Item 1. Business
Index to Business
Overview
We are a leading financial services company that specializes in issuing, reinsuring and acquiring retirement savings products designed for the increasing number of individuals and institutions seeking to fund retirement needs. Apollo Global Management, Inc. (AGM, and together with its subsidiaries other than us or our subsidiaries, Apollo) (NYSE: APO) is the beneficial owner of 100% of our common stock and controls all of the voting power to elect our board of directors.
We focus on generating spread income by combining our two core competencies of (1) sourcing long-term, persistent liabilities and (2) using the global scale and reach of Apollo’s asset management business to actively source or originate assets with our preferred risk and return characteristics. Our investment philosophy is to invest a portion of our assets in securities that earn an incremental yield by taking measured liquidity and complexity risk and capitalize on our long-dated, persistent liability profile to prudently achieve higher net investment earned rates, rather than assuming incremental credit risk. Our differentiated investment strategy benefits from our relationship with Apollo, which provides a full suite of services for our investment portfolio, including direct investment management, asset allocation, mergers and acquisitions asset diligence and certain operational support services, including investment compliance, tax, legal and risk management support. Our relationship with Apollo provides us with access to Apollo’s investment professionals around the world as well as Apollo’s global asset management infrastructure across a broad array of asset classes. We are led by a highly skilled management team with extensive industry experience.
Apollo’s asset management expertise supports the sourcing and underwriting of assets for our portfolio. We are invested in a diverse array of primarily high-grade fixed income assets including corporate bonds, structured securities and commercial and residential real estate loans, among others. We establish risk thresholds which in turn define risk tolerance across a wide range of factors, including credit risk, liquidity risk, concentration risk and caps on specific asset classes. In addition to other efforts, we partially mitigate the risk of rising interest rates by strategically allocating a meaningful portion of our investment portfolio into floating rate securities. We also maintain holdings in less interest rate-sensitive investments, including collateralized loan obligations (CLO), non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and various types of structured products, consistent with our strategy of pursuing incremental yield by assuming liquidity and complexity risk, rather than assuming incremental credit risk.
Rather than increase our allocation to higher risk securities to increase yield, we pursue the direct origination of high-quality, predominantly senior secured assets, which we believe possess greater alpha-generating qualities than securities that would otherwise be readily available in public markets. These direct origination strategies include investments sourced by (1) affiliated platforms that originate loans to third parties and in which we gain exposure directly to the loan or indirectly through our ownership of the origination platform and/or securitizations of assets originated by the origination platform, and (2) Apollo’s extensive network of direct relationships with predominantly investment-grade counterparties.
We use, and may continue to use, derivatives, including swaps, options, futures and forward contracts and reinsurance contracts to hedge risks such as current or future changes in the fair value of assets and liabilities, current or future changes in cash flows and changes in interest rates, equity markets, currency fluctuations and longevity.
On December 31, 2023, Athene Holding Ltd. (AHL) completed the redomestication of its jurisdiction of organization from Bermuda to the State of Delaware, thereby discontinuing its existence as a Bermuda exempted company and continuing its existence as a corporation organized in the State of Delaware. In connection with the Redomicile, AHL’s (i) Class A common shares, (ii) 6.35% Fixed-to-Floating Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preference Shares, Series A, (iii) 5.625% Fixed Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preference Shares, Series B, (iv) 6.375% Fixed-Rate Reset Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preference Shares, Series C, (v) 4.875% Fixed-Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preference Shares, Series D, and (vi) 7.750% Fixed-Rate Reset Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preference Shares, Series E were converted into AHL’s (I) common stock, $0.001 par value per share, (II) 6.35% Fixed-to-Floating Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series A, (III) 5.625% Fixed Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series B, (IV) 6.375% Fixed-Rate Reset Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series C, (V) 4.875% Fixed-Rate Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series D, and (VI) 7.750% Fixed-Rate Reset Perpetual Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series E, respectively.
Relationship with Apollo
We are a subsidiary of AGM. Through this relationship, Apollo allows us to leverage the scale of its asset management platform to source attractive assets for our investment portfolio. In addition to co-founding the Company, Apollo assists us in identifying and capitalizing on acquisition and block reinsurance opportunities that have helped us significantly grow our business. Five of our twelve directors are employees of or consultants to Apollo, including our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer, who is also a member of the board of directors and an executive officer of Apollo, and the Chief Executive Officer of Apollo Insurance Solutions Group LP (ISG), our investment manager and a subsidiary of AGM. See Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Our Relationship with Apollo–There are potential conflicts of interests between Apollo, our corporate parent, and the holders of our preferred stock and Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
Growth Strategy
The key components of our long-term growth strategy are as follows:
•Expand Our Organic Distribution Channels. We plan to grow organically by expanding our retail, flow reinsurance and institutional distribution channels with a focus on international expansion, particularly in Asia. These organic channels generally allow us to adjust our product mix to originate liabilities that meet our return targets in diverse market environments.
We expect our retail channel to continue to benefit from our credit profile, strong financial position, suite of capital-efficient products and product design capabilities. We believe that this should support growth in sales at our desired cost of funds through increased volumes in each of our existing retail channels, including via expanding our bank and broker-dealer networks. However, we do not seek to achieve volume growth at the expense of profitability. As a result, we adjust our retail pricing more rapidly for changes in asset yields than many of our peers.
Within our flow reinsurance channel, we expect our credit profile and growing reputation as a valuable reinsurance counterparty will enable us to attract additional flow reinsurance partners and maintain or increase our flow reinsurance volumes with existing counterparties. Our ability to provide attractive solutions to reinsurance partners was demonstrated by our entry into the Japanese market and establishment of several partnerships with Japanese and US financial institutions over the past couple of years, as well as our entry into the broader Asia-Pacific market at the end of 2022. Similar to our retail channel, we do not seek to achieve volume growth at the expense of profitability and therefore tend to respond more rapidly to adjust our pricing for changes in asset yields than many of our peers.
We expect to grow our institutional channel by continuing to engage in programmatic issuances of funding agreements and pursuing additional pension group annuity transactions. Our demonstrated ability to create customized solutions for pension group annuity counterparties seeking to reduce or eliminate their exposure to pension obligations will continue to drive the positive momentum that we have seen in this channel. Going forward, we expect to build on our growth in the US, expand our footprint in the UK and explore options for transactions in other jurisdictions.
•Pursue Attractive Inorganic Growth Opportunities. We plan to continue leveraging our expertise in sourcing and evaluating inorganic transactions to grow our business profitably. We believe that our demonstrated ability to successfully consummate complex transactions, as well as our relationship with Apollo, provides us with distinct advantages relative to other acquisition and block reinsurance counterparty candidates. Furthermore, we have achieved sufficient scale to provide meaningful operational synergies for the businesses and blocks of business that we acquire and reinsure, respectively. Consequently, we believe we are often sought out by companies looking to restructure their businesses.
•Expand Our Product Offering. We seek to build products that meet our policyholders’ retirement savings objectives, such as accumulation, income and legacy planning. Our products are customized for each of the retail channels through which we distribute, including independent marketing organizations (IMOs), banks, and independent broker dealers, and represent innovative solutions that meet the needs of policyholders in each of these channels. We continue to release updated or new products to meet the evolving needs of policyholders. Our diverse Fixed Indexed Annuity (FIA) product offerings are complemented by a number of innovative custom indices, which allow our customers to gain access to sophisticated strategies that are designed for better performance within our products. During 2023, approximately 64% of sales went to custom indices that are only available through our products. In 2023, Athene was recognized for its indexed annuity lineup by winning “Index of the Year” (BCA 2.0) and “Deal of the Year” (Performance Elite) from Structured Retail Products (SRP) Americas Awards as well as “Best Carrier” and “Best Performance FIA” (BCA 2.0) from Structured Products Intelligence (SPi). In addition, we are creating products that capitalize on the capabilities of both Apollo and Athene and will facilitate Apollo’s distribution of these products to high-net-worth individuals.
•Leverage Our Merger with Apollo. We intend to continue leveraging our close relationship with Apollo to source high-quality assets with attractive risk-adjusted returns. Apollo’s global scale and reach provide us with broad market access across environments and geographies and allow us to actively source assets that exhibit our preferred risk and return characteristics. We will also continue to partner with Apollo’s portfolio of origination platforms, which provide us assets with higher spreads than those available in the public markets. See –Investment Management for more information regarding Apollo’s origination platforms. Our relationship with Apollo will allow us to continue to offer creative solutions to insurance companies seeking to restructure their businesses and may enable us opportunities to source additional volumes of attractively-priced liabilities.
Finally, our relationship with Apollo will continue to provide us with access to on-demand capital through ACRA. We believe this capital will continue to be instrumental to executing our growth strategy. See –Capital for additional information regarding ACRA.
•Allocate Assets during Market Dislocations. As we have done successfully in the past, we plan to capitalize on future market dislocations to opportunistically reposition our portfolio to capture incremental yield. For example, regulatory changes in the wake of the financial crisis have made it more expensive for banks and other traditional lenders to hold certain illiquid and complex assets, notwithstanding the fact that these assets may have prudent credit characteristics. The repressed demand for these asset classes has provided opportunities for investors to acquire high-quality assets that offer attractive returns. For example, we see continuing opportunities as banks retreat from direct mortgage lending, structured and asset-backed products, and middle-market commercial loans. We intend to maintain a flexible approach to asset allocation, which will allow us to act quickly on similar opportunities that may arise in the future across a wide variety of asset types.
•Maintain Risk Management Discipline. Our risk management strategy is to proactively manage our exposure to risks associated with interest rate duration, credit risk and structural complexity of our invested assets. We address interest rate duration and liquidity risks by managing the duration of the liabilities we source with the assets we acquire through asset liability management (ALM) modeling. We assess credit risk by modeling our liquidity and capital under a range of stress scenarios. We manage the risks related to the structural complexity of our invested assets through Apollo’s modeling efforts. The goal of our risk management discipline is to be able to continue to grow and achieve profitable results across various market environments. See Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risks for additional information.
Products
We principally offer two product lines: annuities and funding agreements. Our primary product line is annuities, which include fixed, payout and group annuities issued in conjunction with pension group annuity transactions. We also offer funding agreements, including those issued to institutions and to special-purpose unaffiliated trusts in connection with our funding agreement backed notes (FABN) and secured funding agreement backed repurchase agreement (FABR) programs. In addition, we are creating products that capitalize on the capabilities of both Apollo and Athene and will facilitate Apollo’s distribution of these products to high-net-worth individuals.
The following summarizes our total premiums and deposits by product:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Successor | | | Predecessor |
(In millions) | Year ended December 31, 2023 | | Year ended December 31, 2022 | | | Year ended December 31, 2021 |
Annuities | | | | | | |
Indexed | $ | 12,012 | | | $ | 11,212 | | | | $ | 8,408 | |
Fixed rate | 34,594 | | | 15,322 | | | | 2,662 | |
Pension group annuities | 10,374 | | | 11,218 | | | | 13,837 | |
Payout | 318 | | | 878 | | | | 922 | |
Total annuity products | 57,298 | | | 38,630 | | | | 25,829 | |
Funding agreements1 | 7,193 | | | 10,039 | | | | 11,852 | |
Whole life and other | 2,247 | | | 34 | | | | 47 | |
Gross premiums and deposits, net of ceded | $ | 66,738 | | | $ | 48,703 | | | | $ | 37,728 | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
1 Funding agreements are comprised of funding agreements issued under our FABN and FABR programs, funding agreements issued to the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) and long-term repurchase agreements. |
Gross premiums and deposits are comprised of all products’ deposits, which generally are not included in revenues on the consolidated statements of income (loss), and premiums collected. Gross premiums and deposits include directly written business, flow reinsurance assumed as well as premiums and deposits generated from assumed block reinsurance transactions, net of those ceded through reinsurance. Organic and inorganic inflows do not correspond to the gross premiums and deposits presented above as gross premiums and deposits include renewal deposits and annuitizations, as well as premiums and deposits from certain life and other products other than deferred annuities and institutional products, all of which are not included in our organic inflows.
