed fixed maturity securities, mortgage loans, commercial mortgage backed securities and alternative investments. In the past, even some of our very high quality investments experienced reduced liquidity during periods of market volatility or disruption. Although we seek to adjust our cash and short-term investment positions to minimize the likelihood that we would need to sell illiquid investments, if we were required to liquidate these investments on short notice or were required to post or return collateral, we may have difficulty doing so and be forced to sell them for less than we otherwise would have been able to realize.

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, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Defaults on our mortgage loans and volatility in performance may adversely affect our profitability.

A portion of our investment portfolio consists of mortgage loans on commercial and agricultural real estate. Our exposure to this risk stems from various factors, including the supply and demand of leasable commercial space, creditworthiness of tenants and partners, capital markets volatility, interest rate fluctuations, agricultural prices and farm incomes, which have recently been declining. Although we manage credit risk and market valuation risk for our commercial and agricultural real estate assets through geographic, property type and product type diversification and asset allocation, general economic conditions in the commercial and agricultural

45

real estate sectors will continue to influence the performance of these investments. These factors, which are beyond our control, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Our mortgage loans face default risk and are principally collateralized by commercial and agricultural properties. We establish valuation allowances for estimated impairments, which are based on loan risk characteristics, historical default rates and loss severities, real estate market fundamentals, such as property prices and unemployment, and economic outlooks, as well as other relevant factors (for example, local economic conditions). In addition, substantially all of our commercial and agricultural mortgage loans held-for-investment have balloon payment maturities. An increase in the default rate of our mortgage loan investments or fluctuations in their performance could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Further, any geographic or property type concentration of our mortgage loans may have adverse effects on our investment portfolio and consequently on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. While we seek to mitigate this risk 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 our investment portfolio to the extent that the portfolio is concentrated. Moreover, our ability to sell assets relating to a group of related assets may be limited if other market participants are seeking to sell at the same time.

Risks Relating to Our Retirement and Protection Businesses

Risks Relating to Our Reinsurance and Hedging Programs

GMxB features within certain of our products may decrease our earnings, decrease our capitalization, increase the volatility of our results, result in higher risk management costs and expose us to increased counterparty risk.

Certain of the variable annuity products we offer and certain in-force variable annuity products we offered historically, and certain variable annuity risks we assumed historically through reinsurance, include GMxB features. As of December 31, 2017, 78% of the variable annuity AV in our Individual Retirement segment was attributable to products that included GMxB features. We also offer index-linked variable annuities with guarantees against a defined floor on losses. GMxB features are designed to offer protection to policyholders against changes in equity markets and interest rates. Any such periods of significant and sustained negative or low Separate Account returns, increased equity volatility or reduced interest rates will result in an increase in the valuation of our liabilities associated with those products. In addition, if the Separate Account assets consisting of fixed income securities, which support the guaranteed index-linked return feature, are insufficient to reflect a period of sustained growth in the equity-index on which the product is based, we may be required to support such Separate Accounts with assets from our General Account and increase our liabilities. An increase in these liabilities would result in a decrease in our net income and depending on the magnitude of any such increase, could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, including our capitalization, as well as the financial strength ratings which are necessary to support our product sales.

Additionally, we make assumptions regarding policyholder behavior at the time of pricing and in selecting and using the GMxB features inherent within our products ( e.g. , use of option to annuitize within a GMIB product). An increase in the valuation of the liability could result to the extent emerging and actual experience deviates from these policyholder option use assumptions. We review our actuarial assumptions at least annually, including those assumptions relating to policyholder behavior, and update assumptions when appropriate. If we update our assumptions based on our actuarial assumption review in future years, we could be required to increase the liabilities we record for future policy benefits and claims to a level that may materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition which, in certain circumstances, could impair our solvency. In addition, we have in the past updated our assumptions on policyholder behavior, which has

46

negatively impacted our net income, and there can be no assurance that similar updates will not be required in the future. For example, in 2015, we updated our expectations of long-term lapse and partial withdrawal behavior for variable annuities with GMxB features based on emerging experience. In 2015, the post-tax impact of these assumption updates decreased net income by approximately $605 million.

In addition, capital markets hedging instruments may not effectively offset the costs of GMxB features or may otherwise be insufficient in relation to our obligations. Furthermore, we are subject to the risk that changes in policyholder behavior or mortality, combined with adverse market events, could produce economic losses not addressed by the risk management techniques employed. These factors, individually or collectively, may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, including net income, capitalization, financial condition or liquidity including our ability to receive dividends from our insurance operating companies.

Our reinsurance and hedging programs may be inadequate to protect us against the full extent of the exposure or losses we seek to mitigate.

Certain of our retirement and protection products contain GMxB features or minimum crediting rates. As of December 31, 2017, 78% of the variable annuity AV in our Individual Retirement segment was attributable to products that included GMxB features. Downturns in equity markets or reduced interest rates could result in an increase in the valuation of liabilities associated with such products, resulting in increases in reserves and reductions in net income. In the normal course of business, we seek to mitigate some of these risks to which our business is subject through our hedging and reinsurance programs. However, these programs cannot eliminate all of the risks, and no assurance can be given as to the extent to which such programs will be completely effective in reducing such risks. For example, in the event that reinsurers, derivatives or other counterparties or central clearinghouses do not pay balances due or do not post the required amount of collateral as required under our agreements, we still remain liable for the guaranteed benefits.

Reinsurance. We use reinsurance to mitigate a portion of the risks that we face, principally in certain of our in-force annuity and life insurance products with regard to mortality, and in certain of our annuity products with regard to a portion of the GMxB features. Under our reinsurance arrangements, other insurers assume a portion of the obligation to pay claims and related expenses to which we are subject. However, we remain liable as the direct insurer on all risks we reinsure and, therefore, are subject to the risk that our reinsurer is unable or unwilling to pay or reimburse claims at the time demand is made. The inability or unwillingness of a reinsurer to meet its obligations to us, or the inability to collect under our reinsurance treaties for any other reason, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We are continuing to use reinsurance to mitigate a portion of our risk on certain new life insurance sales. Prolonged or severe adverse mortality or morbidity experience could result in increased reinsurance costs, and ultimately may reduce the availability of reinsurance for future life insurance sales. If, for new sales, we are unable to maintain our current level of reinsurance or purchase new reinsurance protection in amounts that we consider sufficient, we would either have to be willing to accept an increase in our net exposures, revise our pricing to reflect higher reinsurance premiums or limit the amount of new business written on any individual life. If this were to occur, we may be exposed to reduced profitability and cash flow strain or we may not be able to price new business at competitive rates.

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, in some instances, we will not be able to pass the increased costs onto our customers and our profitability will be negatively impacted. Additionally, such a rate increase could result in our recapturing of the business, which may result in a need to maintain additional reserves, reduce reinsurance receivables and expose us to greater risks. While in recent years, we have faced a number of rate increase actions on in-force business, to date they have not had a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial

47

condition. However, there can be no assurance that the outcome of future rate increase actions would have no material effect. In addition, market conditions beyond our control determine the availability and cost of reinsurance for new business. If reinsurers raise the rates that they charge on new business, we may be forced to raise our premiums, which could have a negative impact on our competitive position.

Hedging Programs. We use a hedging program to mitigate a portion of the unreinsured risks we face in, among other areas, the GMxB features of our variable annuity products and minimum crediting rates on our variable annuity and life products from unfavorable changes in benefit exposures due to movements in the capital markets. In certain cases, however, we may not be able to apply these techniques to effectively hedge these risks because the derivatives markets in question may not be of sufficient size or liquidity or there could be an operational error in the application of our hedging strategy or for other reasons. The operation of our hedging programs is based on models involving numerous estimates and assumptions, including, among others, mortality, lapse, surrender and withdrawal rates and amounts of withdrawals, election rates, fund performance, equity market returns and volatility, interest rate levels and correlation among various market movements. There can be no assurance that ultimate actual experience will not differ materially from our assumptions, particularly, but not only, during periods of high market volatility, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition. For example, in the past, due to, among other things, levels of volatility in the equity and interest rate markets above our assumptions as well as deviations between actual and assumed surrender and withdrawal rates, gains from our hedging programs did not fully offset the economic effect of the increase in the potential net benefits payable under the GMxB features offered in certain of our products. If these circumstances were to re-occur in the future or if, for other reasons, results from our hedging programs in the future do not correlate with the economic effect of changes in benefit exposures to customers, we could experience economic losses which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Additionally, our strategies may result in under or over-hedging our liability exposure, which could result in an increase in our hedging losses and greater volatility in our earnings and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

For further discussion, see below “—Risks Relating to Estimates, Assumptions and Valuations—Our risk management policies and procedures may not be adequate to identify, monitor and manage risks, which may leave us exposed to unidentified or unanticipated risks, which could negatively affect our businesses or result in losses.”

Our reinsurance arrangements with affiliated captives may be adversely impacted by changes to policyholder behavior assumptions under the reinsured contracts, the performance of their hedging program, their liquidity needs, their overall financial results and changes in regulatory requirements regarding the use of captives.

ACS Life reinsures to its wholly owned direct subsidiary CS Life RE a 100% quota share of all the GMxB riders historically assumed by ACS Life from various unaffiliated insurers and reinsurers. It is not anticipated that the reinsurance arrangement between ACS Life and CS Life RE will change materially in connection with the Reorganization.

The reinsurance arrangements with CS Life RE and EQ AZ Life Re Company (collectively, the “Affiliated Captives”) provide important capital management benefits to AXA Equitable Life, MLOA, USFL and ACS Life (collectively, the “Affiliated Cedants”). Under applicable statutory accounting rules, the Affiliated Cedants are currently, and will in the future be, entitled to a credit in their calculations of reserves for amounts reinsured to the Affiliated Captives, to the extent the Affiliated Captives hold assets in trust or provide letters of credit or other financing acceptable to the respective domestic regulators of the Affiliated Cedants. Under the reinsurance documentation, the Affiliated Captives are required to or will be permitted to transfer assets from the trusts under certain circumstances. The level of assets required to be maintained in the trust fluctuates based on market and interest rate movements, age of the policies, mortality experience and policyholder behavior ( i.e. , the exercise or

48

non-exercise of rights by policyholders under the contracts including, but not limited to, lapses and surrenders, withdrawal rates and amounts and contributions). Increasing reserve requirements may necessitate that additional assets be placed in trust or securing additional letters of credit, which could impact the liquidity of the Affiliated Captives.

In addition, like AXA Equitable Life, CS Life RE employs a hedging strategy that uses derivatives contracts and fixed income investments that are collectively managed to help reduce the economic impact of unfavorable market-driven changes to reserves. The terms of these contracts require CS Life RE to post initial margin to a clearinghouse and cash settle hedges when there is a decline in the estimated fair value of specified instruments. This would occur, for example, as interest rates or equity markets rise. When this happens, the terms of the reinsurance agreement may not always allow CS Life RE to restore liquidity by withdrawing assets from the trust.

While management believes that CS Life RE has and will have adequate liquidity and credit facilities to deal with a range of market scenarios and increasing reserve requirements, larger market movements, including but not limited to a significant increase in interest rates, could require CS Life RE to post more collateral or cash settle more hedges than its own resources would permit. While management of CS Life RE intends to take all reasonable steps to maintain adequate sources of liquidity to meet its obligations, there can be no assurance that such sources will be available in all market scenarios. The potential inability of CS Life RE to post such collateral or cash settle such hedges could cause CS Life RE to reduce the size of its hedging programs, which could ultimately adversely impact CS Life RE’s ability to perform under the reinsurance arrangements and ACS Life’s ability to obtain full statutory reserve credit for the reinsurance arrangements.