Net reserve liabilities represent our policyholder liability obligations, including liabilities assumed through reinsurance and net of liabilities ceded through reinsurance. Net reserve liabilities include interest sensitive contract liabilities, future policy benefits, net market risk benefits, long-term repurchase obligations, dividends payable to policyholders and other policy claims and benefits, offset by reinsurance recoverable, excluding policy loans ceded. Net reserve liabilities include our proportionate share of ACRA reserve liabilities, based on our economic ownership, but do not include the proportionate share of reserve liabilities associated with the noncontrolling interests. Net reserve liabilities include the reserves assumed through modified coinsurance (modco) agreements to encompass the liabilities for which costs are being recognized in the consolidated statements of income (loss). Net reserve liabilities are net of the ceded liabilities to third-party reinsurers as the costs of those liabilities are passed to such reinsurers and, therefore, we have no net economic exposure to such liabilities, assuming our reinsurance counterparties perform under our agreements. The majority of our ceded reinsurance is a result of reinsuring large blocks of life insurance business following acquisitions as well as strategic reinsurance transactions.
The following summarizes our net reserve liabilities by product:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(In millions, except percentages) | December 31, 2023 | | December 31, 2022 |
Annuities | | | | | | | |
Indexed annuities | $ | 84,444 | | | 42.4 | % | | $ | 85,163 | | | 48.4 | % |
Fixed rate annuities | 53,282 | | | 26.7 | % | | 39,553 | | | 22.5 | % |
Pension group annuities | 26,313 | | | 13.2 | % | | 20,614 | | | 11.7 | % |
Payout annuities | 4,897 | | | 2.4 | % | | 7,589 | | | 4.3 | % |
Total annuity products | 168,936 | | | 84.7 | % | | 152,919 | | | 86.9 | % |
Funding agreements1 | 26,637 | | | 13.4 | % | | 21,538 | | | 12.2 | % |
Life and other | 3,716 | | | 1.9 | % | | 1,513 | | | 0.9 | % |
Total net reserve liabilities | $ | 199,289 | | | 100.0 | % | | $ | 175,970 | | | 100.0 | % |
| | | | | | | |
1 Funding agreements are comprised of funding agreements issued under our FABN and FABR programs, funding agreements issued to the FHLB and long-term repurchase agreements. |
Annuities
Fixed Indexed Annuities – FIAs are the largest percentage of our net reserve liabilities. FIAs are a type of insurance contract in which the policyholder makes one or more premium deposits that earn interest, on a tax deferred basis, at a crediting rate based on a specified market index, subject to a specified cap, spread or participation rate. FIAs allow policyholders the possibility of earning interest without significant risk to principal, unless the contract is surrendered during a surrender charge period. A market index tracks the performance of a specific group of stocks or other assets representing a particular segment of the market, or in some cases, an entire market. We generally buy options on the indices to which the FIAs are tied to hedge the associated market risk. The cost of the option is priced into the overall economics of the product as an option budget.
We generate income on FIA products by earning an investment spread, based on the difference between (1) income earned on the investments supporting the liabilities and (2) the cost of funds, including fixed interest credited to customers, option costs, the cost of providing guarantees (net of rider fees), policy issuance and maintenance costs and commission costs.
Fixed Rate Annuities – Fixed rate annuities include annual reset annuities and multi-year guarantee annuities (MYGA). Unlike FIAs, fixed rate annuities earn interest at a set rate (or declared crediting rate), rather than at a rate that may vary based on an index. Fixed rate annual reset annuities have a crediting rate that is typically guaranteed for one year. After such period, we have the ability to change the crediting rate at our discretion, generally once annually, to any rate at or above a guaranteed minimum rate. MYGAs are similar to annual reset annuities except that the initial crediting rate is guaranteed for a specified number of years, rather than just one year, before it may be changed at our discretion. After the initial crediting period, MYGAs can generally be reset annually. As of December 31, 2023, crediting rates on outstanding annual reset annuities ranged from 0.5% to 6.0% and crediting rates on outstanding MYGAs ranged from 0.25% to 6.20%.
Registered Index-Linked Annuities (RILA) – RILAs are similar to FIAs in offering the policyholder the opportunity for tax-deferred growth based in part on the performance of a market index. Compared to an FIA, RILAs have the potential for higher returns but also have the potential for risk of loss to principal and related earnings. RILAs provide the ability for the policyholder to participate in the positive performance of certain market indices during a term, limited by a cap or adjusted for a participation rate. Negative performance of the market indices during a term can result in negative policyholder returns, with downside protection typically provided in the form of either a “buffer” or a “floor” to limit the policyholder’s exposure to market loss. A “buffer” is protection from negative exposure up to a certain percentage, typically 10 or 20 percent. A “floor” is protection from negative exposure less than a stated percentage (i.e., the policyholder risks exposure of loss up to the “floor,” but is protected against any loss in excess of this amount).
Private Placement Variable Annuities (PPVA) – PPVAs are not registered with the SEC and currently are only offered by private placement to purchasers meeting both the requirements as a qualified purchaser and an accredited investor under applicable federal securities laws. Variable annuities allow policyholders to participate directly in the investment experience of the underlying investment vehicles offered through the product. In a variable annuity, the policyholder assumes the full investment risk of the investment options chosen. The product allows the policyholder to allocate their money to a variety of variable separate account divisions that invest in a suite of underlying investment options and the potential to accumulate cash value on a tax-deferred basis. Our PPVA product provides access to a suite of Apollo managed funds and other product offerings with no surrender charges and no guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit or guaranteed death benefit features. We generate income on our PPVA product by collecting a management fee that is a function of the policyholder’s account value.
Income Riders to Fixed Annuity Products
The income riders on our deferred annuities can be broadly categorized as either guaranteed or participating. Guaranteed income riders provide policyholders with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit, which permits policyholders to elect to receive guaranteed payments for life from their contract without having to annuitize their policies. Participating income riders tend to have lower levels of guaranteed income than guaranteed income riders but provide policyholders the opportunity to receive greater levels of income if the policies’ indexed crediting strategies perform well.
Income riders, particularly on FIAs, have become very popular among policyholders. The Life Insurance and Market Research Association (LIMRA) estimates that approximately 14% of fixed annuity premium in the US for the nine months ended September 30, 2023 (the most recent period that specific market share data is currently available) included an income rider. As of December 31, 2023, approximately 28% of our deferred annuity account value contained rider benefits. This includes annuities with income riders sourced through retail and reinsurance operations as well as acquisitions. Of the deferred annuities sourced through our retail and flow reinsurance channels, for the year ended December 31, 2023, 2% contained participating income riders and 4% contained guaranteed income riders.
Withdrawal Options for Deferred Annuities
After the first year following the issuance of a deferred annuity, the policyholder is typically permitted to make withdrawals up to 5% or 10% (depending on the contract) of the prior year’s value without a surrender charge or market value adjustment (MVA), subject to certain limitations. Withdrawals in excess of the allowable amounts are assessed a surrender charge and MVA if such withdrawals are made during the surrender charge period of the policy, which generally ranges from 3 to 20 years. The surrender charge for most of our products at contract inception is generally between 7% and 15% of the contract value and decreases by approximately one percentage point per year during the surrender charge period. The weighted average surrender charge (excluding the impact of MVAs) was 6% for our deferred annuities as of December 31, 2023.
At maturity, the policyholder may elect to receive proceeds in the form of a single payment or an annuity. If the annuity option is selected, the policyholder will receive a series of payments either over the policyholder’s lifetime or over a fixed number of years, depending upon the terms of the contract. Some contracts permit annuitization prior to maturity.
Payout Annuities
Payout annuities primarily consist of single premium immediate annuities (SPIA), supplemental contracts and structured settlements. Payout annuities provide a series of periodic payments for a fixed period of time or for the life of the policyholder, based upon the policyholder’s election at the time of issuance. The amounts, frequency and length of time of the payments are fixed at the outset of the annuity contract. SPIAs are often purchased by persons at or near retirement age who desire a steady stream of payments over a future period of years. Supplemental contracts are typically created upon the conversion of a death claim or the annuitization of a deferred annuity. Structured settlements generally relate to legal settlements.
Group Annuities
Group annuities issued in connection with pension group annuity transactions usually involve a single premium group annuity contract issued to discharge certain pension plan liabilities. The group annuities that we issue are nonparticipating contracts. The assets supporting the guaranteed benefits for each contract may be held in a separate account. Group annuity benefits may be purchased for current, retired and/or terminated employees and their beneficiaries covered under terminating or continuing pension plans. Both immediate and deferred annuity certificates may be issued pursuant to a single group annuity contract. Immediate annuity certificates cover those retirees and beneficiaries currently receiving payments, whereas deferred annuity certificates cover those participants who have not yet begun receiving benefit payments. Immediate annuity certificates have no cash surrender rights, whereas deferred annuity certificates may include an election to receive a lump sum payment, exercisable by the participant upon either the participant achieving a specified age or the occurrence of a specified event, such as termination of the participant’s employment.
A pension group annuity transaction may be structured as a buyout or buy-in transaction. A buyout transaction involves the issuance by an insurer of a group annuity contract to the plan sponsor and individual annuity certificates to each plan participant, resulting in the transfer of the contractual obligation to pay pension benefits from the plan sponsor to the insurer. A buyout transaction may be a full buyout or a partial buyout. A pension group annuity transaction structured as a buy-in includes an option to convert to buyout at the election of the plan sponsor, or the option to be surrendered at the election of the plan sponsor, subject to certain conditions that may reflect both a market value adjustment and a surrender charge, resulting in a refund in an amount determined in accordance with the group annuity contract. Generally, a buy-in structure is selected when the plan sponsor seeks to eliminate risk but is not yet prepared to terminate the plan or recognize any adverse accounting impact that may accompany a plan termination. During the buy-in phase, the group annuity contract represents an asset of the plan sponsor with no annuity certificates issued to the plan participants unless and until an election is made under the contract to convert to a buyout.
We earn income on group annuities based upon the spread between the return on the assets received in connection with the pension group annuity transaction and the cost of the pension obligations assumed. Group annuities expose us to longevity risk, which would be realized if plan participants live longer than assumed in underwriting the transaction, resulting in aggregate payments that exceed our expectations. However, our conservative underwriting process makes use of a wealth of reliable pre- and post-selection participant data, including mortality experience data, particularly for mid- to large-sized transactions, to mitigate this risk.
Funding Agreements
We issue funding agreements opportunistically to institutional investors at attractive risk-adjusted funding costs. Funding agreements are negotiated privately between an investor and an insurance company. They are designed to provide an agreement holder with a guaranteed return of principal and periodic interest payments, while offering competitive yields and predictable returns. The interest rate can be fixed or floating.
If the interest rate is a floating rate, it may be linked to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, the federal funds rate or other major index. We also include repurchase agreements with a term that exceeds one year at the time of execution within the funding agreement product category.
Life and Other
Life and other products include life insurance policies assumed through reinsurance transactions, other retail products, including legacy run-off or ceded business, and statutory closed blocks.
Distribution Channels
We have developed four dedicated distribution channels to address the retirement services market: retail, flow reinsurance, institutional, and acquisitions and block reinsurance, which support opportunistic origination across different market environments. Additionally, we believe these distribution channels enable us to achieve stable asset growth while maintaining attractive returns.
We are diligent in setting our return targets based on market conditions and risks inherent in the products we offer, as well as in the acquisition or block reinsurance transactions we pursue. Generally, we target mid-teen returns for sources of organic growth and mid-teen or higher returns for sources of inorganic growth. However, specific return targets are established with due consideration to the facts and circumstances surrounding each growth opportunity and may be higher or lower than those that we target more generally. Factors that we consider in establishing return targets for a given growth opportunity include, but are not limited to, the certainty of the return profile, the strategic nature of the opportunity, the size and scale of the opportunity, the alignment and fit of the opportunity with our existing business, the opportunity for risk diversification and the existence of increased opportunities for higher returns or growth. If market conditions or risks inherent in a product or transaction create return profiles that are not acceptable to us, we generally will not sacrifice our profitability merely to facilitate growth.
Retail
We have built a scalable platform that allows us to originate and rapidly grow our business in deferred annuity products. We have developed a suite of retirement savings products, distributed through our network of 51 IMOs and our growing network of 18 banks and 144 broker-dealers, collectively representing approximately 128,000 independent agents in all 50 states. We are focused in every aspect of our retail channel on providing high quality products and service to our policyholders and maintaining appropriate financial protection over the life of their policies.