In 2014, the NAIC considered a proposal to require states to apply NAIC accreditation standards, applicable to traditional insurers, to captive reinsurers. In 2015, the NAIC adopted such a proposal, in the form of a revised preamble to the NAIC accreditation standards (the “Standard”), with an effective date of January 1, 2016 for application of the Standard to captives that assume level premium term life insurance (“XXX”) business and universal life with secondary guarantees (“AXXX”) business. The Standard applies prospectively, so that XXX/AXXX captives will not be subject to the Standard if reinsured policies were issued prior to January 1, 2015 and ceded so that they were part of a reinsurance arrangement as of December 31, 2014, as is the case for the XXX business and AXXX business reinsured by our current and future Affiliated Captives. The NAIC left for future action the application of the Standard to captives that assume variable annuity business. See “—Legal and Regulatory Risks—Our retirement and protection businesses are heavily regulated, and changes in regulation and in supervisory and enforcement policies may limit our growth and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.”

We cannot predict what revisions, if any, will be made to the Standard, if adopted for variable annuity captives, or to proposed revisions to NAIC reserve and capital requirements for variable annuity guarantees, after ongoing NAIC deliberations and as states consider their adoption or undertake their implementation. It is also unclear whether these or other proposals will be adopted by the NAIC or the NYDFS, or what additional actions and regulatory changes will result from the continued scrutiny and reform efforts by the NAIC and regulatory bodies with respect to captive reinsurance. Any regulatory action that limits our ability to achieve desired benefits from the use of, or materially increases our cost of using, captive reinsurance and applies retroactively, including, if the Standard is adopted as proposed, without grandfathering provisions for existing captive variable annuity reinsurance entities, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

In addition, a number of lawsuits have been filed against insurance companies, including AXA Equitable Life, over the use of captive reinsurers. The outcome of this litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The inability to secure additional required capital or liquidity in the circumstances described above could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

49

Risks Relating to the Products We Offer, Our Structure and Product Distribution

Our retirement and protection products contain numerous features and are subject to extensive regulation and failure to administer or meet any of the complex product requirements may adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our retirement and protection 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, among others, state insurance regulators, state securities administrators, state banking authorities, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), the U.S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

For example, U.S. federal income tax law imposes requirements relating to annuity and insurance product design, administration and investments that are conditions for beneficial tax treatment of such products under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Additionally, state and federal securities and insurance laws impose requirements relating to annuity and insurance 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, litigation, harm to our reputation or interruption of our operations. If this were to occur, it could adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We and certain of our subsidiaries are required to file periodic and other reports within certain time periods imposed by U.S. federal securities laws, rules and regulations. Failure to file such reports within the designated time period, failure to accurately report our financial condition or results of operations, or restatements of historical financial statements could require our insurance subsidiaries, including AXA Equitable Life and MLOA, to curtail or cease sales of certain of our variable annuity products and other variable insurance products or delay the launch of new products or new features, which could cause a significant disruption in the business of our insurance subsidiaries. If our affiliated and third party distribution platforms are required to curtail or cease sales of our products, we may lose shelf space for our products indefinitely, even once we are able to resume sales. For example, AXA Equitable Life failed to timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2017 and required an extension of the due date under Rule 12b-25 for its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. If AXA Equitable Life were to fail to file any future periodic or other report with the SEC on a timely basis, it would be required to cease sales of SEC-registered variable annuity products until such time that new registration statements could be filed with the SEC and declared effective. Any curtailment or cessation of sales of our variable insurance products could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Many of our products and services are complex and are frequently sold through intermediaries. In particular, our insurance business is 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, as well as lead to potential regulatory actions or litigation.

The amount of statutory capital that we have and the amount of statutory capital we must hold to meet our statutory capital requirements and our financial strength and credit ratings can vary significantly from time to time.

Statutory accounting standards and capital and reserve requirements for our insurance subsidiaries are prescribed by the applicable state insurance regulators and the NAIC. State insurance regulators have established regulations that govern reserving requirements and provide minimum capitalization requirements based on RBC ratios for life insurance companies. This RBC formula establishes capital requirements relating to insurance,

50

business, asset and interest rate risks, including equity, interest rate and expense recovery risks associated with variable annuities and group annuities that contain death benefits or certain living benefits.

In any particular year, statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the amount of statutory income or losses we generate (which itself is sensitive to equity market and credit market conditions), changes in interest rates, changes to existing RBC formulas, changes in reserves, the amount of additional capital we must hold to support business growth, changes in equity market levels and the value and credit rating of certain fixed income and equity securities in our investment portfolio, including our investment in AB, which could in turn reduce the statutory capital of certain of our insurance subsidiaries. Additionally, state insurance regulators have significant leeway in how to interpret existing regulations, which could further impact the amount of statutory capital or reserves that we must maintain. AXA Equitable Life is primarily regulated by the NYDFS, which from time to time has taken more stringent positions than other state insurance regulators on matters affecting, among other things, statutory capital or reserves. In certain circumstances, particularly those involving significant market declines, the effect of these more stringent positions may be that our financial condition appears to be worse than competitors who are not subject to the same stringent standards, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Moreover, rating agencies may implement changes to their internal models that have the effect of increasing or decreasing the amount of capital our insurance subsidiaries must hold in order to maintain their current ratings. To the extent that our statutory capital resources are deemed to be insufficient to maintain a particular rating by one or more rating agencies, our insurance subsidiaries’ financial strength and credit ratings might be downgraded by one or more rating agencies. There can be no assurance that any of our insurance subsidiaries will be able to maintain its current RBC ratio in the future or that its RBC ratio will not fall to a level that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

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, rehabilitation, or seizure or liquidation. Any corrective action imposed could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. A decline in RBC ratios, whether or not it results in a failure to meet applicable RBC requirements, may still limit the ability of an insurance subsidiary to make dividends or distributions to us, could result in a loss of customers or new business, and could be a factor in causing ratings agencies to downgrade the insurer’s financial strength ratings, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Changes in statutory reserve or other requirements or the impact of adverse market conditions could result in changes to our product offerings that could materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Changes in statutory reserve or other requirements, increased costs of hedging, other risk mitigation techniques and financing and other adverse market conditions could result in certain products becoming less profitable or unprofitable. These circumstances may cause us to modify or eliminate certain features of various products or cause the suspension or cessation of sales of certain products in the future. Any modifications to products that we may make could result in certain of our products being less attractive or competitive. This could adversely impact sales, which could negatively impact AXA Advisors’ ability to retain its sales personnel and our ability to maintain our distribution relationships. This, in turn, may materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

A downgrade in our financial strength and claims-paying ratings could adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Claims-paying and financial strength ratings are important factors in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. They indicate the rating agencies’ opinions regarding an insurance company’s ability to

51

meet policyholder obligations and are important to maintaining public confidence in our products and our competitive position. A downgrade of our ratings or those of AXA Equitable Life, MLOA or AXA Financial could adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition by, among other things, reducing new sales of our products, increasing surrenders and withdrawals from our existing contracts, possibly requiring us to reduce prices or take other actions for many of our products and services to remain competitive, or adversely affecting our ability to obtain reinsurance or obtain reasonable pricing on reinsurance. A downgrade in our ratings may also adversely affect our cost of raising capital or limit our access to sources of capital. Upon announcement of AXA’s plan to pursue this offering, AXA Equitable Life’s and Financial’s ratings were downgraded by AM Best, S&P and Moody’s. We may face additional downgrades as a result of this offering or future sales of our common stock by AXA.

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 business, results of operations or financial condition. 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.

The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends and other distributions to Holdings is limited by state insurance laws, and our insurance subsidiaries may not generate sufficient statutory earnings or have sufficient statutory surplus to enable them to pay ordinary dividends.

The payment of dividends and other distributions to Holdings by its insurance subsidiaries, including its captive reinsurers, is regulated by state insurance laws and regulations. These restrictions may limit or prevent our insurance subsidiaries from making dividend or other payments to Holdings and, as discussed above in “—Risks Relating to Our Consolidated Business—Risks Relating to Our Operations—As a holding company, Holdings depends on the ability of its subsidiaries to transfer funds to it to meet its obligations,” may limit or prevent Holdings from making payments to third parties, stockholder dividends and share repurchases.

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 earned surplus and the prior year’s statutory income and policyholder surplus. In general, dividends may be paid only from earned surplus (typically defined as available or unassigned surplus, subject to possible adjustments) which is derived from realized net profits on the company’s business. Dividends up to specified levels are generally considered ordinary and generally may be made without prior regulatory approval. Meanwhile, dividends paid from sources other than earned surplus or in larger amounts, often called “extraordinary dividends,” are generally subject to approval by the insurance commissioner of the relevant state of domicile.

Under New York insurance law applicable to AXA Equitable Life, a domestic stock life insurer may not, without prior approval of the NYDFS, pay a dividend to its stockholders exceeding an amount calculated under one of two standards. The first standard allows payment of an ordinary dividend out of the insurer’s earned surplus (as reported on the insurer’s most recent annual statement) up to a limit calculated pursuant to a statutory formula, provided that the NYDFS is given notice and opportunity to disapprove the dividend if certain qualitative tests are not met (the “Earned Surplus Standard”). The second standard allows payment of an ordinary dividend up to a limit calculated pursuant to a different statutory formula without regard to the insurer’s earned surplus (the “Alternative Standard”). Dividends exceeding these prescribed limits require the insurer to file a notice of its intent to declare the dividends with the NYDFS and prior approval or non-disapproval from the NYDFS.

52

Applying the formulas under these standards and the definition of earned surplus used in the Earned Surplus Standard, AXA Equitable Life could pay ordinary dividends of up to approximately $1.2 billion during 2018 and could have paid ordinary dividends of up to approximately $1.2 billion during 2017. However, in 2016, the NYDFS issued a circular letter to its regulated insurance companies stating that ordinary dividends which exceed an insurer’s positive unassigned funds (as reported in the insurer’s most recent annual statement) may fail one of the qualitative tests imposed by the Earned Surplus Standard. Given the circular letter, it is possible that the NYDFS could limit the amount of ordinary dividends declared by AXA Equitable Life under the Earned Surplus Standard to the amount of AXA Equitable Life’s positive unassigned funds. As of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, AXA Equitable Life’s unassigned funds reported on its statutory financial statements were approximately $1.9 billion and $0.9 billion, respectively.

In the second quarter of 2017, AXA Equitable Life agreed with the NYDFS that until: (i) it files a plan with respect to the management of its variable annuity business ceded to AXA RE Arizona with the NYDFS and (ii) fully implements that plan (the “DFS Conditions”), it will pay ordinary dividends only under the Earned Surplus Standard. 

We have confirmed that the completion of the GMxB Unwind, which occurred on April 12, 2018, satisfied the DFS Conditions, and that, going forward, satisfaction of either the Earned Surplus Standard or Alternative Standard will determine AXA Equitable Life’s ability to pay ordinary dividends.

Under the insurance laws applicable to our life insurance subsidiaries domiciled in Arizona and Colorado, 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 lesser 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 ended the preceding December 31, in each case determined in accordance with statutory accounting principles. Under insurance laws applicable to our life insurance subsidiaries domiciled in Delaware and Ohio, an extraordinary dividend or distribution is defined as one that, together with other dividends and distributions made within the preceding twelve months, exceeds the greater of (1) and (2) above. As a result, under applicable domiciliary insurance regulations, certain of our life insurance subsidiaries must deduct any distributions or dividends paid in the preceding twelve months in calculating dividend capacity. Insurance laws applicable to our Delaware-domiciled property and casualty insurance subsidiary, which was removed from Holdings’ ownership, are similar. In addition, although prior regulatory approval may not be required by law for the payment of dividends up to the limitations described above, in practice, the insurance subsidiaries would typically discuss any dividend payments with the applicable regulatory authority prior to payment.

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. More stringent restrictions on dividend payments may 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 Holdings by its insurance subsidiaries without prior approval by regulatory authorities. We may also choose to change the domicile of one or more of our insurance subsidiaries or captive insurance subsidiaries, in which case we would be subject to the restrictions imposed under the laws of that new domicile, which could be more restrictive than those to which we are currently subject. 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.

Our life insurance subsidiaries domiciled in New York have ordinary dividend capacity for 2018. Our insurance subsidiaries domiciled in Arizona, Colorado, Ohio and Delaware do not have capacity at this time to make ordinary dividend payments to Holdings without domiciliary regulatory approval, which can be granted or withheld in the discretion of the regulator.