Flow Reinsurance
Flow reinsurance provides another channel for us to source liabilities with attractive crediting rates and offers insurance companies the opportunity to improve their product offerings and enhance their financial results. As in the retail channel, we do not pursue flow volume growth at the expense of profitability and will respond rapidly to adjust pricing for changes in asset yields.
Reinsurance is an arrangement under which an insurance company, the reinsurer, agrees to indemnify another insurance company, the ceding company or cedant, for all or a portion of certain insurance risks underwritten by the ceding company. Reinsurance is designed to (1) reduce the net amount at risk on individual risks, thereby enabling the ceding company to increase the volume of business it can underwrite, as well as increase the maximum risk it can underwrite on a single risk, (2) stabilize operating results by reducing volatility in the ceding company’s loss experience, (3) assist the ceding company in meeting applicable regulatory requirements and (4) enhance the ceding company’s financial strength and surplus position.
Within our flow reinsurance channel, we conduct third-party flow reinsurance transactions through our insurance subsidiaries. As a reinsurer, we partner with insurance companies to develop solutions to their capital requirements, enhance their presence in the retirement market and improve their financial results. We target reinsuring spread-based liabilities which can include FIAs, MYGAs, traditional one-year guarantee fixed deferred annuities, immediate annuities, whole life insurance, universal life insurance and institutional products.
As of December 31, 2023, we had ongoing flow reinsurance and retrocession agreements involving 16 third-party cedants, for a quota share of the cedants’ new inflows.
Institutional
Our institutional channel includes funding agreements and pension group annuity transactions.
Funding Agreements
Funding agreements are comprised of funding agreements issued under our FABN and FABR programs, funding agreements issued to the FHLB and long-term repurchase agreements. We have an FABN program, which allows Athene Global Funding, a special-purpose, unaffiliated statutory trust to offer its senior secured medium-term notes. The notes are underwritten and marketed by major investment banks’ broker-dealer operations and are sold to institutional investors. Athene Global Funding uses the net proceeds from each sale to purchase one or more funding agreements from us with matching interest and maturity payment terms. We also established a secured FABR program in which a special-purpose, unaffiliated entity enters into a repurchase agreement with a bank and the proceeds of the repurchase agreement are used by the special-purpose entity to purchase funding agreements from us. Additionally, we are a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines and, through membership, we have issued funding agreements to the FHLB in exchange for cash advances. We are required to provide collateral in excess of the funding agreement amounts outstanding, considering any discounts to the securities posted and prepayment penalties. We also include long-term repurchase agreements with a term that exceeds one year at the time of execution within the funding agreement product category.
Pension Group Annuities
We partner with institutions seeking to transfer and thereby reduce their obligation to pay future pension benefits to retirees and deferred participants through pension group annuities. We work with advisors, brokers and consultants to source pension group annuity transactions and design solutions that meet the needs of prospective pension group annuity counterparties and their participants, with a focus on medium- and large-sized deals involving retirees and/or deferred participants that are structured as either a buyout or a buy-in transaction. Since entering the pension group annuity market in 2017, we have closed 47 deals resulting in the issuance or reinsurance of group annuities of $51.8 billion with more than 560,000 plan participants as of December 31, 2023.
We believe we have established ourselves as a trusted and market-leading pension group annuity solutions provider and expect that our experience in crafting customized pension group annuity solutions and our improving credit profile will enable us to continue to source and execute pension group annuity transactions. We have the ability to design tailored solutions that meet the needs of our pension group annuity counterparties, which includes a range of blue-chip clients such as J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corporation, among others, and a number of repeat clients.
Acquisitions and Block Reinsurance
Acquisitions are a complementary source of growth for our business. We have a proven ability to acquire businesses in complex transactions at favorable terms, manage the liabilities acquired and reinvest the associated assets.
Through block reinsurance transactions, we partner with life and annuity companies to decrease their exposure to one or more products or to divest of lower-margin or non-core segments of their businesses. Unlike acquisitions in which we acquire the assets or stock of a target company, block reinsurance allows us to contractually assume assets and liabilities associated with a certain book of business. In doing so, we contractually assume responsibility for only that portion of the business that we deem desirable, without assuming additional liabilities.
As we continue to expand to new markets and geographies, we have been disciplined in only retaining liabilities that are core to our strategy and competitive advantages. This can be accomplished through structural solutions, including mortality and longevity reinsurance. For example, in our most recent Japanese block reinsurance transaction, we entered into an arrangement with a highly rated reinsurer to retrocede the mortality risk associated with the whole life liability.
We plan to continue leveraging our expertise in sourcing and evaluating transactions to profitably grow our business. We believe our demonstrated ability to source transactions, consummate complex transactions and reinvest assets into higher yielding investments as well as our access to capital provide us with distinct advantages relative to other acquisition or block reinsurance candidates.
Investment Management
Investment activities are an integral part of our business and our net investment income is a significant component of our total revenues. Our investment philosophy is to invest a portion of our assets in securities that earn an incremental yield by taking measured liquidity and complexity risk and capitalize on our long-dated, persistent liability profile to prudently achieve higher net investment earned rates, rather than assuming incremental credit risk. A cornerstone of our investment philosophy is that given the operating leverage inherent in our business, modest investment outperformance can translate to outsized return performance. Because we maintain discipline in underwriting attractively priced liabilities, we have the ability to invest in a broad range of high-quality assets to generate attractive earnings.
Our differentiated investment strategy benefits from our relationship with Apollo, which provides a full suite of services for our investment portfolio, including direct investment management, asset allocation, mergers and acquisitions asset diligence and certain operational support
services, including investment compliance, tax, legal and risk management support. Apollo provides portfolio management services for substantially all of our net invested assets.
We are downside focused and our asset allocations reflect the results of stress testing analysis. Additionally, we establish risk thresholds which in turn define risk tolerance across a wide range of factors, including credit risk, liquidity risk, concentration risk and caps on specific asset classes. In addition to other efforts, we partially mitigate the risk of rising interest rates by strategically allocating a meaningful portion of our investment portfolio into floating rate securities.
Apollo’s investment team and credit portfolio managers employ their deep experience to assist us in sourcing and underwriting complex asset classes. Apollo has selected a diverse array of corporate bonds and more structured, but highly rated, asset classes. We also maintain holdings in floating rate and less interest rate-sensitive investments, including CLOs, non-agency RMBS and various types of structured products. These asset classes permit us to earn incremental yield by assuming liquidity and complexity risk, rather than assuming incremental credit risk.
Apollo sources assets for our investment portfolio based upon the unique characteristics of our business, including desired asset allocation and risk tolerance, and with regard to the ever-changing macroeconomic environment in which we operate. In recent years, we and Apollo have recognized that a heightened demand for investment grade marketable securities has placed substantial downward pressure on credit spreads of such securities, which adversely impacts the returns we are able to achieve on new investment purchases. Rather than increase our allocation to higher risk securities to increase yield, we pursue the direct origination of high-quality, predominantly senior secured assets, which we believe possess greater alpha-generating qualities than securities that would otherwise be readily available in public markets. These direct origination strategies include investments sourced by (1) affiliated platforms that originate loans to third parties and in which we gain exposure directly to the loan or indirectly through our ownership of the origination platform and/or securitizations of assets originated by the origination platform, and (2) Apollo’s extensive network of direct relationships with predominantly investment-grade counterparties.
We believe that a greater focus on these direct origination strategies affords us both quantitative and qualitative advantages, including eliminating the cost of intermediaries, recognizing an illiquidity premium, having direct access to diligence and having greater control over the terms of the investment. Furthermore, we believe that these direct origination strategies will often provide us with the flexibility to choose the location in the capital structure in which we invest, affording us the opportunity to select the risk/return profile that we deem optimal and limit our exposure to assets with sub-optimal risk/return characteristics. Employing these direct origination strategies comports well with our investment philosophy of earning incremental spread by taking measured liquidity and complexity risk, rather than taking excessive credit risk.
As part of our direct origination strategy, we may invest in two types of equity investments. First, we make strategic investments in the equity of asset origination platforms themselves. Second, we retain equity risk alongside our investments in investment grade tranches of the assets that Apollo directly originates. We typically refer to both of these types of equity investments as ‘alternatives.’ In 2022, we contributed certain of our net alternative investments to Apollo Aligned Alternatives, L.P. (AAA), a consolidated variable interest entity (VIE), in exchange for limited partnership interests in the fund. Apollo established AAA for the purpose of providing a single vehicle through which we and third-party investors can participate in a portfolio of alternative investments. AAA enhances Apollo’s ability to increase alternative assets under management while also allowing us to achieve greater scale and diversification for alternatives.
We and Apollo have made and are continuing to make significant investments in establishing a portfolio of asset origination platforms and investment teams across a variety of asset classes. In connection with this effort, we have made and are expected to continue to make strategic investments in certain direct origination platforms. These investments may take the form of debt and/or equity and align with our investment strategy as it relates to alternative investments. Certain of the asset origination platforms in which we have invested and/or have sourced directly originated assets in the past or may source directly originated assets in the future are set forth below.
| | | | | |
| MidCap Financial is a commercial finance company that provides various financial products to middle-market businesses in multiple industries, primarily located in the US. MidCap Financial primarily originates and invests in commercial and industrial loans, including senior secured corporate loans, working capital loans collateralized mainly by accounts receivable and inventory, senior secured loans collateralized by portfolios of commercial and consumer loans and related products, secured loans to highly capitalized pharmaceutical and medical device companies, and commercial real estate loans, including multifamily independent-living properties, assisted living, skilled nursing and medical office properties, warehouse, office building, hotel and other commercial use properties and multifamily properties. MidCap Financial originates and acquires loans using borrowings under financing arrangements that it has in place with numerous financial institutions. |
| Redding Ridge Asset Management LLC and Redding Ridge Asset Management (UK) LLP (collectively, Redding Ridge) is a registered investment advisor specializing in leveraged loans and global CLO management. Redding Ridge’s primary business consists of acting as collateral manager for CLO transactions and related warehouse facilities and as holder of CLO retention interests in both the US and Europe. Redding Ridge is strategically positioned with access to significant CLO management and structuring expertise, industry contacts and investor relationships globally. Pursuant to various service agreements with AGM, Redding Ridge is supported by top tier credit research, credit risk management, credit trading platform and other corporate/administrative services. |
| | | | | |
| PK AirFinance is a leading provider and arranger of loans secured by commercial aircraft and aircraft engines. PK AirFinance has comprehensive origination, underwriting, and syndication lending capabilities across products and geographies. PK AirFinance’s customer base includes airlines, aircraft traders, lessors, investors and financial institutions with product expertise spanning senior secured loans, finance leases, conditional sales, loan participations, pre-delivery payment loans, and bridge loans. PK AirFinance maintains a global footprint with extensive experience in attractive emerging markets that are not core for some traditional banks. PK AirFinance employs a differentiated, asset-focused underwriting approach supplemented by credit underwriting and cash flow analysis. |
| Wheels is a leading US-based fleet management company that provides fleet leasing and value-added services to corporate clients. The fleet platform has billions of vehicle assets and manages hundreds of thousands of fleet vehicles. Given the essential-use nature of the vehicles and services provided by Wheels, the company is deeply embedded in client operations, driving high customer retention rates and an annuity-like earnings stream. |
| Foundation Home Loans is a specialist mortgage originator and servicer focused on the UK buy-to-let and owner-occupied market. Foundation exclusively originates new mortgages through intermediaries/brokers and is funded through mortgage-backed securities, warehouse loans, and forward flow agreements. Foundation provides full mortgage servicing in-house through its proprietary asset management platform. |
| Aqua Finance is a US consumer loan originator and servicer. The company works with dealers and contractors to provide secured financing solutions for near-prime customers who seek borrowing for in-home treatment systems, home improvement, pools and recreational vehicles. |
| Atlas SP is a structured products business focused on underwriting, originating, owning, and servicing certain warehouse loans extended to asset originators. As part of its business, Atlas SP also provides securitization structuring services to clients. |
We opportunistically allocate approximately 5% of our portfolio to alternative investments where we primarily focus on fixed income-like, cash flow-based investments. Individual alternative investments are selected based on the investment’s risk-reward profile, incremental effect on diversification and potential for attractive returns due to sector and/or market dislocations. We have a strong preference for alternative investments that have some or all of the following characteristics, among others: (1) investments that constitute a direct investment or an investment in a fund with a high degree of co-investment; (2) investments with credit- or debt-like characteristics (for example, a stipulated maturity and par value), or alternatively, investments with reduced volatility when compared to pure equity; or (3) investments that we believe have less downside risk. In general, we target returns for alternative investments of 10% or higher on an internal rate of return basis over the expected lives of such investments.
Our investment portfolio is managed within the limits and protocols set forth in our Investment and Credit Risk Policy. Under this policy, we set limits on investments in our portfolio by asset class, such as corporate bonds, emerging markets securities, municipal bonds, non-agency RMBS, commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), CLOs, commercial mortgage whole loans and mezzanine loans and investment funds. We also set credit risk limits for exposure to a single issuer, which vary based on the issuer’s ratings. Our strategic investments are also governed by our Strategic Investment Risk Policy which provides for special governance and risk management procedures for these transactions. In addition, our investment portfolio is constrained by its scenario-based capital ratio limits and its liquidity limits.
Capital
We believe we have a strong capital position and are well positioned to meet policyholder and other obligations. We measure capital sufficiency using an internal capital model which reflects management’s view on the various risks inherent to our business, the amount of capital required to support our core operating strategies and the amount of capital necessary to maintain our current ratings in a recessionary environment. The amount of capital required to support our core operating strategies is determined based upon internal modeling and analysis of economic risk, as well as inputs from rating agency capital models and consideration of both National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) risk-based capital (RBC) and Bermuda capital requirements. Capital in excess of this required amount is considered excess equity capital, which is available to deploy.
As discussed previously in –Growth Strategy, we seek to achieve profitable growth that maximizes stockholder value. Executing on our growth strategy requires that we have access to adequate amounts of capital. Our deployable capital and uses thereof are set forth below.
Deployable Capital
Our deployable capital is comprised of capital from three sources: excess equity capital, untapped debt capacity and available undrawn capital commitments from ACRA. As of December 31, 2023, we estimate that we had approximately $8.0 billion in capital available to deploy,
consisting of approximately $2.6 billion in excess equity capital, $3.8 billion in untapped debt capacity (assuming a peer average adjusted debt-to-capitalization ratio of 25%, which is subject to general availability and market conditions), and $1.6 billion in available undrawn capital at ACRA. We determine our untapped debt capacity by comparing our debt-to-capital ratio and adjusted debt-to-capital ratio, which were 23.3% and 14.5%, respectively, as of December 31, 2023, against an estimated peer average adjusted debt-to-capital ratio of approximately 25%.
ACRA
In order to support growth strategies and capital deployment opportunities, we established ACRA 1 as a long-duration, on-demand capital vehicle. We own 36.55% of ACRA 1’s economic interests and all of ACRA 1’s voting interests, with the remaining 63.45% of the economic interests being owned by Apollo/Athene Dedicated Investment Program (ADIP I), a series of funds managed by Apollo. During the commitment period, ACRA 1 participated in certain transactions by drawing a portion of the required capital for such transactions from third-party investors equal to ADIP I’s proportionate economic interests in ACRA 1. The commitment period for ACRA 1 expired in August 2023.
To further support our growth and capital deployment opportunities following the deployment of capital by ACRA 1, we funded ACRA 2 in December 2022 as another long-duration, on-demand capital vehicle. Effective July 1, 2023, Athene Life Re Ltd. (ALRe) sold 50% of its non-voting, economic interests in ACRA 2 to ADIP II for $640 million, while maintaining all of ACRA 2’s voting interests. Effective December 31, 2023, ACRA 2 repurchased a portion of its shares held by ALRe, which increased ADIP II’s ownership of economic interests in ACRA 2 to 60%, with ALRe owning the remaining 40% of economic interests. ACRA 2 participates in certain transactions by drawing a portion of the required capital for such transactions from third-party investors equal to ADIP II’s proportionate economic interests in ACRA 2.
These strategic capital solutions allow us the flexibility to simultaneously deploy capital across multiple accretive avenues and sustain our profitable growth strategy at scale in a capital efficient manner, while maintaining a strong financial position.
In connection with each transaction in which an ACRA entity elects to participate (each, a Participating Transaction), such ACRA entity will generally pay ALRe a fee (Wrap Fee) on the reserves of the assumed or acquired business. The Wrap Fee is expected to be approximately 15 basis points per year, based on a scale which increases from 10 to 16 basis points as the portion of the reserves economically attributed to the applicable ADIP fund increases.
In general, (a) on or about the 10th anniversary of the effective date of any Participating Transaction (other than a flow reinsurance transaction) or (b) on or about the 10th anniversary of the date on which reinsurance is terminated as to new business under any Participating Transaction that is a flow reinsurance transaction (which would occur no later than the end of the commitment period), ALRe or its applicable affiliate has the right (Commutation Right) to terminate the applicable ACRA entity’s participation in such Participating Transaction based on a book value pricing mechanism and subject to the ability of the applicable ADIP fund to reject the commutation if a minimum return with respect to such Participating Transaction is not achieved. If ALRe does not exercise the Commutation Right with respect to a Participating Transaction, then the applicable ACRA entity’s obligation to pay the Wrap Fee in connection with such Participating Transaction will terminate, and, subject to certain exceptions (and the applicable terms and conditions of the applicable ACRA Framework Agreement and related transaction documents), ALRe will be required to pay such ACRA entity a fee calculated in the same manner as the Wrap Fee. In addition, if the applicable ACRA entity fails to satisfy minimum aggregate capital requirements, ALRe has the right to recapture or assign to another of our subsidiaries a portion of the business retroceded to such ACRA entity (and/or any of its insurance or reinsurance subsidiaries) to the extent necessary to cure such failure.
As of December 31, 2023, ALRe, Athene Life Re International Ltd. (ALReI) and Athene Annuity Re Ltd. (AARe) had retroceded to ACRA $91 billion of reserve liabilities. In connection with future Participating Transactions, ACRA 2 will draw from ADIP II and ALRe their respective share of the amount of capital necessary to consummate such Participating Transactions. The terms of any Participating Transaction may vary from the terms described above.
As of December 31, 2023, ADIP II had raised approximately $3.4 billion in capital commitments, of which $1.6 billion was available to deploy into future transactions. As of December 31, 2023, there were no remaining ADIP I capital commitments available to deploy.
Uses of Capital
Capital deployment includes the payment for a business opportunity, such as the payment of a ceding commission to enter into a block reinsurance transaction, and the retention of capital based on our internal capital model. Currently, we deploy capital in four primary ways: (1) supporting organic growth, (2) supporting inorganic growth, (3) making dividend payments to AGM, and (4) retaining capital to support financial strength ratings upgrades. We generally seek mid-teen or higher returns on our capital deployment.
Reinsurance
Internal Ceded Reinsurance
Subject to quota shares generally ranging from 80% to 100%, substantially all of the existing deposits held and new deposits generated by our US insurance subsidiaries are reinsured to our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries. We maintain the same reserving principles for our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries as we do for our US insurance subsidiaries. We also retrocede certain inorganic transactions, pension group annuity transactions, funding agreement transactions, and retail and flow reinsurance business to ACRA. Our internal reinsurance structure provides us
with several strategic and operational advantages, including the aggregation of regulatory capital, which makes the aggregate capital of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries available to support the risks assumed by each entity, and enhanced operating efficiencies. As a result of our internal reinsurance structure and third-party direct to Bermuda business, a significant majority of our aggregate capital is held by our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries.
We use two principal forms of internal reinsurance arrangements, modco and coinsurance on a funds withheld basis (funds withheld). Under modco, the reinsured reserves are retained by the US cedant, whereas under funds withheld, the Bermuda reinsurer is required to establish reserves for the obligations ceded. Under both modco and funds withheld, the Bermuda reinsurer holds capital against the reserves and the US cedant retains physical possession and legal ownership of the assets supporting the reserves. The profit and loss with respect to the obligations ceded flow from the US cedant to the Bermuda reinsurer through periodic net settlements. Generally, our modco and funds withheld agreements require the US cedant to establish a segregated account in which the assets supporting the ceded obligations are maintained. The US cedant is authorized under the respective agreement to make payments on the ceded obligations directly from the segregated account. The assets maintained in the segregated account are valued at statutory carrying value for purposes of determining settlement amounts. Under the respective agreements, the US cedants have an obligation to make payments to the Bermuda reinsurers to the extent that the statutory carrying value of the assets maintained in the applicable segregated account exceeds 100% of the reserves maintained in respect of the reinsured business, and the Bermuda reinsurers have an obligation to make payments to the US cedants to the extent that the statutory carrying value of the assets maintained in the applicable segregated account is less than 100% of the reserves maintained in respect of the reinsured business.
Third-Party Ceded Reinsurance
In addition, from time to time, we may opportunistically cede certain of our business from our US insurance subsidiaries, or Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries, to third party reinsurers, to generate capital and/or limit our exposure to certain risks.
Outsourcing
With regard to our US business, we outsource some portion or all of each of the following functions to third-party service providers:
•hosting of financial systems;
•policy administration of existing policies;
•custody;
•information technology development and maintenance; and
•investment management.
We closely monitor our outsourcing partners and integrate their services into our operations. We believe that outsourcing such functions allows us to focus capital and our employees on our core business operations and perform higher utility functions, such as actuarial, product development and risk management. In addition, we believe an outsourcing model provides predictable pricing and service levels and operational flexibility and further allows us to benefit from technological developments that enhance our capabilities, each in a manner that we would not otherwise be able to achieve without investing more of our own capital. We believe we have a good relationship with our principal outsource service providers.
Ratings
As of December 31, 2023, each of our significant insurance subsidiaries is rated “A+”, “A1” or “A” by the four rating agencies that evaluate the financial strength of such subsidiaries. To achieve our financial strength ratings aspirations, we may choose to retain additional capital above the level required by the rating agencies to support our operating needs. We believe there are numerous benefits to achieving stronger ratings over time, including increased recognition of and confidence in our financial strength by prospective business partners, particularly within product distribution, as well as potential profitability improvements in certain organic channels through lower funding costs.
Financial strength and credit ratings directly affect our ability to access funding and the related cost of borrowing, the attractiveness of certain products of ours to customers, our attractiveness as a reinsurer to potential ceding companies and the requirements for collateral posting on our derivatives. These ratings are periodically reviewed by the rating agencies.
Credit ratings represent the opinions of rating agencies regarding an entity’s ability to repay its indebtedness. Financial strength ratings represent the opinions of rating agencies regarding the financial ability of an insurer or reinsurer to meet its obligations under an insurance policy or reinsurance arrangement and generally involve quantitative and qualitative evaluations by rating agencies of a company’s financial condition and operating performance. Generally, rating agencies base their financial strength ratings upon information furnished to them by the respective company and upon their own investigations, studies and assumptions. Financial strength ratings are based upon factors of concern to policyholders, agents, intermediaries and ceding companies and are not directed toward the protection of investors. Credit and financial strength ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities and they may be revised or revoked at any time at the sole discretion of the rating organization.