53

If any of our insurance subsidiaries subject to the positive earned surplus requirement do not succeed in building up sufficient positive earned surplus to have ordinary dividend capacity in future years, such subsidiary would be unable to pay dividends or distributions to our holding company absent prior approval of its domiciliary insurance regulator, which can be granted or withheld in the discretion of the regulator. In addition, we may seek extraordinary dividends or distributions, but there can be no assurance that our insurance subsidiaries will receive approval for extraordinary distribution payments in the future.

The payment of dividends by our current and future captive reinsurance subsidiaries is regulated by 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, the Arizona Department of Insurance, that it can meet its obligations.

In addition, a significant portion of our economic ownership interest and all of our general partnership interest in AB are held directly or indirectly by our insurance company subsidiaries. Any dividends paid by AB to our insurance company subsidiaries will be subject to applicable regulatory restrictions on dividends and may not be available to Holdings.

The ability of financial professionals associated with us to sell our competitors’ products could result in reduced sales of our products and revenues.

Most of the financial professionals associated with AXA Advisors and AXA Network are permitted to sell products from competing unaffiliated insurance companies. If our competitors offer products that are more attractive than ours, or pay higher commission rates to the sales representatives than we do, these representatives may concentrate their efforts in selling our competitor’s products instead of ours. To the extent the financial professionals sell our competitors’ products rather than our products, we may experience reduced sales and revenues.

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

We distribute certain products under agreements with third-party 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 third-party distributors. An interruption or significant change in certain key relationships could materially and adversely affect our ability to market our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or 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 third-party distributors, which could reduce sales.

Furthermore, an interruption in certain key relationships could materially and adversely affect our ability to market our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. The sale of shares by AXA in this offering could prompt some third parties to re-price, modify or terminate their distribution or vendor relationships with us due to a perceived uncertainty related to this offering or our business. An interruption or significant change in certain key relationships could materially and adversely affect our ability to market our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Distributors may elect to suspend, alter, reduce or terminate their distribution

54

relationships with us for various reasons, including uncertainty related to this offering, changes in our distribution strategy, adverse developments in our business, adverse rating agency actions or concerns about market-related risks.

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

Because our products are distributed through unaffiliated firms, we may not be able to monitor or control the manner of their distribution despite our training and compliance programs. If our products are distributed by such firms in an inappropriate manner, or to customers for whom they are unsuitable, we may suffer reputational and other harm to our business.

Consolidation of third-party distributors of retirement and protection products may adversely affect the insurance industry and the profitability of our business.

The insurance industry distributes many of its products through other financial institutions such as banks and broker-dealers. An increase in the consolidation activity of bank and other financial services companies may create firms with even stronger competitive positions, negatively impact the industry’s sales, increase competition for access to third-party distributors, result in greater distribution expenses and impair our ability to market retirement and protection products to our current customer base or expand our customer base. We may also face competition from new market entrants or non-traditional or online competitors, which may have a material adverse effect on our business. Consolidation of third-party distributors or other industry changes may also increase the likelihood that third-party distributors will try to renegotiate the terms of any existing selling agreements to terms less favorable to us.

Risks Relating to Estimates, Assumptions and Valuations

Our risk management policies and procedures may not be adequate to identify, monitor and manage risks, which may leave us exposed to unidentified or unanticipated risks, which could negatively affect our businesses, results of operations or financial condition.

Our policies and procedures, including hedging programs, to identify, monitor and manage risks may not be adequate or fully effective. Many of our methods of managing risk and exposures are based upon our use of historical market behavior or statistics based on historical models. As a result, these methods will not predict future exposures, which could be significantly greater than the historical measures indicate, such as the risk of terrorism or pandemics causing a large number of deaths. Other risk management methods depend upon the evaluation of information regarding markets, clients, catastrophe occurrence or other matters that is publicly available or otherwise accessible to us, which 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 and changes in mortality and longevity. We seek to control these risks by, among other things, entering into reinsurance contracts and through our various hedging programs. 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

55

incorrect or prove to be inadequate. Accordingly, our hedging activities may not have the desired beneficial impact on our business, results of operations or financial condition. As U.S. GAAP accounting differs from the methods used to determine regulatory reserves and rating agency capital requirements, our hedging program tends to create earnings volatility in our U.S. 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.

Our reserves could be inadequate due to differences between our actual experience and management’s estimates and assumptions.

We establish and carry reserves to pay future policyholder benefits and claims. Our reserve requirements for our direct and reinsurance assumed business are calculated based on a number of estimates and assumptions, including estimates and assumptions related to future mortality, morbidity, longevity, interest rates, future equity performance, reinvestment rates, persistency, claims experience and policyholder elections ( i.e. , the exercise or non-exercise of rights by policyholders under the contracts). Examples of policyholder elections include, but are not limited to, lapses and surrenders, withdrawals and amounts of withdrawals, and contributions and the allocation thereof. The assumptions and estimates used in connection with the reserve estimation process are inherently uncertain and involve the exercise of significant judgment. We review the appropriateness of reserves and the underlying assumptions at least annually and update assumptions when appropriate. We cannot, however, determine with precision the amounts that we will pay for, or the timing of payment of, actual benefits and claims or whether the assets supporting the policy liabilities will grow to the level assumed prior to payment of benefits or claims. Our claim costs could increase significantly and our reserves could be inadequate if actual results differ significantly from our estimates and assumptions. If so, we will be required to increase reserves or reduce DAC, which could materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our profitability may decline if mortality, longevity or persistency or other experience differ significantly from our pricing expectations or reserve assumptions.

We set prices for many of our retirement and protection products based upon expected claims and payment patterns, using assumptions for mortality rates of our policyholders. In addition to the potential effect of natural or man-made disasters, significant changes in mortality, longevity and 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 retirement and protection 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 retirement and protection products is also based in part upon expected persistency of these products, which is the probability that a policy or contract will remain in force from one period to the next. Persistency within our variable annuity products may be significantly and adversely impacted by the value of GMxB features contained in many of our variable annuity products being higher than current AV in light of poor equity market performance or extended periods of low interest rates as well as other factors. Results may also vary based on differences between actual and expected premium deposits and withdrawals for these products. Persistency within our life insurance products may be significantly impacted by, among other things, conditions in the capital markets, the changing needs of our policyholders, the manner in which a product is marketed or illustrated and competition, including the availability of new products and policyholder perception of us, which may be negatively impacted by adverse publicity.

56

Significant deviations in actual experience from our pricing assumptions could have an adverse effect on the profitability of our products. For example, if policyholder elections differ from the assumptions we use in our pricing, our profitability may decline. 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 variable annuity and life insurance products permit us to increase premiums or adjust other charges and credits during the life of the policy or contract, the adjustments permitted under the terms of the policies or contracts may not be sufficient to maintain profitability. Many of our variable annuity and life insurance products do not permit us to increase premiums or adjust other charges and credits or limit those adjustments during the life of the policy or contract. Even if we are permitted under the contract to increase premiums or adjust other charges and credits, we may not be able to do so due to litigation, point of sale disclosures, regulatory reputation and market risk or due to actions by our competitors. In addition, the development of a secondary market for life insurance, including life settlements or “viaticals” and investor owned life insurance, and to a lesser extent third-party investor strategies in the variable annuity market, could adversely affect the profitability of existing business and our pricing assumptions for new business.

We may be required to accelerate the amortization of DAC, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

DAC represents policy acquisition costs that have been capitalized. Capitalized costs associated with DAC are amortized in proportion to actual and estimated gross profits, gross premiums or gross revenues depending on the type of contract. On an ongoing basis, we test the DAC recorded on our balance sheets to determine if the amount is recoverable under current assumptions. In addition, we regularly review the estimates and assumptions underlying DAC. 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, lapse and annuitization 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 or persist, we could be required to accelerate the amortization of DAC, which would result in a charge to earnings. Such adjustments could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We use financial models that rely on a number of estimates, assumptions and projections that are inherently uncertain and which may contain errors.

We use models in our hedging programs and many other aspects of our operations, including but not limited to, product development and pricing, capital management, the estimation of actuarial reserves, the amortization of DAC, the fair value of the GMIB reinsurance contracts and the valuation of certain other assets and liabilities. These models rely on estimates, assumptions and projections that are inherently uncertain and involve the exercise of significant judgment. Due to the complexity of such models, it is possible that errors in the models could exist and our controls could fail to detect such errors. Failure to detect such errors could materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The determination of the amount of allowances and impairments taken on our investments is subjective and could materially impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The determination of the amount of allowances and impairments vary by investment type and is based upon our evaluation and assessment of known and inherent risks associated with the respective asset class.

57

Management updates its evaluations regularly and reflects changes in allowances and impairments in operations as such evaluations are revised. There can be no assurance that management’s judgments, as reflected in our financial statements, will ultimately prove to be an accurate estimate of the actual and eventual diminution in realized value. Historical trends may not be indicative of future impairments or allowances. Furthermore, additional impairments may need to be taken or allowances provided for in the future that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We define fair value generally as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability. When available, the estimated fair value of securities is based on quoted prices in active markets that are readily and regularly obtainable; these generally are the most liquid holdings and their valuation does not involve management judgment. When quoted prices in active markets are not available, we estimate fair value based on market standard valuation methodologies, including discounted cash flow methodologies, matrix pricing, or other similar techniques. For securities with reasonable price transparency, the significant inputs to these valuation methodologies either are observable in the market or can be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data. When the volume or level of activity results in little or no price transparency, significant inputs no longer can be supported by reference to market observable data but instead must be based on management’s estimation and judgment. Valuations may result in estimated fair values which vary significantly from the amount at which the investments may ultimately be sold. Further, rapidly changing and unprecedented credit and equity market conditions could materially impact the valuation of securities as reported within our financial statements and the period-to-period changes in estimated fair value could vary significantly. Decreases in the estimated fair value of securities we hold may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Risks Relating to Our Investment Management and Research Business

AB’s revenues and results of operations depend on the market value and composition of AB’s AUM, which can fluctuate significantly based on various factors, including many factors outside of its control.

We derive most of our revenues related to AB’s business from investment advisory and services fees, which typically are calculated as a percentage of the value of AUM as of a specified date, or as a percentage of the value of average AUM for the applicable billing period, and vary with the type of investment service, the size of the account and the total amount of assets AB manages for a particular client. The value and composition of AB’s AUM can be adversely affected by several factors, including:

Beyond the United States, economic recovery is unfolding at varying rates throughout the developed and emerging markets. Europe, Asia and the Far East and emerging markets equities have earned high returns year-to-date as a result of improving corporate earnings, greater regulatory clarity, constructive outcomes of various European elections and stabilization in economic growth among the emerging markets. Despite this generally positive backdrop, uncertainty remains over issues like the potential for rising inflation in the United States and President Trump’s ability to pursue his promised pro-growth policies, the impact of Brexit and ongoing concerns about geopolitics, commodity prices and the sustainability of growth in the emerging markets. While the current environment of lower stock correlations, and the potential for lower returns and higher volatility going forward, bode well for active management, investors continue to favor passive management, presenting a significant industry-wide challenge to organic growth.

58

These factors may adversely affect AB’s AUM and revenues. Additionally, increases in interest rates, particularly if rapid, likely will decrease the total return of many bond investments due to lower market valuations of existing bonds. These factors could have a significant adverse effect on AB’s revenues and results of operations as AUM in AB’s fixed income investments comprise a major component of AB’s total AUM.

A decrease in the value of AB’s AUM, or a decrease in the amount of AUM AB manages, or an adverse mix shift in its AUM, would adversely affect AB’s investment advisory and services fees and revenues. A reduction in revenues, without a commensurate reduction in expenses, adversely affects AB’s and our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The industry-wide shift from actively-managed investment services to passive services has adversely affected AB’s investment advisory and services fees, revenues and results of operations, and this trend may continue.

The competitive environment with respect to the AB business has become increasingly difficult over the past decade, as active managers, which invest based on individual security selection, have, on average, consistently underperformed passive services, which invest based on market indices. Active managers continued to struggle to attract new assets as the popularity of passive strategies persisted. Active equity net outflows from U.S. mutual funds were $201 billion in 2017 while passive equity net inflows were $464 billion. In total, U.S. retail passive net inflows of $692 billion in 2017 represented a new all-time high. In this environment, organic growth through positive net flows is difficult to achieve for active managers, such as AB, and requires taking market share from other active managers.

The significant shift from active services to passive services adversely affects Bernstein Research Services revenues as well. Global market volumes have declined in recent years, and we expect this to continue, fueled by the steady rise in active equity outflows and passive equity inflows. As a result, portfolio turnover has decreased and investors hold fewer shares that are actively traded by managers.

59

We and AXA and its affiliates provide a significant amount of AB’s AUM and fund a significant portion of AB’s seed investments, and, if we or they choose to terminate their investment advisory agreements or withdraw capital support, it could have a material adverse effect on AB’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

We and other AXA affiliates, collectively, are AB’s largest clients. We represented 17% of AB’s total AUM as of December 31, 2017 and 3% of AB’s net revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017. AXA and its affiliates other than us represented 6% of AB’s total AUM as of December 31, 2017 and 2% of AB’s net revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017. AB’s investment management agreements with us and AXA and its affiliates are terminable at any time or on short notice by either party, and neither we nor AXA and its affiliates are under any obligation to maintain any level of AUM with AB. If we or AXA and its affiliates were to terminate their investment management agreements with AB, it could have a material adverse effect on AB’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

Further, while we cannot at this time predict the eventual impact, if any, on AB of the offering, it could include a reduction in the support AXA has provided to AB in the past with respect to AB’s investment management business, resulting in a decrease to AB’s revenues and ability to initiate new investment services. Also, AB relies on AXA for a number of significant services and benefits from its affiliation with AXA in certain common vendor relationships. These arrangements may change with possible negative financial implications for AB.

AB’s reputation could suffer if it is unable to deliver consistent, competitive investment performance.

AB’s business is based on the trust and confidence of its clients. Poor investment performance on an absolute basis or as compared to third-party benchmarks or competitor products could lead to a decrease in sales and stimulate higher redemptions, thereby lowering the amount of AUM and reducing the investment advisory fees AB earns. The effects of poor performance on AB could be magnified where assets or customers are concentrated in certain strategies, products, asset classes or sectors. Damage to AB’s reputation, resulting from poor or inconsistent investment performance, among other factors, can reduce substantially AB’s AUM and impair its ability to maintain or grow its business.

Performance-based fee arrangements with AB’s clients cause greater fluctuations in its, and in turn our, net revenues.

AB sometimes charges its clients performance-based fees, whereby it charges a base advisory fee and is eligible to earn an additional performance-based fee or incentive allocation that is calculated as either a percentage of absolute investment results or a percentage of investment results in excess of a stated benchmark over a specified period of time. Some performance-based fees include a high-watermark provision, which generally provides that if a client account underperforms relative to its performance target (whether in absolute terms or relative to a specified benchmark), it must gain back such underperformance before AB can collect future performance-based fees. Therefore, if AB fails to achieve the performance target for a particular period, AB will not earn a performance-based fee for that period and, for accounts with a high-watermark provision, AB’s ability to earn future performance-based fees will be impaired.

If the percentage of AB’s AUM subject to performance-based fees grows, seasonality and volatility of revenue and earnings are likely to become more significant. AB’s performance-based fees in 2017, 2016 and 2015 were $94.7 million, $32.8 million and $23.7 million, respectively.

AB’s seed capital investments are subject to market risk. While AB enters into various futures, forwards, swap and option contracts to economically hedge many of these investments, AB also may be exposed to market risk and credit-related losses in the event of non-performance by counterparties to these derivative instruments.

AB has a seed investment program for the purpose of building track records and assisting with the marketing initiatives pertaining to its new products. These seed capital investments are subject to market risk.

60

AB’s risk management team oversees a seed hedging program that attempts to minimize this risk, subject to practical and cost considerations. Also, not all seed investments are deemed appropriate to hedge, and in those cases AB is exposed to market risk. In addition, AB may be subject to basis risk in that it cannot always hedge with precision its market exposure and, as a result, AB may be subject to relative spreads between market sectors. As a result, volatility in the capital markets may cause significant changes in its period-to-period financial and operating results.

AB uses various derivative instruments, including futures, forwards, swap and option contracts, in conjunction with its seed hedging program. While in most cases broad market risks are hedged, AB’s hedges are imperfect and some market risk remains. In addition, AB’s use of derivatives results in counterparty risk ( i.e., the risk of exposure to credit-related losses in the event of non-performance by counterparties to these derivative instruments), regulatory risk ( e.g. , short selling restrictions) and cash/synthetic basis risk ( i.e., the risk that the underlying positions do not move identically to the related derivative instruments).

The revenues generated by Bernstein Research Services may be adversely affected by circumstances beyond our control, including declines in brokerage transaction rates, declines in global market volumes, failure to settle our trades by significant counterparties and the effects of MiFID II (as defined below).

Electronic, or “low-touch,” trading approaches represent a significant percentage of buy-side trading activity and typically produce transaction fees for execution-only services that are significantly lower than the price of traditional full service fee rates. As a result, blended pricing throughout our industry is lower now than it was historically, and price declines may continue. In addition, fee rates we charge and charged by other brokers for traditional brokerage services have historically experienced price pressure, and we expect these trends to continue. Also, while increases in transaction volume and market share often can offset decreases in rates, this may not continue.

In addition, the failure or inability of any of AB’s broker-dealer’s significant counterparties to perform could expose AB to substantial expenditures and adversely affect its revenues. For example, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC (“SCB LLC”), as a member of clearing and settlement exchanges, would be required to settle open trades of any non-performing counterparty. This exposes AB to the mark-to-market adjustment on the trades between trade date and settlement date, which could be significant, especially during periods of severe market volatility. Lastly, AB’s ability to access liquidity in such situations may be limited by what its funding relationships are able to offer us at such times.

The second installment of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (“MiFID II”), which became effective on January 3, 2018, makes significant modifications to the manner in which European broker-dealers can be compensated for research. The ultimate impact of MiFID II on payments for research globally is not yet certain.

AB may not accurately value the securities it holds on behalf of its clients or its company investments.

In accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, contractual obligations or client direction, AB employs procedures for the pricing and valuation of securities and other positions held in client accounts or for company investments. AB has established a valuation committee, composed of senior officers and employees, which oversees pricing controls and valuation processes. If market quotations for a security are not readily available, the valuation committee determines a fair value for the security.

Extraordinary volatility in financial markets, significant liquidity constraints or our failure to adequately consider one or more factors when determining the fair value of a security based on information with limited market observability could result in AB failing to properly value securities AB holds for its clients or investments accounted for on its balance sheet. Improper valuation likely would result in its basing fee calculations on inaccurate AUM figures, its striking incorrect net asset values for company-sponsored mutual funds or hedge

61

funds or, in the case of company investments, its inaccurately calculating and reporting AB’s business, financial condition and operating results. Although the overall percentage of AB’s AUM that it fair values based on information with limited market observability is not significant, inaccurate fair value determinations can harm AB’s clients, create regulatory issues and damage its reputation.

AB may not have sufficient information to confirm or review the accuracy of valuations provided to it by underlying external managers for the funds in which certain of its alternative investment products invest.

Certain of AB’s alternative investment services invest in funds managed by external managers (“External Managers”) rather than investing directly in securities and other instruments. As a result, AB’s ability will be limited with regard to (i) monitoring such investments, (ii) regularly obtaining complete, accurate and current information with respect to such investments and (iii) exercising control over such investments. Accordingly, AB may not have sufficient information to confirm or review the accuracy of valuations provided to it by External Managers. In addition, AB will be required to rely on External Managers’ compliance with any applicable investment guidelines and restrictions. Any failure of an External Manager to operate within such guidelines or to provide accurate information with respect to the investment could subject AB’s alternative investment products to losses and cause damage to its reputation.

The quantitative models AB uses in certain of its investment services may contain errors, resulting in imprecise risk assessments and unintended output.

AB uses quantitative models in a variety of its investment services, generally in combination with fundamental research. These models are developed by senior quantitative professionals and typically are implemented by IT professionals. AB’s model risk oversight committee oversees the model governance framework and associated model review activities, which are then executed by AB’s model risk team. However, due to the complexity and large data dependency of such models, it is possible that errors in the models could exist and AB’s controls could fail to detect such errors. Failure to detect errors could result in client losses and reputational damage.

AB may not always successfully manage actual and potential conflicts of interest that arise in its business.

Increasingly, AB must manage actual and potential conflicts of interest, including situations where its services to a particular client conflict, or are perceived to conflict, with the interests of another client. Failure to adequately address potential conflicts of interest could adversely affect our reputation, results of operations and business prospects.

AB has procedures and controls that are designed to identify and mitigate conflicts of interest, including those designed to prevent the improper sharing of information. However, appropriately managing conflicts of interest is complex. AB’s reputation could be damaged and the willingness of clients to enter into transactions in which such a conflict might arise may be affected if AB fails, or appears to fail, to deal appropriately with actual or perceived conflicts of interest. In addition, potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to litigation or regulatory enforcement actions.

The inability to access clients through intermediaries could have a material adverse effect on AB’s business.

AB’s ability to market investment products is highly dependent on access to the various distribution systems of national and regional securities dealer firms, which generally offer competing products that could limit the distribution of AB’s investment products. There can be no assurance that AB will be able to retain access to these intermediaries. The inability to have such access could have a material adverse effect on AB’s and, in turn, our business. To the extent that existing or potential customers, including securities broker-dealers, decide to invest in or broaden distribution relationships with AB’s competitors, the sales of its products as well as its market

62

share, revenue and net income could decline. Certain intermediaries with which AB conducts business charge AB fees to maintain access to their distribution networks. If AB chooses not to pay such fees, its ability to distribute through those intermediaries would be limited.

AB’s clients can withdraw the assets it manages on short notice, making its future client and revenue base unpredictable.

AB’s open-end fund clients generally may redeem their investments in these funds each business day without prior notice. While not subject to daily redemption, closed-end funds that AB manages may shrink in size due to repurchases of shares in open-market transactions or pursuant to tender offers, or in connection with distributions in excess of realized returns. Institutional and individual Separate Account clients can terminate their relationships with AB generally at any time. In a declining stock market, the pace of open-end fund redemptions could accelerate. Poor performance relative to other asset management firms can result in decreased purchases of open-end fund shares, increased redemptions of open-end fund shares, and the loss of institutional or individual Separate Accounts. The decrease in revenue that could result from any of these events could have a material adverse effect on AB’s and, in turn, our business.

Fluctuations in the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and various other currencies can adversely affect AB’s AUM, revenues and results of operations.

Although significant portions of AB’s net revenues and expenses, as well as AB’s AUM, presently are denominated in U.S. dollars, AB has subsidiaries and clients outside of the United States with functional currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Weakening of these currencies relative to the U.S. dollar adversely affects the value in U.S. dollar terms of AB’s revenues and our AUM denominated in these other currencies. Accordingly, fluctuations in U.S. dollar exchange rates affect our AUM, revenues and reported financial results from one period to the next.

Investments in other countries are subject to operational, regulatory, compliance and reputational risks, including changes in applicable laws and regulatory requirements; difficulties in staffing and managing foreign operations; difficulties in collecting investment management fees receivable; different, and in some cases less stringent, legal, regulatory and accounting regimes; political instability; fluctuations in currency exchange rates; expatriation controls; expropriation risks; and potential adverse tax consequences.

AB may not be successful in its efforts to hedge its exposure to such fluctuations, which could negatively impact its revenues and reported financial results.

Changes in the partnership structure of AB Holding and ABLP or changes in the tax law governing partnerships would have significant tax ramifications.