As of February 23, 2024, A.M. Best, Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (S&P), Fitch Ratings (Fitch) and Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s) had issued credit or financial strength ratings and outlook statements regarding us as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Company | | A.M. Best | | S&P | | Fitch | | Moody’s |
Athene Holding Ltd. | | | | | | | | |
Long-Term Issuer Credit Rating/Issuer Default Rating | | bbb+ | | A- | | A- | | NR |
Outlook | | Positive | | Stable | | Stable | | NR |
Athene Insurance Subsidiaries2 | | | | | | | | |
Financial Strength Rating | | A | | A+ | | A+ | | A1 |
Outlook | | Positive | | Stable | | Stable | | Stable |
| | | | | | | | |
1 Athene insurance subsidiaries include AARe, ALRe, ALReI, Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company (AADE), Athene Annuity and Life Company (AAIA), Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York (AANY), Athene Life Insurance Company of New York (ALICNY), Athene Co-Invest Reinsurance Affiliate 1A Ltd. (ACRA 1A), Athene Co-Invest Reinsurance Affiliate 1B Ltd. (ACRA 1B), Athene Co-Invest Reinsurance Affiliate 2A Ltd. (ACRA 2A), Athene Co-Invest Reinsurance Affiliate 2B Ltd. (ACRA 2B) and Athene Co-Invest Reinsurance Affiliate International Ltd. ALICNY is not rated by S&P, Fitch, and Moody's. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rating Agency | | Financial Strength Rating Scale | | Issuer Credit Rating Scale |
A.M. Best1 | | “A++” to “D” | | “aaa” to “c” |
S&P2 | | “AAA” to “D” | | “AAA” to “D” |
Fitch3 | | “AAA” to “C” | | “AAA” to “D” |
Moody’s4 | | “Aaa” to “C” | | “Aaa” to “C” |
| | | | |
1 A.M. Best’s financial strength rating is an independent opinion of an insurer’s financial strength and ability to meet its ongoing insurance policy and contract obligations. A.M. Best’s financial strength rating categories from “A+” to “C” include a ratings notch to reflect a gradation of financial strength within the category. Ratings notches for A.M. Best’s financial strength rating are expressed with either a second plus “+” or a minus “-”. A.M. Best’s long-term issuer credit rating is an opinion of an entity’s ability to meet its ongoing senior financial obligations. A.M. Best’s long-term issuer credit rating categories from “aa” to “ccc” include rating notches to reflect a gradation within the category to indicate whether credit quality is near the top or bottom of a particular rating category. Rating notches for A.M. Best’s long-term issuer credit rating are expressed with a plus “+” or a minus “-”. |
2 S&P’s insurer financial strength rating is a forward-looking opinion about the financial security characteristics of an insurance organization with respect to its ability to pay under its insurance policies and contracts in accordance with their terms. S&P’s issuer credit rating is a forward-looking opinion about an obligor’s overall creditworthiness. This opinion focuses on the obligor’s capacity and willingness to meet its financial commitments as they come due. Long-term issuer credit ratings focus on the obligor’s capacity and willingness to meet all of its financial commitments, both long- and short-term, as they come due. A plus “+” or a minus “-” indicates relative standing within a rating category. |
3 Fitch’s insurer financial strength ratings provide an assessment of the financial strength of an insurance organization. The insurer financial strength rating is assigned to the insurance company’s policyholder obligations, including assumed reinsurance obligations and contract holder obligations, such as guaranteed investment contracts. The insurer financial strength rating reflects both the ability of the insurer to meet these obligations on a timely basis and expected recoveries received by claimants in the event the insurer stops making payments or payments are interrupted, due to either the failure of the insurer or some form of regulatory intervention. Fitch’s issuer default ratings opine on an entity’s relative vulnerability to default on financial obligations. The threshold default risk addressed by issuer default ratings is generally that of financial obligations whose non-payment would best reflect the uncured failure of that entity. As such, issuer default ratings also address relative vulnerability to bankruptcy, administrative receivership or similar concepts. A plus “+” or a minus “-” may be appended to a rating to denote relative status within major rating categories. |
4 Moody’s provides credit ratings that are publicly available serving the public debt capital markets. Moody’s insurance financial strength ratings range from “Aaa (highest quality)” to “C (lowest)”. A rating of Aa3 is the fourth highest of twenty-one rating categories. Numeric modifiers are used to refer to the ranking within the group, with 1 being the highest and 3 being the lowest. These modifiers are used to indicate relative strength within a category. Moody’s long-term credit ratings range from “Aaa” (highest) to “C” (default). |
In addition to the financial strength ratings, rating agencies use an outlook statement to indicate a medium or long-term trend which, if continued, may lead to a rating change. A positive outlook indicates a rating may be raised and a negative outlook indicates a rating may be lowered. A stable outlook is assigned when ratings are not likely to be changed. Outlooks should not be confused with expected stability of the issuer’s financial or economic performance. A rating may have a stable outlook to indicate that the rating is not expected to change, but a stable outlook does not preclude a rating agency from changing a rating at any time without notice.
A.M. Best, S&P, Fitch and Moody’s review their ratings of insurance companies from time to time. There can be no assurance that any particular rating will continue for any given period of time or that it will not be changed or withdrawn entirely if, in the respective rating agency’s judgment or circumstances so warrant. Further, rating agencies may change their capital adequacy assessment methodologies in a manner that could adversely affect the financial strength ratings of insurance companies. While the degree to which ratings adjustments will affect sales and persistency is unknown, we believe if our ratings were to be negatively adjusted for any reason, we could experience a material decline in the sales of our products and the persistency of our existing business. See Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Our Business Operations–A financial strength rating downgrade, potential downgrade or any other negative action by a rating agency could make our product offerings less attractive, inhibit our ability to acquire future business through acquisitions or reinsurance and increase our cost of capital, which could have a material adverse effect on our business for further discussion about risks associated with financial strength ratings.
Competition
We operate in highly competitive markets. We face a variety of large and small industry participants, including diversified financial institutions and insurance and reinsurance companies. These companies compete in one form or another for the growing pool of retirement assets driven by a number of external factors such as the continued aging of the population and the reduction in safety nets provided by governments and private employers. In the markets in which we operate, scale and the ability to provide value-added services and build long-term relationships are important factors to compete effectively. See Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Our Business Operations–We operate in a highly competitive industry that includes a number of competitors, which could limit our ability to achieve our growth strategies and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects for further discussion on competitive risks. We believe that our leading presence in the retirement services market, diverse range of capabilities and broad distribution network uniquely position us to effectively serve consumers’ increasing demand for retirement solutions.
We face competition in the FIA market from traditional insurance carriers. Principal competitive factors for FIAs are initial crediting rates, reputation for renewal crediting action, product features, brand recognition, customer service, distribution capabilities and financial strength ratings of the provider. Competition may affect, among other matters, both business growth and the pricing of our products and services. See Item 7.–Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Industry Trends and Competition–Competition for a discussion of our ranking and market share within the total annuity, total fixed annuity, FIA and RILA markets.
Reinsurance markets are highly competitive, as well as cyclical by product and market. As a reinsurer, we compete based on many factors, including, among other things, financial strength, pricing and other terms and conditions of reinsurance agreements, reputation, service, and experience in the types of business underwritten. The impact of these and other factors is generally not consistent across lines of business, domestic and international geographical areas, and distribution channels. Within the reinsurance market, we compete with other insurance and reinsurance companies.
We face strong competition within our institutional channel. With respect to funding agreements, namely those issued in connection with our FABN program, we compete with other insurers that have active FABN programs. Within the funding agreement market, we compete primarily on the basis of perceived financial strength, interest rates and term. With respect to group annuities, we compete with other insurers that offer such annuities. Within the pension group annuities market, we compete primarily on the basis of price, underwriting, investment capabilities and our ability to provide quality service to the corporate sponsor’s pension participants.
Finally, we face competition in the market for acquisition targets and profitable blocks of insurance. Such competition is likely to intensify as insurance businesses become more attractive acquisition targets for both other insurance companies and financial and other institutions and as the already substantial consolidation in the financial services industry continues. We compete for potential acquisition and block reinsurance opportunities based on a number of factors including perceived financial strength, brand recognition, reputation and the pricing we are able to offer, which, to the extent we determine to finance a transaction, is in turn dependent on our ability to do so on suitable terms. We believe our demonstrated ability to source and consummate large and complex transactions is a competitive advantage over other potential acquirers.
Human Capital Management
As of December 31, 2023, we had 1,976 employees, including 1,863 located in the US, primarily in West Des Moines, IA, and 95 located in Bermuda. We believe our employee relations are good. None of our employees are subject to collective bargaining agreements, nor are we aware of any efforts to implement such agreements.
We are committed to a culture that prioritizes teamwork, engagement, inclusivity and pride of ownership. When employees are engaged and feel a sense of purpose and belonging, they are more enthusiastic about their work and the success of the organization. Engagement is driven by many facets of our employee experience. Our core values – Believe in your Co-workers, Engage Actively, Act like Owners, and Make it Happen (BEAM) – provide the foundation for employee engagement. BEAM was created by a team of employees tasked with articulating our core beliefs. BEAM is core to our culture and helps inspire employees to take positive action in our workplace and in our communities.
Talent
Recruiting, developing and retaining high-performing employees in the workplace is very important to us. We value each employee’s individual talents and skills, and promote career growth and development for all employees. As we invest in the growth and development of our employees, the value of our workforce increases. The continued success of our business depends upon our ability to retain the employees in whom we have invested. We monitor turnover rates by function and actively defend against key talent losses to competitors. We also conduct annual succession planning to ensure that as the organization expands, is subject to turnover and/or provides promotional opportunities, we are in a position to fill key open positions.
To measure employee satisfaction and engagement, we administer an annual employee engagement survey. The scores and feedback are reviewed by management in addition to being communicated to all employees. We adjust our business practices based on feedback received. To achieve meaningful feedback, we strive to achieve high employee completion rates.
Our performance-based compensation strategy is designed to recognize and reward employees for their contribution to our success, and we strive to provide strong, equitable incentives for performance. Compensation may be comprised of up to three elements: base compensation, which is determined based upon a number of factors, including size, scope and impact of the employee’s role, the market value associated with the employee’s role, leadership skills, length of service and individual performance; an annual incentive award, which if applicable, is a cash incentive award determined based on a combination of individual and company performance during the period to which the incentive award relates; and a long-term incentive award, which if applicable, is a stock-based award intended to compensate an employee for her or his contribution to our success and to align the interest of the award recipient with our interest during the vesting period of the award. We seek to determine compensation on the basis of merit and without regard to demographic characteristics.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
We are committed to ensuring diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are woven into our organizational values. Our DEI efforts are led by our Senior Vice President, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, who reports to our Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, with additional reporting responsibilities to the legal and regulatory committee of our board of directors, the committee charged with oversight of our DEI efforts and our corporate and social responsibility efforts more broadly. We have established a Diversity & Inclusion Council and ten Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) that work to elevate diversity efforts by fostering a workplace that cultivates our differences, where employees feel celebrated, engaged and connected. We seek to build a diverse workforce that delivers on our business objectives and embodies our values. We engage actively with our communities to make a difference in the places in which we live and work.
In addition to our human resources and DEI leadership, we currently have a DEI Analyst and ten advisors supporting our ten ERGs, which are comprised of: Advancing Abilities Partnership; African American Athene Connection; Athene Asian Alliance; Athene Military Veterans Organization; Bermuda Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee; Comunidad; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning; LiveWell; Volunteer Committee; and Women’s Inclusion Network. Each ERG is paired with a member of our Executive Committee to provide a direct link between the group and our executive leadership.
Employee Well-being
We continue to devote significant attention to the importance of employee well-being. We have comprehensive programs and initiatives focused on professional development, DEI, physical health, financial wellness and emotional well-being, with a goal of creating a supportive and inclusive environment for all. Through our annual employee engagement, we gather insights and feedback from employees on satisfaction, engagement, leadership and policies. This feedback is vital to shaping our strategies to enhance overall employee satisfaction and foster a workplace that aligns with our core values.
Regulation
A summary of certain of the laws, regulations and frameworks to which we are subject is set forth below.
General
United States
Each of our primary US insurance subsidiaries, AADE, AAIA, AANY and ALICNY, is organized and domiciled in either Delaware, Iowa, or New York (each, an Athene Domiciliary State) and also licensed in such state as an insurer. On December 20, 2023, AADE and AAIA executed an agreement and plan of merger pursuant to which, subject to the receipt of all regulatory approvals required, AADE will merge with and into AAIA, with AAIA as the surviving company.
The insurance department of each Athene Domiciliary State regulates the applicable US insurance subsidiary, and each US insurance subsidiary is regulated by each of the insurance regulators in the other states where such company is authorized to transact insurance business. The primary purpose of such regulatory supervision is to protect policyholders rather than holders of any securities. Generally, insurance products underwritten by our US insurance subsidiaries must be approved by the insurance regulators in each state in which they are sold.