AB Holding, having elected under Section 7704(g) of the Code to be subject to a 3.5% federal tax on partnership gross income from the active conduct of a trade or business, is a “grandfathered” publicly traded partnership (“PTP”) for federal income tax purposes. AB Holding is also subject to the 4.0% New York City unincorporated business tax (“UBT”), net of credits for UBT paid by AB. In order to preserve AB Holding’s status as a “grandfathered” PTP for federal income tax purposes, management seeks to ensure that AB Holding does not directly or indirectly (through ABLP) enter into a substantial new line of business. A “new line of business” includes any business that is not closely related to AB’s historical business of providing research and diversified investment management and related services to its clients. A new line of business is “substantial” when a partnership derives more than 15% of its gross income from, or uses more than 15% of its total assets in, the new line of business.

ABLP is a private partnership for federal income tax purposes and, accordingly, is not subject to federal and state corporate income taxes. However, ABLP is subject to the 4.0% UBT. Domestic corporate subsidiaries of

63

ABLP, which are subject to federal, state and local income taxes, generally are included in the filing of a consolidated federal income tax return with separate state and local income tax returns being filed. Foreign corporate subsidiaries generally are subject to taxes in the foreign jurisdiction where they are located. If ABLP’s business increasingly operates in countries other than the United States, ABLP’s effective tax rate may increase because its international subsidiaries are subject to corporate taxes in the jurisdictions where they are located.

In order to preserve ABLP’s status as a private partnership for federal income tax purposes, AB Units must not be considered publicly traded. If such units were to be considered readily tradable, ABLP would become subject to federal and state corporate income tax on its net income. Furthermore, as noted above, should ABLP enter into a substantial new line of business, AB Holding, by virtue of its ownership of ABLP, would lose its status as a grandfathered PTP and would become subject to federal and state corporate income tax on its net income. If AB Holding and ABLP were to become subject to corporate income tax as set forth above, their net income and quarterly distributions to holders of AB Holding Units or AB Units would be materially reduced.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, enacted on December 22, 2017 (the “Tax Reform Act”), reduces the federal corporate income tax rate applicable to AB’s U.S. subsidiaries to 21%. The Tax Reform Act also imposes a one-time transitional tax on some of the accumulated earnings of AB’s foreign subsidiaries and will tax on a current basis earnings of its foreign subsidiaries. These and other changes in the Tax Reform Act could adversely affect AB’s business, results of operations or financial condition. AB is assessing the overall impact that the Tax Reform Act is expected to have on its business, results of operations and financial condition.

Legal and Regulatory Risks

We may be materially and adversely impacted by U.S. federal and state legislative and regulatory action affecting financial institutions.

Regulatory changes, and other reforms globally, could lead to business disruptions, could adversely impact the value of assets we have invested on behalf of clients and policyholders and could make it more difficult for us to conduct certain business activities or distinguish ourselves from competitors. Any of these factors could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Dodd-Frank Act . The Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”), which has the authority to designate non-bank systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”), thereby subjecting them to enhanced prudential standards and supervision by the Federal Reserve Board, including enhanced risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, single counterparty exposure limits, governance requirements for risk management, capital planning and stress test requirements, special debt-to-equity limits for certain companies, early remediation procedures and recovery and resolution planning. If the FSOC were to determine that Holdings is a non-bank SIFI, we would become subject to certain of these enhanced prudential standards. Other regulators, such as state insurance regulators, may also determine to adopt new or heightened regulatory safeguards as a result of actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board in connection with its supervision of non-bank SIFIs. There can be no assurance that Holdings will not be designated as a non-bank SIFI, that such new or enhanced regulation will not apply to Holdings in the future, or, to the extent such regulation is adopted, that it would not have a material impact on our operations.

In addition, if Holdings were designated a SIFI, it could potentially be subject to capital charges or other restrictions with respect to activities it engages in that are limited by Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, commonly referred to as the “Volcker Rule,” which places limitations on the ability of banks and their affiliates to engage in proprietary trading and limits the sponsorship of, and investment in, covered funds by banking entities and their affiliates.

Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that certain financial companies, including Holdings, may be subject to a special resolution regime outside the federal bankruptcy code, which is administered by the Federal

64

Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver, and is applied to a covered financial company upon a determination that the company presents a risk to U.S. financial stability. U.S. insurance subsidiaries of any such covered financial company, however, would be subject to rehabilitation and liquidation proceedings under state insurance law. We cannot predict how rating agencies, or our creditors, will evaluate this potential or whether it will impact our financing or hedging costs.

The Dodd-Frank Act also established the Federal Insurance Office (“FIO”) within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which has the authority, on behalf of the United States, to participate in the negotiation of “covered agreements” with foreign governments or regulators, as well as to collect information and monitor about the insurance industry. While not having a general supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance, the director of the FIO will perform various functions with respect to insurance, including serving as a non-voting member of the FSOC and making recommendations to the FSOC regarding insurers to be designated for more stringent regulation.

While the Trump administration has indicated its intent to modify various aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is unclear whether or how such modifications will be implemented or the impact any such modifications would have on our businesses.

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act creates a new framework for regulation of the over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives markets. As a result of the adoption of final rules by federal banking regulators and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) in 2015 establishing margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives, the amount of collateral we may be required to pledge in support of such transactions may increase under certain circumstances and will increase as a result of the requirement to pledge initial margin on non-centrally cleared derivatives commencing in 2020. Notwithstanding the broad categories of non-cash collateral permitted under the rules, higher capital charges on non-cash collateral applicable to our bank counterparties may significantly increase pricing of derivatives and restrict or eliminate certain types of eligible collateral that we have available to pledge, which could significantly increase our hedging costs, adversely affect the liquidity and yield of our investments, affect the profitability of our products or their attractiveness to our customers, or cause us to alter our hedging strategy or change the composition of the risks we do not hedge.

Regulation of Broker-Dealers . The Dodd-Frank Act provides that the SEC may promulgate rules to provide that the standard of conduct for all broker-dealers, when providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail customers (and any other customers as the SEC may by rule provide) will be the same as the standard of conduct applicable to an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act. For a discussion of the SEC’s recent set of proposed rules, see “Business—Regulation—Broker-Dealer and Securities Regulation—Broker-Dealer Regulation.”

ERISA . The DOL issued a final Rule (the “Rule”) on April 6, 2016 that significantly expanded the range of activities considered to be fiduciary investment advice under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) when our affiliated advisors and our employees provide investment-related information and support to retirement plan sponsors, participants, and Individual Retirement Account (“IRA”) holders. The DOL also issued in connection with the Rule amendments to certain prohibited transaction exemptions (“PTEs”) under ERISA, and issued a new PTE, the Best Interest Contract Exemption, that applies more onerous disclosure and contract requirements to, and increases fiduciary requirements and liability exposure in respect of, transactions involving ERISA plans, plan participants and IRAs. Implementation of the Rule was originally scheduled to be phased in starting on April 10, 2017. In February 2017, however, the DOL was directed by executive order and memorandum (the “President’s Order and Memorandum”) to review the Rule and determine whether the Rule should be rescinded or revised, in light of the new administration’s policies and orientations. In response, in March 2017, the DOL published a notice soliciting comments on the examination described in the President’s Memorandum, which were due in April 2017. In addition, in April 2017, the DOL announced that the applicability date of the Rule was deferred from April 10, 2017 until June 9, 2017. The Rule became partially effective on June 9, 2017, with a special transition period for the remaining requirements that were due to take

65

effect on January 1, 2018. To date, compliance with the portion of the Rule currently in force has not materially adversely affected our business, results of operations or financial condition. On November 29, 2017, the DOL finalized a delay in implementing the remaining requirements of the Rule from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019. On March 15, 2018 a federal appeals court issued a decision vacating the Rule. A final mandate has not been issued as of the date of this prospectus, and there is a possibility that the DOL may ask for a rehearing or appeal this decision. At this time, we do not currently plan any immediate changes to our approach to selling products and providing services to ERISA plans and IRAs.

Although management continues to evaluate its potential impact on our business, the Rule, if it remains in effect, is expected to cause adverse changes to the level and type of services we provide, as well as the nature and amount of compensation and fees that we and our affiliated advisors and firms receive for investment-related services to retirement plans and IRAs, which may have a significant adverse effect on our business and consolidated results of operations. For example, a significant portion of our variable annuity sales are to IRAs. The new regulation deems advisors, including third-party distributors, who provide investment advice in connection with an IRA, IRA rollover or 401(k) plan, to be fiduciaries and prohibits them from receiving compensation unless they comply with a PTE. The relevant PTE requires advisors to comply with impartial conduct standards and will require us to exercise additional oversight of the sales process. Compliance with the PTEs will result in increased regulatory burdens on us and our third-party distribution channels, changes to our compensation practices and product offerings and increased litigation risk, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

There is still considerable uncertainty over whether the Rule will be substantially modified or repealed or whether the federal appeals court decision to vacate the Rule will stand. Changes to the Rule as currently adopted could also have a significant adverse effect on our business and consolidated results of operations. We cannot predict what other proposals may be made, what legislation may be introduced or enacted, or what impact any such legislation may have on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

General. From time to time, regulators raise issues during examinations or audits of us and regulated subsidiaries that could, if determined adversely, have a material impact on us. In addition, the interpretations of regulations by regulators may change and statutes may be enacted with retroactive impact, particularly in areas such as accounting or statutory reserve requirements. We are also subject to other regulations and may in the future become subject to additional regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is time consuming and personnel-intensive, and changes in these laws and regulations may materially increase our direct and indirect compliance and other expenses of doing business, thus having a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our retirement and protection businesses are heavily regulated, and changes in regulation and in supervisory and enforcement policies may limit our growth and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We are subject to a wide variety of insurance and other laws and regulations. State insurance laws regulate most aspects of our retirement and protection 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. Notably, AXA Equitable Life is domiciled in New York and is primarily regulated by the NYDFS. The primary purpose of state regulation is to protect policyholders, and not necessarily to protect creditors and investors.

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, the NAIC and other regulatory bodies regularly reexamine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. For example, the NAIC as well as state

66

regulators are currently considering implementing regulations that would apply an impartial conduct standard similar to the Rule to recommendations made in connection with certain annuities and life insurance policies. In particular, on December 27, 2017, the NYDFS proposed regulations that would adopt a “best interest” standard for the sale of life insurance and annuity products in New York. The likelihood of enactment of these regulations is uncertain at this time, but if implemented, these regulations could have significant adverse effects on our business and consolidated results of operations. Generally, changes in laws and regulations, or in interpretations thereof, including potentially rescinding prior product approvals, 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.

We currently use captive reinsurance subsidiaries primarily to reinsure (i) term life insurance and universal life insurance with secondary guarantees, (ii) excess claims relating to variable annuities with GMIB riders which are subject to reinsurance treaties with unaffiliated third parties and (iii) to retrocede reinsurance of variable annuity guaranteed minimum benefits assumed from unaffiliated third parties. Prior to this offering, we also used captive reinsurance subsidiaries to reinsure the GMxB Business; however, on April 12, 2018, we effected an unwind of the captive reinsurance of the GMxB Business as described in “The Reorganization Transactions—Unwind of GMxB Reinsurance.” Uncertainties associated with continued use of captive reinsurance are primarily related to potential regulatory changes. See “—Risks Relating to Our Retirement and Protection Businesses—Risks Relating to Our Reinsurance and Hedging Programs.”

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’s principle-based reserves (“PBR”) approach for life insurance policies became effective on January 1, 2017, and has a three-year phase-in period. We are currently assessing the impact of, and appropriate implementation plan for, the PBR approach for life policies. The timing and extent of further changes to statutory reserves and reporting requirements are uncertain.