State insurance authorities have broad administrative powers over our US insurance subsidiaries with respect to all aspects of their insurance business including: (1) licensing to transact business; (2) licensing of producers who sell our products; (3) prescribing which assets and liabilities are to be considered in determining statutory surplus; (4) regulating premium rates for certain insurance products; (5) approving policy forms and certain related materials; (6) determining whether a reasonable basis exists as to the suitability of the annuity purchase recommendations producers make and, in certain states, that such recommendations are in the best interest of the consumer; (7) regulating unfair trade and claims practices; (8) establishing reserve requirements, solvency standards and minimum capital requirements (MCR); (9) regulating the amount of dividends that may be paid in any year; (10) regulating the availability of reinsurance, the terms thereof and the ability of an insurer to take credit on its financial statements for insurance ceded to reinsurers; (11) fixing maximum interest rates on life insurance policy loans, minimum crediting rates on accumulation products and minimum allowable surrender values; (12) regulating the type, amounts and valuations of investments permitted; (13) setting parameters for transactions with affiliates; and (14) regulating other matters.
The rates, forms, terms and conditions of our US insurance subsidiaries’ reinsurance agreements with unaffiliated third parties generally are not directly subject to regulation by any state insurance department in the United States. This contrasts with primary insurance where, as discussed above, the policy forms and premium rates are generally regulated by state insurance departments.
From time to time, increased scrutiny has been placed upon the US insurance regulatory framework, and a number of state legislatures have considered or enacted legislative measures that alter, and in many cases increase, regulation of insurers and reinsurers. Additionally, state insurance regulators are regularly involved in a process of reexamining existing laws and regulations and their application to insurance and reinsurance companies.
Furthermore, while the federal government in most contexts currently does not directly regulate the insurance business, federal legislation and administrative policies in a number of areas, such as employee benefits and pension regulation, age, sex and disability-based discrimination, financial services regulation, securities regulation, derivatives regulation, privacy regulation and federal taxation, can significantly affect the insurance business. It is not possible to predict the future impact of changing regulation on our operations. See Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Insurance and Other Regulatory Matters.
Bermuda
The Bermuda regulatory regime has been deemed to be equivalent to the European Union (EU) Directive (2009/138/EC) (Solvency II). The Bermuda Insurance Act 1978 (Bermuda Insurance Act) regulates the insurance business of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries, and provides that no person may carry on any insurance business in or from within Bermuda unless registered as an insurer under such act by the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA). The BMA is required by the Bermuda Insurance Act to determine whether an applicant is a fit and proper body to be engaged in the insurance business and, in particular, whether it has, or has available to it, adequate knowledge and expertise to operate an insurance business. See –Regulation of an Insurer’s Stockholders below.
The continued registration of an insurer is subject to the insurer complying with the terms of its registration and such other conditions as the BMA may impose from time to time. The Bermuda Insurance Act also grants the BMA powers to supervise, investigate and intervene in the affairs of insurers. The Bermuda Insurance Act imposes on Bermuda insurers solvency standards as well as auditing and reporting requirements.
Regulation of an Insurance Group
Group Supervision
Many insurers, including us, operate within a group structure. An insurance group is two or more affiliated persons, one or more of which is an insurer. As an insurer’s financial position and risk profile may be impacted by being part of a group, US state and international regulators have developed group supervisory frameworks in order to provide regulators with the ability to scrutinize the activities of an insurance group and assess its potential impact on individual insurers within the group. The Iowa Insurance Division (IID) and the BMA are the lead regulators of our largest subsidiaries. Under the Iowa Insurance Holding Company Act (Iowa HCA), the IID is our group supervisor. Separately, the BMA is the subgroup supervisor for our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries. Under applicable US state law, Apollo and (except as otherwise excluded with regulatory approval) its affiliates, including its insurance interests, are included within the holding company system for purposes of certain supervision requirements, even though many of such entities have no material relationship to us.
A group supervisor may perform a number of supervisory functions including: (1) coordinating the gathering and dissemination of relevant or essential information in both the ordinary course and emergency situations, including the dissemination of information that is of importance for the supervisory task of other competent authorities; (2) carrying out supervisory reviews and assessments of the insurance group; (3) carrying out assessments of the insurance group’s compliance with the rules on solvency, risk concentration, intra-group transactions and good governance procedures; (4) planning and coordinating supervisory activities in respect of the insurance group, in both the ordinary course and in emergency situations through regular meetings held at least annually (or by other appropriate means) with other competent authorities; (5) coordinating enforcement actions that may need to be taken against the insurance group or any of its members; and (6) planning and coordinating meetings of colleges of supervisors (consisting of insurance regulators) in order to facilitate the carrying out of the functions described above.
The group supervisor may impose certain requirements on the insurance group, including to make provision for, among other things: (1) assessing the financial situation and the solvency position of the insurance group and/or its members; and (2) regulating intra-group transactions, risk concentration, governance procedures, risk management and regulatory reporting and disclosure. Many of these requirements have not yet been applied in substance to us or our affiliates or, to the extent they have been applied, remain subject to modification as part of larger prudential regulatory initiatives.
Group Capital
The Iowa HCA requires, subject to certain exceptions, the ultimate controlling person of every insurer subject to the holding company registration requirement to file an annual group capital calculation (GCC) with its lead state on a confidential basis. The GCC is a tool developed by the NAIC to provide US insurance regulators with a method to aggregate the available capital and the minimum capital of each entity in a group in a manner that applies to groups meeting certain criteria regardless of their structure. The Iowa HCA also requires the ultimate controlling person for certain large US life insurers and insurance groups to file the results of a liquidity stress test (LST) annually with
the lead state regulator of the insurance group. The LST utilizes a company cash-flow projection approach incorporating liquidity sources and uses over various time horizons under a baseline assumption and stress scenarios that may vary from year to year. The NAIC has stated that the GCC will be a regulatory tool and will not constitute a requirement or standard; however, these regulatory requirements may over time increase the amount of capital that we are required to hold and could result in our being subject to increased regulatory requirements. Under the Bermuda rules, our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries are required to file with the BMA group audited financial statements prepared using accounting principles generally accepted in the US (US GAAP) and an annual group capital and solvency return, which includes the Group Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement model showing the Group’s Enhanced Capital Requirement, within five months after the financial year-end.
Internationally Active Insurance Groups and the Common Framework for the Supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups
The Common Framework for the Supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups (ComFrame), as adopted by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), will be applicable to entities that meet the IAIS’s criteria for internationally active insurance groups (IAIGs) and that are so designated by their group-wide supervisor. Under ComFrame, an IAIG is defined as an insurance group which has (1) premiums written in three or more jurisdictions, with the percentage of gross premiums written outside the home jurisdiction comprising at least 10% of the group’s total gross written premiums, and (2) based on a rolling three-year average, total assets of at least $50 billion, or gross written premiums of at least $10 billion. A group-wide supervisor has discretion to determine that a group is not an IAIG even if it meets the criteria or that a group is an IAIG even if it does not meet the criteria. ComFrame establishes international standards for the designation of a group-wide supervisor for each IAIG and IAIS intends to include a group capital requirement (the global insurance capital standard (ICS)) applicable to an IAIG in addition to the current legal entity capital requirements and any group capital requirements imposed by relevant insurance laws and regulations. The ICS is still being finalized by the IAIS, with a planned adoption date of November 2024. Assuming IAIS members vote to adopt the ICS, the IAIS will encourage jurisdictions to implement the ICS as a prescribed capital requirement beginning in 2025. In addition, the US members of the IAIS are developing an alternative approach to the ICS, called the Aggregation Method (AM), which would be adopted in the US. Like the GCC, the AM is an RBC aggregation-based approach. The IAIS plans to assess whether the AM provides comparable outcomes to the ICS in 2024.
ComFrame also includes uniform standards for insurer corporate governance, enterprise risk management and other control functions and resolution planning. Relatedly, in the US, the NAIC has promulgated amendments to the NAIC Model Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act, adopted by all of the Athene Domiciliary States, that address “group-wide” supervision of IAIGs to allow state insurance regulators in the US to be group-wide supervisors for US-based IAIGs and acknowledge another regulatory official acting as the group-wide supervisor of an IAIG. On February 6, 2024, the IID identified AGM as meeting the criteria as an IAIG and further identified AHL as the Head of the IAIG. The Head of the IAIG is a legal entity identified by the group-wide supervisor as controlling all of the insurance legal entities within the group and non-insurance legal entities which pose a risk to the insurance operations. In general, the Head of the IAIG is the uppermost entity to which obligations associated with being an IAIG designation attach. As a result of these identifications, we expect AHL to be subject to the relevant capital standard that the US applies to IAIGs. At this time, we do not expect a significant impact on AHL’s capital position or capital structure; however, we cannot fully predict with certainty the impact (if any) on AHL’s capital position or capital structure and any other burdens being named an IAIG may impose on AHL or its insurance affiliates. The IID further identified itself as the Group-Wide Supervisor for AGM (in a distinct capacity from its role as supervisor for AHL). The IID has been effectively serving in this role for a significant period of time; this identification is a formalization of AGM and the IID’s existing relationships and processes.
Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) Model Act
We are subject to the ORSA Model Act, which has been enacted by each Athene Domiciliary State, and requires insurers to assess the adequacy of their and their group’s risk management and current and future solvency position. Under the ORSA Model Act, certain insurers must undertake an internal risk management review at least annually (but also at any time when there are significant changes to the risk profile of the insurer or its insurance group), in accordance with the NAIC’s ORSA Guidance Manual, and prepare an ORSA Summary Report (ORSA Report) assessing the adequacy of the insurer’s risk management and capital in light of its current and future business plans. The ORSA Report is required to be filed annually with a company’s lead state regulator and made available to other domiciliary regulators within the holding company system. We file the ORSA Report with the IID as our lead state regulator and concurrently provide the ORSA Report to the Delaware Department of Insurance (DE DOI) and the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS). We also submit the ORSA Report to the BMA. Additionally, for the purposes of satisfying the assessment requested in the Schedule of Commercial Insurer’s Solvency Self-Assessment, each Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary submits supporting documentation to the BMA regarding specific queries presented in the Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR), to supplement the information provided in the ORSA Report.
Corporate Governance Annual Disclosure Model Act and Model Regulation (together, the Corporate Governance Model Act)
We are subject to the Corporate Governance Model Act, which has been enacted by each Athene Domiciliary State and requires insurers to provide an annual disclosure regarding its corporate governance practices to its lead state and/or domestic regulator.
Insurance Holding Company Regulation
Each direct and indirect parent of our US insurance subsidiaries (including Apollo and AHL) is subject to the insurance holding company laws of each of the Athene Domiciliary States. These laws generally require an insurance holding company and insurers that are members of such holding company system to register with their US insurance regulators and to file certain reports with those authorities, including information concerning their capital structure, ownership, financial condition, certain intercompany transactions and general business operations. Generally,
under these laws, transactions between our US insurance subsidiaries and their affiliates, including any reinsurance transactions and affiliated investments, must be fair and reasonable and, if material or included within a specified category, require prior notice and approval or non-disapproval by the insurance department of each applicable Athene Domiciliary State.
Most states, including each of the Athene Domiciliary States, have insurance laws that require regulatory approval of a direct or indirect change of control of an insurer, which would include a change of control of its holding company. Such laws as these prevent any person from acquiring direct or indirect control of any of our US insurance subsidiaries or their holding companies unless that person has filed a statement with specified information with the commissioner, superintendent or director of the insurance department of the applicable Athene Domiciliary State (each, a Commissioner) and has obtained the Commissioner’s prior approval. Under most states’ statutes, including those of each of the Athene Domiciliary States, acquiring 10% or more of a voting interest in an insurer or its parent company is presumptively considered a change of control, although such presumption may be rebutted. Accordingly, any person who acquires 10% or more of a voting interest in a direct or indirect parent of any of our US insurance subsidiaries (or Apollo or AHL) without the prior approval of the Commissioner of the applicable Athene Domiciliary State will be in violation of the applicable Athene Domiciliary State’s law and may be subject to injunctive action requiring the disposition or seizure of those securities by the Commissioner or prohibiting the voting of those securities and/or to other actions determined by the Commissioner. Further, a willful violation of these laws is punishable in each Athene Domiciliary State as a criminal offense.
In addition, state insurance holding company laws require any controlling person of a US insurer seeking to divest its controlling interest in the insurer to file with the relevant insurance Commissioner a confidential notice of the proposed divestiture at least thirty days prior to the cessation of control (unless a person acquiring control from the divesting party has filed notice of the proposed acquisition of control with the Commissioner). After receipt of the notice, the Commissioner must determine whether the parties seeking to divest or to acquire a controlling interest will be required to file for or obtain approval of the transaction. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent an acquisition of control of a direct or indirect parent of any of our US insurance subsidiaries (including Apollo or AHL) (in particular through an unsolicited transaction), even if the stockholders of such parent consider such transaction to be desirable.