During 2015, the NAIC Financial Condition Committee (the “E Committee”) established the Variable Annuities Issues (E) Working Group (“VAIWG”) to oversee the NAIC’s efforts to study and address, as appropriate, regulatory issues resulting in variable annuity captive reinsurance transactions. In November 2015, upon the recommendation of the VAIWG, the E Committee adopted the VA Framework for Change which recommends charges for NAIC working groups to adjust the variable annuity statutory framework applicable to all insurers that have written or are writing variable annuity business and therefore has broader implications beyond captive reinsurance transactions. The VA Framework for Change contemplates a holistic set of reforms that would improve the current reserve and capital framework for insurers that write variable annuity business. In November 2015, VAIWG engaged Oliver Wyman (“OW”) to conduct a quantitative impact study (the “QIS”) involving industry participants, including the Company, of various reforms outlined in the VA Framework for Change. OW completed the QIS in July of 2016 and reported its initial findings to the VAIWG in late August. The OW report proposed certain revisions to the current variable annuity reserve and capital framework and recommended a second quantitative impact study be conducted so that testing can inform the proper calibration for certain conceptual and/or preliminary parameters set out in the OW proposal. Following a fourth quarter 2016 public comment period and several meetings on the OW proposal, the VAIWG determined that a second quantitative impact study (the “QIS2”) involving industry participants including us, will be conducted by OW. The QIS2 was initiated in February 2017 and OW issued its recommendation in December 2017. The NAIC continues to deliberate on QIS2 results. The NAIC has indicated it expects to complete its work by the 2018 Fall NAIC Meeting. Timing for implementation of changes to the current variable annuity reserve and capital framework remains uncertain.

We are currently assessing the impact on the Company of the NAIC’s proposed changes to the reserve and capital framework requirements currently applicable to our variable annuity business and we cannot predict what revisions to the VA Framework for Change proposal may be implemented as a result of QIS2 and ongoing NAIC

67

deliberations. As a result, the timing and extent of any necessary changes to reserves and capital requirements for our variable annuity business resulting from the work of the NAIC VAIWG are uncertain.

Our investment management and research business is heavily regulated, and changes in regulation and in supervisory and enforcement policies may limit our growth and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Virtually all aspects of our investment management and research business are subject to federal and state laws and regulations, rules of securities regulators and exchanges, and laws and regulations in the foreign jurisdictions in which our subsidiaries conduct business. If we violate these laws or regulations, we could be subject to civil liability, criminal liability or sanction, including restriction or revocation of our professional licenses or registrations, revocation of the licenses of our employees, censures, fines, or temporary suspension or permanent bar from conducting business. Any such liability or sanction could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. A regulatory proceeding, even if it does not result in a finding of wrongdoing or sanction, could require substantial expenditures of time and money and could potentially damage our reputation.

In recent years, global regulators have substantially increased their oversight of financial services and investment management services. For example, the Financial Supervisory Commission in Taiwan (“FSC”) implemented, as of January 1, 2015, new limits on the degree to which local investors can own an offshore investment product. While certain exemptions have been available to us, should we not continue to qualify, the FSC’s rules could force some of our local resident investors to redeem their investments in our funds sold in Taiwan (or prevent further sales of those funds in Taiwan), some of which funds have local ownership levels substantially above the FSC limits. This could lead to significant declines in our investment advisory and services fees and revenues earned from these funds.

The second installment of the MiFID II, which became effective on January 3, 2018, makes significant modifications to the manner in which European broker-dealers can be compensated for research. These modifications are recognized in the industry as having the potential to significantly decrease the overall research spend by European buy-side firms. Consequently, our U.K.-based broker-dealer is considering new charging mechanisms for its research in order to minimize this impact as part of its broader MiFID II implementation program. It is important to note, however, that our new charging techniques and other strategic decisions to address the new environment created by MiFID II may not be successful, which could result in a significant decline in our sell-side revenues.

Also, although MiFID II does permit buy-side firms to purchase research through the use of client-funded research payment accounts, most buy-side firms that operate in the Eurozone, including our U.K. buy-side subsidiaries, have decided to use their own funds to pay for research in the Eurozone. This change in practice will increase our expenses in the Eurozone and, if this practice becomes more pervasive globally, may have a significant adverse effect on our net income in future periods. The ultimate impact of MiFID II on payments for research globally is not yet certain.

Finally, in June 2016, a narrow majority of voters in a U.K. referendum voted to exit the EU, but it remains unclear exactly how the U.K.’s status in relation to the EU will change when it ultimately leaves. Ongoing changes in the EU’s regulatory framework applicable to our business, including Brexit and any other changes in the composition of the EU’s member states, may add further complexity to our global risks and operations.

The adoption of new laws, regulations or standards and changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws, regulations or standards have directly affected, and will continue to affect, our business, including making our efforts to comply more expensive and time-consuming.

68

The Tax Reform Act could have adverse or uncertain impacts on some aspects of our business, results of operations or financial condition.

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Reform Act, a broad overhaul of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that changes long-standing provisions governing the taxation of U.S. corporations, including life insurance companies. While we expect the Tax Reform Act to have a net positive economic impact on us, it contains measures which could have adverse or uncertain impacts on some aspects of our business, results of operations or financial condition.

The Tax Reform Act reduces the federal corporate income tax rate to 21% beginning in 2018. On a GAAP basis, the reduction in the tax rate generally should have a positive impact on our earnings, but resulted in a reduction in the value of our deferred tax assets.

On a statutory basis, we recorded a reduction in the admitted deferred tax assets reported by our insurance company subsidiaries in 2017. The NAIC could also, as a result of the reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate, revise certain items indirectly linked to such tax rate in the RBC formula and CTE calculations. These revisions could have a negative impact on the Combined RBC Ratio and also impact the CTE calculations of our insurance company subsidiaries, which could cause us to revise our target RBC and CTE levels, as appropriate. We continue to monitor potential regulatory changes following the Tax Reform Act.

The Tax Reform Act includes provisions that modify the calculation of the dividends received deduction (“DRD”), change how deductions are determined for insurance reserves, increase the amount of policy acquisition expense (also called tax “DAC”) that must be capitalized and amortized for federal income tax purposes, limit the use of net operating losses (“NOLs”) and limit deductions for net interest expense. These provisions could adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition, notwithstanding the lower corporate income tax rate. These provisions could also impact our investments and investment strategies.

The Tax Reform Act also imposes a one-time transitional tax on some of the accumulated earnings of our foreign subsidiaries and will tax on a current basis earnings of our foreign subsidiaries. These and other changes in the Tax Reform Act could adversely affect our Investment Management and Research business, results of operations or financial condition.

We are assessing the overall impact that the Tax Reform Act is expected to have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Future changes in U.S. tax laws and regulations or interpretations thereof could reduce our earnings and negatively impact our business, results of operations or financial condition, including by making our products less attractive to consumers.

Future changes in U.S. tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. We anticipate that, following the recently enacted Tax Reform Act, we will continue deriving tax benefits from certain items, including but not limited to the DRD, tax credits, insurance reserve deductions and interest expense deductions. However, there is a risk that interpretations of the Tax Reform Act, regulations promulgated thereunder, or future changes to federal, state or other tax laws could reduce or eliminate the tax benefits from these or other items and result in our incurring materially higher taxes.

Many of the products that we sell benefit from one or more forms of tax-favored status under current federal and state income tax regimes. For example, life insurance and annuity contracts currently allow policyholders to defer the recognition of taxable income earned within the contract. While the Tax Reform Act does not change these rules, a future change in law that modifies or eliminates this tax-favored status could reduce demand for our products. Also, if the treatment of earnings accrued inside an annuity contract was changed prospectively, and the tax-favored status of existing contracts was grandfathered, holders of existing contracts would be less likely to surrender or rollover their contracts. Each of these changes could reduce our earnings and negatively impact our business.

69

Legal and regulatory actions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations or financial condition.

A number of lawsuits, claims, assessments and regulatory inquiries have been filed or commenced against us and other life and health insurers and asset managers in the jurisdictions in which we do business. These actions and proceedings involve, among other things, insurers’ sales practices, alleged agent misconduct, alleged failure to properly supervise agents, contract administration, product design, features and accompanying disclosure, cost of insurance increases, the use of captive reinsurers, payment of death benefits and the reporting and escheatment of unclaimed property, alleged breach of fiduciary duties, discrimination, alleged mismanagement of client funds and other general business-related matters. Some of these matters have resulted in the award of substantial fines and judgments, including material amounts of punitive damages, or in substantial settlements. In some states, juries have substantial discretion in awarding punitive damages.

We face a significant risk of, and from time to time we are involved in, such actions and proceedings, including class action lawsuits. Our consolidated results of operations or financial position could be materially and adversely affected by defense and settlement costs and any unexpected material adverse outcomes in such matters, as well as in other material actions and proceedings pending against us. The frequency of large damage awards, including large punitive damage awards and regulatory fines that bear little or no relation to actual economic damages incurred, continues to create the potential for an unpredictable judgment in any given matter. For instance, we are a defendant in a number of lawsuits related to cost of insurance increases, including class actions in federal and state court alleging breach of contract and other claims under UL policies. For information regarding these and others legal proceedings pending against us, see note 16 to the notes to our annual financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.

In addition, investigations or examinations by federal and state regulators and other governmental and self-regulatory agencies including, among others, the SEC, FINRA, the CFTC, the National Futures Association (the “NFA”), state attorneys general, the NYDFS and other state insurance regulators, and other regulators could result in legal proceedings (including securities class actions and stockholder derivative litigation), adverse publicity, sanctions, fines and other costs. We have provided and, in certain cases, continue to provide information and documents to the SEC, FINRA, the CFTC, the NFA, state attorneys general, the NYDFS and other state insurance regulators, and other regulators on a wide range of issues. On March 30, 2018, we received a copy of an anonymous letter containing general allegations relating to the preparation of our financial statements. The audit committee of AXA Equitable Life, with the assistance of independent outside counsel, has reviewed these matters and concluded that the allegations were not substantiated and accordingly did not present any issue material to our financial statements. At this time, management cannot predict what actions the SEC, FINRA, the CFTC, the NFA, state attorneys general, the NYDFS and other state insurance regulators, or other regulators may take or what the impact of such actions might be.

A substantial legal liability or a significant federal, state or other regulatory action against us, as well as regulatory inquiries or investigations, may divert management’s time and attention, could create adverse publicity and harm our reputation, result in material fines or penalties, result in significant expense, including legal costs, and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We will be required to disclose in our periodic reports filed with the SEC specified activities engaged in by our “affiliates.”

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), requires companies subject to SEC reporting obligations to disclose in their periodic reports specified dealings or transactions involving Iran or other individuals and entities targeted by certain Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions engaged in by the reporting company or any of its affiliates during the period covered by the relevant periodic report. In some cases, companies are required to disclose these types of transactions even if they would otherwise be permissible

70

under U.S. law. Reporting companies are required to separately file with the SEC a notice that such activities have been disclosed in the relevant periodic report, and the SEC is required to post this notice of disclosure on its website and send the report to the U.S. President and certain U.S. Congressional committees. The U.S. President thereafter is required to initiate an investigation and, within 180 days of initiating such an investigation, to determine whether sanctions should be imposed. Under the Exchange Act, we would be required to report if we or any of our “affiliates” knowingly engaged in certain specified activities during the period covered by the report. Because the SEC defines the term “affiliate” broadly, it includes any entity controlled by us as well as any person or entity that controls us or is under common control with us. Because we will be controlled by AXA following the settlement of this offering, we may be required to disclose certain activities undertaken by AXA and its affiliates with Iranian counterparties. Disclosure of such activities, even if such activities are not subject to sanctions under applicable law, and any sanctions actually imposed on us or our affiliates as a result of these activities, could harm our reputation and have a negative impact on our business.

Risks Relating to Our Controlling Stockholder

Following the settlement of this offering, AXA will continue to control us and may have conflicts of interest with other stockholders. Conflicts of interest may arise because affiliates of our controlling stockholder have continuing agreements and business relationships with us.