Holding company system regulations currently in effect in New York require prospective acquirers of New York domiciled insurers to provide detailed disclosure with respect to intended changes to the business operations of the insurer, and expressly authorize the NYSDFS to impose additional conditions on such acquisitions. The NAIC has also published in its Financial Analysis Handbook specific narrative guidance for state insurance examiners to consider in reviewing applications for an acquisition of insurers and reinsurers by a private equity firm. The NAIC also is undertaking a review of regulatory considerations applicable to insurers and reinsurers owned by a private equity firm, has appointed the Macroprudential (E) Working Group to coordinate this workstream and has adopted a list of “Regulatory Considerations Applicable (But Not Exclusive) to Private Equity (PE) Owned Insurers.” The Macroprudential (E) Working Group has referred requests to various NAIC working groups for further assessments of the considerations described in the list. Accordingly, we currently are unable to predict the impact of such NAIC activities on our business, including our investment activities.
In addition, many state insurance laws require prior notification to state insurance departments of a change in control of a non-domiciliary insurer doing business in that state. While these pre-acquisition notification statutes do not authorize the state insurance departments to disapprove the change in control, they authorize regulatory action in the affected state if particular conditions exist such as undue market concentration. Any future transactions that would constitute a change in control of any of our US insurance subsidiaries may require prior notification in those states that have adopted pre-acquisition notification laws.
Each of the Athene Domiciliary States has adopted a form of the Holding Company Model Law, that requires each ultimate controlling party to file an annual enterprise risk report identifying the material risks within the insurance holding company system that could pose enterprise risk to the licensed companies. An enterprise risk is generally defined as an activity or event involving affiliates of an insurer that could have a material and adverse effect on the insurer or the insurer’s holding company system.
NAIC
The NAIC is an organization, the mandate of which is to benefit state insurance regulatory authorities and consumers by promulgating model insurance laws and regulations for adoption by the states. The NAIC also provides standardized insurance industry accounting and reporting guidance through the NAIC Accounting Manual. However, model insurance laws and regulations are only effective when adopted by the states, and statutory accounting and reporting principles continue to be established by individual state laws, regulations and permitted practices. Changes to the NAIC Accounting Manual or modifications by the various state insurance departments may affect the statutory capital and surplus of our US insurance subsidiaries.
Some of the NAIC pronouncements, particularly as they affect accounting issues, take effect automatically in the various states without affirmative action by the states. Statutes, regulations and interpretations may be applied with retroactive impact, particularly in areas such as accounting and reserve requirements. Also, regulatory actions with prospective impact can potentially have a significant impact on products that we currently sell. The NAIC continues to work to reform state regulation in various areas, including reporting requirements for investment transactions with related parties that may not be considered “affiliates” under the Holding Company Model Law.
Classification of Insurers
The Bermuda Insurance Act distinguishes between insurers carrying on long-term business, insurers carrying on special purpose business and insurers carrying on general business. Long-term business is generally defined as life, annuity and accident and health insurance, while general business broadly includes all types of insurance that are not long-term business or special purpose business (property and casualty business). Special purpose business is fully funded insurance business approved by the BMA to be written by a company registered either as a Special Purpose Insurer (SPI) or as a Collateralized Insurer. There are five classifications of insurers carrying on long-term business, ranging from Class A insurers (pure captives) to Class E insurers (larger commercial carriers). Class A insurers are subject to the lightest regulation and Class E insurers are subject to the strictest regulation.
Our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries, which are incorporated to carry on long-term business, are each registered as a Class C insurer, Class E insurer or SPI. Class C is the license class for long-term insurers and reinsurers with total assets of less than $250 million that are not registrable as a single parent or multi-owner long-term captive insurer or reinsurer. Class E is the license class for long-term insurers and reinsurers with total assets of more than $500 million that are not registrable as a single-parent or multi-owner long-term captive insurer or reinsurer. SPI is the license class for insurers that carry on either restricted special purpose business or unrestricted special purpose business. Restricted special purpose business means special purpose business conducted between an SPI and specific insureds approved by the BMA. Unrestricted special purpose business means special purpose business conducted by an SPI with any insured. Our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries are not licensed, accredited or approved in any US state or jurisdiction to conduct general business and have not sought authorization as reinsurers in any US state or jurisdiction.
In order for ceding companies of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries to receive statutory reserve or RBC credit for the reinsurance provided, reinsurance transactions are typically structured in one of three ways: (1) funds withheld, where, although the applicable Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary recognizes the insurance reserve liabilities, the assets to secure such liabilities are held and maintained by the applicable ceding company, (2) modco, where both the insurance reserves and assets supporting the reserves are retained by the applicable ceding company or (3) coinsurance, where the respective Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary’s obligation to the applicable ceding company in connection with reinsurance transactions is secured by assets held in trust for the benefit of the applicable ceding company, which may be reduced or eliminated to the extent that the applicable Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary is approved as a certified reinsurer or reciprocal jurisdiction reinsurer in the cedant’s domiciliary state as discussed in more detail in the following section.
Credit for Coinsurance Ceded by a US Cedant
The ability of a ceding insurer to take reserve credit for the business ceded to reinsurers through coinsurance is a significant component of reinsurance regulation and is often a determining factor in establishing a reinsurance relationship. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), only the state in which a ceding insurer is domiciled may regulate the financial statement credit for reinsurance taken by that ceding insurer. With respect to US-domiciled ceding companies, credit is typically granted when: (1) the reinsurer is licensed or accredited in the state where the ceding company is domiciled; (2) the reinsurer is domiciled in a state with credit for reinsurance laws and regulations that are substantively similar to the credit for reinsurance laws and regulations in the ceding insurer’s state of domicile and the reinsurer meets certain financial requirements; or (3) other conditions are satisfied, such as the reinsurer securing its obligations to the cedant with qualified collateral.
Our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries have provided, and may in the future provide, reinsurance to our US insurance subsidiaries in the normal course of business. As none of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries are licensed, accredited or approved in any US state or jurisdiction, unless certain conditions are satisfied (see below), when engaging in coinsurance transactions, each of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries must collateralize its obligations to US-based cedants in order for such cedants to obtain credit against their reserves on their statutory basis financial statements.
Credit for reinsurance laws and regulations adopted by the various states are based on the NAIC’s Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation (Credit for Reinsurance Model Law) and provide that collateral requirements may be reduced for reinsurance ceded to certain unauthorized or non-accredited non-US-based reinsurers that satisfy certain criteria to qualify as a certified reinsurer. ALRe has been approved as a certified reinsurer in Delaware (its lead state), and for passport applications in Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Vermont and is therefore eligible, based on its current ratings, to post reduced collateral equal to 20% of the statutory reserves ceded under new coinsurance agreements by insurers domiciled in those states.
All states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have adopted the NAIC’s 2019 revisions to the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law (NAIC 2019) to allow a ceding insurer to take credit for reinsurance ceded to a qualifying unauthorized reinsurer without collateral if the reinsurer satisfies certain conditions, including being domiciled in a reciprocal jurisdiction. The NAIC has approved Bermuda as a reciprocal jurisdiction. Our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries are eligible to apply to any state for a determination that they have satisfied the conditions specified in NAIC 2019 and, to the extent any such determinations are made, will not be required by law on a prospective basis to post collateral, as a condition to the cedant receiving credit for reinsurance, with respect to reinsurance entered into amended or renewed after the effective date of NAIC 2019 and ceded by insurers domiciled in such states. ALRe and AARe have received a determination that they satisfy the conditions to forgo the collateral posting requirements in Iowa pursuant to any coinsurance agreement entered into, amended or renewed on or after the effective date of NAIC 2019 as adopted by Iowa, and only with respect to losses incurred and reserves reported on or after the later of the (1) date on which ALRe or AARe has met all eligibility requirements to be designated a Reciprocal Jurisdiction Reinsurer, and (2) effective date of the new reinsurance agreement, amendment or renewal pursuant to the provisions of the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law as adopted by Iowa.
As of today, ALRe has received approval for passport applications for Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Vermont. AARe has received approval for passport applications for Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
Statutory Investment Valuation Reserves
Life insurers domiciled in the US are required to establish an asset valuation reserve (AVR) to stabilize statutory policyholder surplus from fluctuations in the market value of investments. The AVR consists of two components: (1) a “default component” for possible credit-related losses on fixed maturity investments; and (2) an “equity component” for possible market-value losses on all types of equity investments, including real estate-related investments. Although future additions to the AVR will reduce the future statutory capital and surplus of our US insurance subsidiaries, we do not believe that the impact under current regulations of such reserve requirements will materially affect our US insurance subsidiaries. Insurers domiciled in the US also are required to establish an interest maintenance reserve (IMR) for net realized capital gains and losses, net of tax, on fixed maturity investments where such gains and losses are attributable to changes in interest rates, as opposed to credit-related causes. The IMR provides a buffer to our statutory capital and surplus in the event we have to sell securities in an unrealized loss position. The IMR is required to be amortized into statutory earnings on a basis reflecting the remaining period to maturity of the fixed maturity securities. These reserves are required by state insurance regulatory authorities to be established as liabilities on a life insurer’s statutory financial statements and may also be included in the liabilities assumed by our US insurance subsidiaries pursuant to their reinsurance agreements with US-based life insurer ceding companies.
Policy and Contract Reserve Adequacy Analysis
The Athene Domiciliary States and other states have adopted laws with respect to policy and contract reserve sufficiency. Under applicable insurance laws, our US insurance subsidiaries are each required to annually conduct an analysis of the adequacy of all life insurance and annuity statutory reserves. A qualified actuary appointed by each such subsidiary’s board must submit an opinion annually for each such subsidiary which states that the statutory reserves make adequate provision, according to accepted actuarial standards of practice, for the anticipated cash flows resulting from the contractual obligations and related expenses of such subsidiary. The adequacy of the statutory reserves is considered in light of the assets held by such US insurance subsidiary with respect to such reserves and related actuarial items, including, but not limited to, the investment earnings on such assets and the consideration anticipated to be received and retained under the related policies and contracts. At a minimum, such testing is done over a number of economic scenarios prescribed by the states, with the scenarios designed to stress anticipated cash flows for higher and/or lower future levels of interest rates. Our US insurance subsidiaries may find it necessary to increase reserves, which may decrease their statutory surplus, in order to pass additional cash flow testing requirements.
Statutory Reporting and Regulatory Examinations
Our US insurance subsidiaries are required to file detailed annual reports, including financial statements, in accordance with prescribed statutory accounting rules, with regulatory officials in the jurisdictions in which they conduct business. In addition, each US insurance subsidiary is required to file quarterly reports prepared on the same basis, though with considerably less detail.
As part of their routine regulatory oversight process, state insurance departments conduct periodic detailed examinations, generally once every three to five years, of the books, records, accounts and operations of insurers that are domiciled in their states. Examinations are generally carried out in cooperation with the insurance departments of other, states under guidelines promulgated by the NAIC. We are currently under examination by the DE DOI. Our previous exams with the IID, NYSDFS and Vermont were completed with no material findings.
Bermuda Class C insurers, Class E insurers and SPIs must file annual statutory financial statements and annual audited financial statements generally prepared in accordance with US GAAP, International Financial Reporting Standards, accounting principles generally accepted in the UK or accounting principles generally accepted in Canada within four months of the end of each fiscal year, unless such deadline is specifically extended. Where an SPI writes restricted special purpose business, the US GAAP financial statements shall be unaudited. The Bermuda Insurance Act also prescribes rules for the preparation and substance of statutory financial statements, which include, in statutory form, an insurer information sheet, an auditor’s report, (if applicable), a balance sheet, income statement, a statement of capital and surplus and notes thereto. The statutory financial statements include detailed information and analysis regarding premiums, claims, reinsurance and investments of the insurer.
In addition, each year Class C and Class E insurers are required to file with the BMA a capital and solvency return along with its annual statutory financial return. The prescribed form of capital and solvency return is comprised of: the BMA’s BSCR model or an approved internal capital model in lieu thereof; a statutory economic balance sheet; the approved actuary’s opinion; and several prescribed schedules, including a schedule of fixed income and equity investments by BSCR rating, a schedule of funds held by ceding reinsurers in segregated accounts/trusts by BSCR rating, a schedule of risk management and a schedule of eligible capital, among others. The capital and solvency return is not available for public inspection.