Upon settlement of this offering, AXA will own 75.5% of our outstanding common stock, or 71.9% if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full. As a result, AXA will continue to be able to control the election of our directors, determine our corporate and management policies and determine, without the consent of our other stockholders, the outcome of any corporate transaction or other matter submitted to our stockholders for approval, including potential mergers or acquisitions, asset sales and other significant corporate transactions. AXA will also have sufficient voting power to amend our organizational documents. In addition, under the provisions of the Shareholder Agreement (as defined in “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions”) that we will enter into with AXA prior to the settlement of this offering, AXA will have consent rights with respect to certain corporate and business activities that we may undertake, including during periods where AXA holds less than a majority of our common stock. Specifically, the Shareholder Agreement will provide that, until the date on which AXA ceases to beneficially own at least 30% of our outstanding common stock, AXA’s prior written consent will be required before we may take certain corporate and business actions, whether directly or indirectly through a subsidiary, including, among others, the following:

As a result of these consent rights, AXA will maintain significant control over our corporate and business activities until such rights cease. For additional discussion of AXA’s consent rights under the Shareholder

71

Agreement, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—Shareholder Agreement—Consent Rights.” Although AXA has announced that it intends to sell all of its interest in Holdings over time, AXA is under no obligation to do so and retains the sole discretion to determine the timing of any future sales of shares of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated by-laws will also include a number of provisions that may discourage, delay or prevent a change in our management or control for so long as AXA owns specified percentages of our common stock. See “—Risks Relating to Our Common Stock and This Offering—Anti-takeover provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws and Delaware law could discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of our company and may affect the trading price of our common stock.” These provisions not only could have a negative impact on the trading price of our common stock, but could also allow AXA to delay or prevent a corporate transaction of which the public stockholders approve.

Conflicts of interest may arise between our controlling stockholder and us. Affiliates of our controlling stockholder engage in transactions with us. Further, AXA may, from time to time, acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us, and they may either directly, or through affiliates, also maintain business relationships with companies that may directly compete with us. In general, AXA or its affiliates could pursue business interests or exercise their voting power as stockholders in ways that are detrimental to us but beneficial to themselves or to other companies in which they invest or with whom they have a material relationship. Conflicts of interest could also arise with respect to business opportunities that could be advantageous to AXA, and they may pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our business. As a result, those acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. Under the terms of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, AXA will have no obligation to offer us corporate opportunities. See “—Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will provide that we will waive any interest or expectancy in corporate opportunities presented to AXA.” In addition, changes to IFRS could impact the way we conduct our business (including, for example, which products we offer), our competitive position, our hedging program and the way we manage capital. See “—Risks Relating to Our Consolidated Business—Risks Relating to Our Operations—Changes in accounting standards could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.”

AXA and its affiliates other than us are among AB’s largest clients. AXA and its affiliates other than us represented 6% of AB’s total AUM as of December 31, 2017 and 2% of AB’s net revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017. AB’s investment management agreements with AXA and its affiliates are terminable at any time or on short notice by either party and AXA and its affiliates are under no obligation to maintain any level of AUM with AB. If AXA and its affiliates were to terminate their investment management agreements with AB, it could have a materially adverse effect on AB’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

As a result of these relationships, the interests of AXA may not coincide with our interests or the interests of the other holders of our common stock. So long as AXA continues to control a significant amount of the outstanding shares of our common stock, AXA will continue to be able to strongly influence or effectively control our decisions, including potential mergers or acquisitions, asset sales and other significant corporate transactions.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will provide that we will waive any interest or expectancy in corporate opportunities presented to AXA.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will provide that we, on our behalf and on behalf of our subsidiaries, renounce and waive any interest or expectancy in, or in being offered an opportunity to participate in, corporate opportunities that are from time to time presented to AXA, or their respective officers, directors, agents, stockholders, members, partners, affiliates or subsidiaries, even if the opportunity is one that we or our subsidiaries might reasonably be deemed to have pursued or had the ability or desire to pursue if granted

72

the opportunity to do so. None of AXA or its agents, stockholders, members, partners, affiliates or subsidiaries will generally be liable to us or any of our subsidiaries for breach of any fiduciary or other duty, as a director or otherwise, by reason of the fact that such person pursues, acquires or participates in such corporate opportunity, directs such corporate opportunity to another person or fails to present such corporate opportunity, or information regarding such corporate opportunity, to us or our subsidiaries unless, in the case of any such person who is a director or officer, such corporate opportunity is expressly offered to such director or officer in writing solely in his or her capacity as a director or officer. To the fullest extent permitted by law, by becoming a stockholder in our company, stockholders will be deemed to have notice of and consented to this provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. This will allow AXA to compete with us. Strong competition for investment opportunities could result in fewer such opportunities for us. We likely will not always be able to compete successfully with our competitors and competitive pressures or other factors may also result in significant price competition, particularly during industry downturns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

If AXA 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 settlement of this offering, AXA 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. If such a transaction were to be sufficient in size, it could result in a change of control of Holdings. The ability of AXA 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 AXA upon its private sale of our common stock. Additionally, if AXA 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.

Following the settlement of this offering, we may fail to replicate or replace functions, systems and infrastructure provided by AXA or certain of its affiliates (including through shared service contracts) or lose benefits from AXA’s global contracts, and AXA and its affiliates may fail to perform the services provided for in the Transitional Services Agreement.

Historically, we have received services from AXA and have provided services to AXA, including information technology services, services that support financial transactions and budgeting, risk management and compliance services, human resources services, insurance, operations and other support services, primarily through shared services contracts with various third-party service providers. Following this offering, AXA and its affiliates will provide for the continued provision or procurement of certain services to us pursuant to the Transitional Services Agreement. Certain contracts and services between us and AXA are not covered by the Transitional Services Agreement and will continue pursuant to the terms of such contracts. Under the Transitional Services Agreement, AXA will agree to continue to provide us with certain services currently provided to us by or through AXA, either directly or on a pass-through basis, and we will agree to continue to provide, or arrange to provide, AXA with certain services currently provided to them, either directly or on a pass-through basis. The Transitional Services Agreement will not continue indefinitely.

We will work to replicate or replace the services that we will continue to need in the operation of our business that are provided currently by AXA or its affiliates through shared service contracts they have with various third-party providers and that will continue to be provided under the Transitional Services Agreement for applicable transitional periods. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain the services at the same or better levels or at the same or lower costs directly from third-party providers. As a result, when AXA or its affiliates cease providing these services to us, either as a result of the termination of the Transitional Services Agreement or individual services thereunder or a failure by AXA or its affiliates to perform their respective

73

obligations under the Transitional Services Agreement, our costs of procuring these services or comparable replacement services may increase, and the cessation of such services may result in service interruptions and divert management attention from other aspects of our operations.

There is a risk that an increase in the costs associated with replicating and replacing the services provided to us under the Transitional Services Agreement and the diversion of management’s attention to these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. We may fail to replicate the services we currently receive from AXA on a timely basis or at all. Additionally, we may not be able to operate effectively if the quality of replacement services is inferior to the services we are currently receiving. Furthermore, once we are no longer an affiliate of AXA, we will no longer receive certain group discounts and reduced fees that we are eligible to receive as an affiliate of AXA. The loss of these discounts and reduced fees could increase our expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

In connection with preparing for this offering and operating as a stand-alone public company following the settlement of this offering, we expect to incur one-time and recurring expenses. We estimate that the aggregate amount of the one-time expenses described above will be between approximately $300 million and $350 million, of which $93 million was incurred in 2017 and approximately $150 million is expected to be incurred in 2018. Additional one-time expenses will be incurred when AXA ceases to own at least a majority of our outstanding common stock. These expenses primarily relate to information technology, compliance, internal audit, finance, risk management, procurement, client service, human resources and other support services. These expenses, any recurring expenses, including under the Transitional Services Agreement, and any additional one-time expenses including as a result of rebranding, we may incur may be material.

Costs associated with any rebranding that we expect to undertake after AXA ceases to own at least a majority of our outstanding common stock could be significant.

Prior to this offering, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AXA, we have marketed our products and services using the “AXA” brand name and logo together with the “Equitable” brand. We expect to continue to use the “AXA” brand name and logo following settlement of this offering. We have benefited, and will continue to benefit for a limited time as set forth in the Trademark License Agreement, from trademarks licensed in connection with the AXA brand. We believe the association with AXA provides us with preferred status among our customers, vendors and other persons due to AXA’s globally recognized brand, reputation for high quality products and services and strong capital base and financial strength. Any rebranding we undertake could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers, which could result in reduced sales of our products. We cannot accurately predict the effect that any rebranding we undertake will have on our business, customers or employees. We expect to incur significant costs, including marketing expenses, in connection with any rebranding of our business. Any adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain customers and any costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

After this offering, certain of our directors may have actual or potential conflicts of interest because of their AXA equity ownership or their current or former AXA positions.

A number of the persons who currently are, or we expect to become, our directors have been, and will be, AXA officers, directors or employees and, thus, will have professional relationships with AXA’s executive officers, directors or employees. In addition, because of their current or former AXA positions, certain of our directors and executive officers own AXA common stock, American Depository Shares, deferred stock units, performance shares or options to acquire shares of AXA common stock, and, for some of these individuals, their individual holdings may be significant compared to their total assets. These relationships and financial interests may create, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest when these directors and officers are faced with decisions that could have different implications for AXA and us. For example, potential conflicts of interest could arise in connection with the resolution of any dispute that may arise between AXA and us regarding the terms of the agreements governing our relationship with AXA after the settlement of this offering.

74

We will have indemnification obligations in favor of AXA after this offering.

We and AXA will enter into certain agreements, including a Shareholder Agreement, Registration Rights Agreement, Transitional Services Agreement, Trademark License Agreement and a Tax Sharing Agreement (each as defined in “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions”), that will govern our and AXA’s obligations to each other following this offering in respect of, among other things, taxes and transition services and their respective indemnification obligations. The amounts payable by us pursuant to such indemnification obligations could be significant.

We may be subject to ongoing regulation as a result of AXA’s ownership of us following this offering and for as long as we are an affiliate of AXA.

Regulators and lawmakers in non-U.S. jurisdictions are engaged in addressing the causes of the financial crisis and means of avoiding such crises in the future. For example, the Financial Stability Board has identified nine global systemically important insurers (“GSIIs”), which include AXA. While the precise implications of being designated a GSII are still developing, it could have far reaching regulatory and competitive implications for AXA and adversely impact AXA’s capital requirements, profitability, the fungibility of AXA’s capital and ability to provide capital/financial support for AXA companies, including potentially AXA Equitable Life, AXA’s ability to grow through future acquisitions, internal governance and could change the way AXA conducts its business and adversely impact AXA’s overall competitive position versus insurance groups that are not designated GSIIs. The multiplicity of different regulatory regimes, capital standards and reporting requirements could increase AXA’s operational complexity and costs. All of these possibilities, if they occurred, could affect the way we conduct our business (including, for example, which products we offer) and manage capital, and may require us to satisfy increased capital requirements, all of which in turn could materially affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

AXA is subject to Solvency II, the European directive which, together with its associated regulations and guidelines, establishes capital adequacy, risk management and regulatory reporting requirements for groups with a parent company established in the European Union. Among other things, as a member of a group subject to Solvency II, we may be required to hold more capital than the levels required under local law and incur costs necessary to comply with its requirements. In addition, because AXA is subject to Solvency II, it may impact the types of investments in, and the duration of, our General Account portfolio. It is possible that the requirements imposed on Solvency II groups, or the regulatory interpretation of those requirements, may change over time, increasing our capital requirements or costs.

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock and This Offering

Fulfilling our obligations incident to being a public company, including with respect to the requirements of and related rules under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” and the Dodd-Frank Act, will be expensive and time-consuming, and any delays or difficulties in satisfying these obligations could have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations and our stock price.

Following this offering, we will be subject to the reporting, accounting and corporate governance requirements under the listing standards of the NYSE, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act and the Exchange Act that apply to issuers of listed equity, which will impose new compliance requirements, costs and obligations upon us. The changes necessitated by publicly listing our equity will require a significant commitment of additional resources and management oversight which will increase our operating costs. Further, to comply with the requirements of being a public company, we will need to undertake various actions, such as implementing new or enhanced internal controls and procedures and hiring additional accounting or internal audit staff.

The expenses associated with being a public company include increases in auditing, accounting and legal fees and expenses, investor relations’ expenses, increased directors’ fees, director and officer liability insurance

75

costs, registrar and transfer agent fees, and listing fees, as well as other expenses. As a public company, we will be required, among other things, to prepare and file periodic and current reports, and distribute other stockholder communications, in compliance with the federal securities laws and NYSE rules, define and expand the roles and the duties of our Board and its committees, and institute more comprehensive compliance and investor relations functions. Our ability to successfully implement our strategy and comply with the Exchange Act and the SEC’s rules thereunder requires us to be able to prepare timely and accurate financial statements. During the course of preparing for this offering, we:

We cannot assure you that we will not discover additional misstatements in our previously issued financial statements in the future. Any delay in the implementation of, or disruption in the transition to, new or enhanced systems, procedures or controls, including any delay in the remediation of our existing material weaknesses, or if we are unable to comply with the demands that will be placed on us as a public company, including the requirements of the Exchange Act and the SEC’s rules thereunder, could cause our business, results of operations, financial condition or stock price to be materially and adversely impacted.

Becoming a public company may increase the burden on our accounting and internal audit staff because Holdings will be an additional company subject to the reporting requirements of the U.S. federal securities laws in addition to our subsidiaries that are already subject to such requirements. These additional burdens increase the risk that we will not be able to timely file our or our subsidiaries periodic and other reports with the SEC. The failure to report our insurance subsidiaries’ financial condition or financial results accurately or report them within the timeframes required by the SEC could cause our insurance subsidiaries to halt sales of certain variable insurance products and delay or prevent us from launching new products or new product features. For instance, AXA Equitable Life failed to timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2017 and required an extension of the due date under Rule 12b-25 for its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. See “—Risks Relating to the Products We Offer, Our Structure and Product Distribution—Our retirement and protection products contain numerous features and are subject to extensive regulation and failure to administer or meet any of the complex product requirements may adversely impact our business, results of operations or financial condition.”

During the course of preparing our U.S. GAAP financial statements for this offering, we identified two material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. If our remediation of these material weaknesses is not effective, we may not be able to report our financial condition or results of operations accurately or on a timely basis, which could materially and adversely affect investor confidence in us and, as a result, the price of our common stock.

As a public company, we will be required to maintain and assess internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures and, after a transition period, publicly report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the rules of the SEC under the Exchange Act. Following a transition period, our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to provide an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to SEC rules under the Exchange Act.

76

During the course of preparing our U.S. GAAP financial statements for this offering and preparing for these public company control requirements, we identified two material weaknesses in the design and operation of our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of a company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Our management consequently concluded that we do not (1) maintain effective controls to timely validate that actuarial models are properly configured to capture all relevant product features and to provide reasonable assurance that timely reviews of assumptions and data have occurred, and, as a result, errors were identified in future policyholders’ benefits and deferred policy acquisition costs balances; and (2) maintain sufficient experienced personnel to prepare Holdings’ consolidated financial statements and to verify that consolidating and adjusting journal entries were completely and accurately recorded to the appropriate accounts or segments and, as a result, errors were identified in the consolidated financial statements, including in the presentation and disclosure between the operating and financing sections of the statement of cash flows. These material weaknesses resulted in misstatements in our previously issued annual and interim financial statements and resulted in:

The changes necessary to correct the identified misstatements in our previously reported historical results have been appropriately reflected in our consolidated annual financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. Until remedied, these material weaknesses could result in a misstatement of our consolidated financial statements or disclosures that would result in a material misstatement to our annual or interim financial statements that would not be prevented or detected.

Since identifying the material weakness related to our actuarial models, we have been, and are currently in the process of, remediating the material weakness by taking steps to validate all existing actuarial models and valuation systems as well as to improve controls and processes around our assumption and data process. These steps include verifying inputs and unique algorithms, ensuring alignment with documented accounting standards and verifying that assumptions used in our models are consistent with documented assumptions and data is reliable. The remediation efforts are being performed by our internal model risk team (which is separate from our modeling and valuation teams), as supported by third party firms. We will continue to enhance controls to ensure that our models, including assumptions and data, are re-validated on a fixed calendar schedule and that new model changes and product features are tested through our internal model risk team prior to adoption within our models and systems. Although we plan to complete this remediation process as quickly as possible, we cannot at this time estimate when the remediation will be completed.

Since identifying the material weakness related to our journal entry process, we have been, and are currently in the process of, remediating the material weakness by taking steps to strengthen the control function related to our financial closing process. These steps include recruiting additional personnel, retaining external expert resources, further automating entries where possible, enhancing the design of certain management review

77

controls and providing training regarding internal control processes. We will continue to enhance controls to ensure that the financial closing process is effectively implemented. Although we plan to complete this remediation process as quickly as possible, we cannot at this time estimate when the remediation will be completed.

If we fail to remediate effectively these material weaknesses or if we identify additional material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we may be unable to report our financial condition or financial results accurately or to report them within the timeframes required by the SEC. If this were the case, we could become subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. Furthermore, failure to report our insurance subsidiaries’ financial condition or financial results accurately or report them within the timeframes required by the SEC could cause our insurance subsidiaries to curtail or cease sales of certain variable insurance products. In addition, if we are unable to determine that our internal control over financial reporting or our disclosure controls and procedures are effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, when required, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, we may face reduced ability to obtain financing and restricted access to the capital markets, we may be required to curtail or cease sales of our products, and the price of our common stock may be materially and adversely affected.

Future sales of shares by existing stockholders could cause our stock price to decline.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market following this offering, or the perception that these sales could occur, could cause the market price of our common stock to decline. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate.

As of April 26, 2018, we have 561,000,000 outstanding shares of common stock. All of the shares sold pursuant to this offering will be immediately tradable without restriction under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the “Securities Act,” except for any shares held by “affiliates,” as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act, or “Rule 144.”

The remaining shares of common stock outstanding as of April 26, 2018 will be restricted securities within the meaning of Rule 144, but will be eligible for resale subject, in certain cases, to applicable volume, manner of sale, holding period and other limitations of Rule 144 or pursuant to an exception from registration under Rule 701 under the Securities Act, or “Rule 701,” subject to the terms of the lock-up agreements described below.

Upon the settlement of this offering, we intend to file one or more registration statements on Form S-8 under the Securities Act to register the shares of common stock to be issued under our equity compensation plans and, as a result, all shares of common stock acquired upon exercise of stock options granted under our plans will also be freely tradable under the Securities Act, subject to the terms of the lock-up agreements, unless purchased by our affiliates. As of April 26, 2018, 5,882,352 shares of our common stock are reserved for future issuances under the equity incentive plan adopted in connection with this offering.

In connection with this offering, we, the selling stockholder and all of our directors and executive officers will enter into lock-up agreements under which, subject to certain exceptions, we and they have agreed not to sell, transfer or dispose of or hedge, directly or indirectly, any shares of our common stock or any securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for shares of our common stock for a period of 180 days after the date of this prospectus, except with the prior written consent of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. Following the expiration of this 180-day lock-up period, approximately 423,750,000 shares of our common stock will be eligible for future sale, subject to the applicable volume, manner of sale, holding period and other limitations of Rule 144 or pursuant to an exception from registration under Rule 701. As resale restrictions end, the market price of our common stock could decline if AXA sells its shares or is perceived by

78

the market as intending to sell them. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC may, in their sole discretion and at any time, release all or any portion of the securities subject to lock-up agreements entered into in connection with this offering. Furthermore, subject to the expiration or waiver of the lock up agreements, AXA will have the right to require us to register shares of common stock for resale in some circumstances pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement we will enter into with AXA.

In the future, we may issue additional shares of common stock or other equity or debt securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for shares of our common stock in connection with a financing, strategic investment, litigation settlement or employee arrangement or otherwise. Any of these issuances could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

Our common stock has no prior public market, and the market price of our common stock may be volatile and could decline after this offering.

Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our common stock, and an active market for our common stock may not develop or be sustained after this offering. We have been approved to list our common stock on the NYSE. We and the selling stockholder negotiated the initial public offering price per share with the representatives of the underwriters and, therefore, that price may not be indicative of the market price of our common stock after this offering. We cannot assure you that an active public market for our common stock will develop after this offering or, if one does develop, that it will be sustained. In the absence of an active public trading market, you may not be able to sell your shares. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund operations by selling shares and may impair our ability to make strategic investments by using our shares as consideration. In addition, the market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly. Among the factors that could affect our stock price are:

79

In particular, we cannot assure you that you will be able to resell your shares at or above the initial public offering price. Stock markets have experienced extreme volatility in recent years that has been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, class action litigation has often been instituted against the affected company. Any litigation of this type brought against us could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish misleading or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not currently have, and may never obtain, research coverage for our common stock. If there is no research coverage of our common stock, the trading price for our common stock may be negatively impacted. In the event we obtain research coverage for our common stock, if one or more of the analysts downgrades our stock or publishes misleading or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of the analysts ceases coverage of our common stock or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which could cause our common stock price or trading volume to decline.

Future offerings of debt or equity securities which would rank senior to our common stock may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

If, in the future, we decide to issue debt or equity securities that rank senior to our common stock, it is likely that such securities will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. We and, indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Because our decision to issue debt or equity securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common stock will bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting the value of their stock holdings in us.

Anti-takeover provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws and Delaware law could discourage, delay or prevent a change of control of our company and may affect the trading price of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated by-laws include a number of provisions that may discourage, delay or prevent a change in our management or control over us that stockholders may consider favorable. For example, prior to the settlement of this offering, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws will collectively:

80

These 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 the provisions are viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated by-laws may also make it difficult for stockholders to replace or remove our management. Furthermore, the existence of the foregoing provisions, as well as the significant amount of common stock that AXA will own following this offering, could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. These provisions may facilitate management entrenchment that may delay, deter, render more difficult or prevent a change in our control, which may not be in the best interests of our stockholders.

We will be a “controlled company” within the meaning of the NYSE rules and, as a result, we will qualify for, and intend to rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. You will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

After the settlement of this offering, AXA will control a majority of the voting power of our outstanding common stock. Accordingly, we will qualify as a “controlled company” within the meaning of the NYSE corporate governance standards. Under NYSE rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain NYSE corporate governance standards, including:

Following this offering, we intend to use these exemptions. As a result, we will not have a majority of independent directors, our compensation and our nominating and governance committees will not consist entirely of independent directors, and such committees may not be subject to annual performance evaluations.

81

Additionally, we are only required to have all independent audit committee members within one year from the date of listing. Consequently, you will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance rules and requirements. Our status as a controlled company could make our common stock less attractive to some investors or otherwise harm our stock price.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will include provisions limiting the personal liability of our directors for breaches of fiduciary duty under the Delaware General Corporation Law.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will contain provisions permitted under the action asserting a claim arising under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or the “DGCL,” relating to the liability of directors. These provisions will eliminate a director’s personal liability to the fullest extent permitted by the DGCL for monetary damages resulting from a breach of fiduciary duty, except in circumstances involving:

The principal effect of the limitation on liability provision is that a stockholder will be unable to prosecute an action for monetary damages against a director unless the stockholder can demonstrate a basis for liability for which indemnification is not available under the DGCL. These provisions, however, should not limit or eliminate our rights or any stockholder’s rights to seek non-monetary relief, such as an injunction or rescission, in the event of a breach of a director’s fiduciary duty. These provisions will not alter a director’s liability under federal securities laws. The inclusion of this provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation may discourage or deter stockholders or management from bringing a lawsuit against directors for a breach of their fiduciary duties, even though such an action, if successful, might otherwise have benefited us and our stockholders.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will designate the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or stockholders.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation will provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed to us or our stockholders by any of our directors, officers, other employees, agents or stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising out of or under the DGCL, or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (including, without limitation, any action asserting a claim arising out of or pursuant to our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated by-laws) or (iv) any action asserting a claim that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. By becoming a stockholder in our company, you will be deemed to have notice of and have consented to the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation related to choice of forum. The choice of forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation may limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, other employees, agents or stockholders, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

82