SPIs are also required to file with the BMA a statutory financial return which includes, among other matters, the US GAAP financial statements, a cover sheet, a statement of control and changes of control, a solvency certificate, an annual statutory declaration, an own-risk assessment, alternative capital arrangements report, cyber risk management report and compliance with sanctions report.
The Bermuda Insurance Act provides the BMA with powers to set standards on public disclosure. Using this power, the BMA requires all commercial insurers and insurance groups, subject to certain exceptions, to prepare and publish a Financial Condition Report on their website.
Market Conduct Regulation
State insurance laws and regulations include numerous provisions governing the marketplace activities of insurers, including provisions governing claims settlement practices, the form and content of disclosure to consumers, illustrations, advertising, sales and complaint process practices. State regulatory authorities generally enforce these provisions through periodic market conduct examinations. In addition, our US insurance subsidiaries must file, and in many jurisdictions and for some lines of business, obtain regulatory approval for, rates and forms relating to the insurance written in the jurisdictions in which they operate. Our US insurance subsidiaries are currently undergoing the following market conduct exams: (1) the California Department of Insurance is conducting a routine claims exam of AADE and AANY; (2) the IID is conducting a routine examination of AAIA’s policies and procedures to revisions to the NAIC Model Regulation #275 – Suitability in Annuity Transactions; and (3) the DE DOI is conducting a routine financial exam of AADE. In 2023, the following exams were concluded: (1) the Pennsylvania Insurance Department concluded a market conduct examination of AAIA; and (2) the Pennsylvania Insurance Department concluded a market conduct examination of AADE. The exams resulted in no significant findings.
Capital Requirements
Each of our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries is subject to regulatory capital requirements based upon the laws and regulations of its jurisdiction of incorporation. Regulators of each jurisdiction in which we operate have discretionary authority in connection with our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries’ continued licensing to limit or prohibit sales to policyholders within their respective jurisdiction or to restrict continued operation of insurers or reinsurers domiciled in their respective jurisdiction if, in their judgment, such entities have not maintained the required level of minimum surplus or capital or that the further transaction of business would be hazardous to policyholders or reinsurance counterparties.
In order to enhance the regulation of insurers’ solvency, all states have adopted the NAIC’s RBC requirements for life, health and property and casualty insurers and reinsurers or a substantively similar law. The NAIC Risk-Based Capital for Insurers Model Act requires life insurers to submit an annual report (the Risk-Based Capital Report), which compares an insurer’s total adjusted capital (TAC) to its authorized control level RBC (ACL), each such term as defined pursuant to applicable state law. A company’s RBC is calculated by using a specified formula that applies factors to various risks inherent in the insurer’s operations, including risks attributable to its assets, underwriting experience, interest rates and other business expenses. The factors are higher for those items deemed to have greater underlying risk and lower for items deemed to have less underlying risk. Statutory RBC is measured on two bases, ACL and company action level RBC (CAL), with ACL calculated as one-half of CAL.
The Risk-Based Capital Report is used by regulators to set in motion appropriate regulatory actions relating to insurers that show indications of weak or deteriorating status.
The four action levels include:
•CAL: The insurer is required to submit a plan for corrective action when its TAC is equal to or less than 200% of ACL;
•Regulatory Action Level: The insurer is required to submit a plan for corrective action and is subject to examination, analysis and specific corrective action when its TAC is equal to or less than 150% of ACL;
•ACL: Regulators may place the insurer under regulatory control when its TAC is equal to or less than 100% of ACL; and
•Mandatory Control Level: Regulators are required to place the insurer under regulatory control when its TAC is equal to or less than 70% of ACL.
TAC and RBC are calculated annually by insurers, as of December 31 of each year. As of December 31, 2023, each of our US insurance subsidiaries’ TAC was significantly in excess of the levels that would prompt regulatory action under the laws of the Athene Domiciliary States. As of December 31, 2023, the CAL RBC ratio of AADE (US RBC ratio) was 392%. The calculation of RBC requires certain judgments to be made, and, accordingly, our US insurance subsidiaries’ current RBC may be greater or less than the RBC calculated as of any date of determination.
Bermuda Class C insurers, Class E insurers and SPIs must at all times maintain a minimum margin of solvency (MMS) in accordance with the provisions of the Bermuda Insurance Act. Class C and Class E insurers must also maintain an enhanced capital requirement (ECR) in accordance with the provisions of the Bermuda Insurance Act. The Bermuda Insurance Act mandates certain actions and filings with the BMA if an insurer fails to meet and/or maintain its ECR or MMS including the filing of a written report detailing the circumstances giving rise to the failure and the manner and time within which the insurer intends to rectify the failure.
The MMS that a Class C insurer is required to maintain with respect to its long-term business is the greater of (1) $500,000, (2) 1.5% of assets or (3) 25% of the ECR as reported at the end of the relevant year. The MMS that a Class E insurer is required to maintain with respect to its long-term business is the greater of (1) $8 million, (2) 2% of the first $500 million of assets plus 1.5% of applicable assets above $500 million or (3) 25% of the ECR as reported at the end of the relevant year. For an SPI to satisfy its MMS requirements, the value of the SPI’s special purpose business assets must exceed its special purpose business liabilities by at least BD$1.00.
The BMA has embedded an economic balance sheet (EBS) framework as part of the BSCR that forms the basis for an insurer’s ECR. The premise underlying the EBS framework is the idea that assets and liabilities should be valued on a consistent economic basis. Under the Bermuda Regulatory Framework there are two solvency calculations: (1) Class C and Class E Insurers must have total statutory capital and surplus as reported on the insurer’s statutory balance sheet greater than the applicable MMS calculated pursuant to the Insurance Account Rules 2016; and (2) under the Insurance (Prudential Standards) (Class C, Class D and Class E Solvency Requirement) Rules 2011 an insurer is required to maintain available statutory economic capital and surplus in an amount that is equal to or exceeds the value of its ECR.
A Class C insurer’s ECR is established by reference to the Class C BSCR model, while a Class E insurer’s ECR is established by reference to the Class E BSCR model. Each BSCR model provides a method for determining an insurer’s capital requirements (statutory economic capital and surplus) by taking into account the risk characteristics of different aspects of the insurer’s business. The BSCR formula establishes capital requirements for fourteen categories of risk: fixed income investment risk, equity investment risk, long-term interest rate/liquidity risk, currency risk, concentration risk, credit risk, operational risk and seven categories of long-term insurance risk. For each category, the capital requirement is determined by applying shocks to asset, premium, reserve, creditor, probable maximum loss and operation items, with higher shocks applied to items with greater underlying risk and lower shocks for less risky items.
As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, AARe’s EBS capital and surplus resulted in BSCR ratios, computed as available statutory economic capital and surplus divided by ECR, of 291% and 278%, respectively, which does not reflect the impact of any deferred taxes that may be recorded on a statutory basis as a result of the enactment by the Government of Bermuda of the Corporate Income Tax Act 2023 (Bermuda CIT). While not specifically referred to in the Bermuda Insurance Act, target capital level (TCL) is also an important threshold for statutory capital and surplus. TCL is equal to 120% of ECR as calculated pursuant to the BSCR formula. TCL serves as an early warning tool for the BMA. If an insurer fails to maintain statutory capital at least equal to its TCL, such failure will likely result in increased regulatory oversight by the BMA. A Class C or Class E insurer which at any time fails to meet its applicable ECR shall, upon becoming aware of such failure or upon having reason to believe that such a failure has occurred, immediately notify the BMA in writing. Within 14 days of such notification, such insurer shall file with the BMA a written report containing details of the circumstances leading to the failure and a plan detailing the specific actions to be taken to rectify the failure, and the time within which the insurer intends to rectify the failure. Within 45 days of becoming aware of such failure, or of having reason to believe that such a failure has occurred, such insurer shall furnish the BMA with (1) unaudited statutory economic balance sheets and unaudited interim financial statements prepared in accordance with US GAAP covering such period as the BMA may require; (2) an opinion of the approved actuary in relation to total long-term business insurance technical provisions as set out in the statutory economic balance sheet, where applicable; (3) a long-term business solvency certificate in respect of the financial statements; and (4) a capital and solvency return reflecting an ECR prepared using post-failure data where applicable.
To enable the BMA to better assess the quality of the insurer’s capital resources, both Class C and Class E insurers are required to disclose the makeup of its capital in accordance with the ‘3-tiered capital system.’ Under this system, all of the insurer’s capital instruments must be classified as either basic or ancillary capital. All capital instruments are further classified into one of three tiers based on their “loss absorbency” characteristics. Highest quality capital will be classified as Tier 1 Capital, lesser quality capital will be classified as either Tier 2 Capital or Tier 3 Capital. Under this regime, up to certain specified percentages of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 Capital may be used to support the insurer’s MMS, ECR and TCL. The Bermuda Insurance Act requires that Class E insurers have Tier 1 Capital equal to or greater than 50% of the value of its ECR, Tier 2 Capital not greater than Tier 1 Capital and Tier 3 Capital of not more than 17.65% of the aggregate of its Tier 1 Capital and Tier 2 Capital.
Where the BMA has previously approved the use of certain instruments for capital purposes, the BMA’s consent will need to be obtained if such instruments are to remain eligible for use in satisfying the MMS and the ECR. The BMA has approved the following capital instruments that impact the tiering and calculation of ECR and MMS: (1) the use of surplus notes for ACRA 1B to be treated as Tier 1 Capital; (2) the use of a subordinated loan for ACRA 1B to be treated as Tier 2 Capital; and (3) the use of surplus notes for ACRA 2B to be treated as Tier 1 Capital.
During the course of 2023, the BMA issued consultation papers, and received feedback from stakeholders, on certain proposed enhancements to Bermuda’s regulatory regime for commercial insurers. The enhancements are aimed at ensuring that the regime continues to remain fit for purpose, in line with international standards and keeps pace with market developments. In addition to potential enhancements to technical provisions and computation of the BSCR, the BMA is seeking to strengthen supervisory cooperation and exchange of information and increased publication of regulatory information to further develop good governance and risk management practices, transparency, and market discipline. As of the end of 2023, draft rules and guidance notes were published for each commercial insurer class and insurance groups with the new requirements expected to come into force on March 31, 2024.
Restrictions on Dividends and Other Distributions
Current law of two of the Athene Domiciliary States, Delaware and Iowa, permits the payment of ordinary dividends or distributions which, together with dividends or distributions paid during the preceding twelve months do not exceed the greater of (a) 10% of the insurer’s surplus as regards policyholders as of the immediately preceding year end or (b) the net gain from operations of the insurer for the preceding twelve-month period ending as of the immediately preceding year end. Current law of New York permits the payment of dividends or distributions which, together with dividends or distributions paid during any calendar year, (1) is out of earned surplus and does not exceed the greater of (a) 10% of the insurer’s surplus as regards policyholders as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year or (b) the net gain from operations of the insurer for the immediately preceding calendar year, not including realized capital gains, not to exceed 30% of the insurer’s surplus as regards policyholders as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year or (2) do not exceed the lesser of (a) 10% of the insurer’s surplus as regards policyholders as of the end of the immediately preceding calendar year or (b) the net gain from operations of the insurer for the
immediately preceding calendar year, not including realized capital gains. Any proposed dividend in excess of these amounts is considered an extraordinary dividend or extraordinary distribution and may not be paid until it has been approved, or a 30-day waiting period has passed during which it has not been disapproved, by the Commissioner. Additionally, under current law of the Athene Domiciliary States, AAIA may only pay ordinary dividends from the insurer’s earned surplus on its business, which shall not include contributed capital or contributed surplus, AADE may only pay ordinary dividends from that part of its available and accumulated surplus funds which is derived from realized net operating profits on its business and realized capital gains, and ALICNY may only pay ordinary dividends pursuant to the “greater of” standard described above from that part of its positive unassigned funds, excluding 85% of the change in net unrealized capital gains or losses less capital gains tax, for the immediately preceding calendar year. The Athene Domiciliary States’ insurance laws and regulations also require that each of our US insurance subsidiaries’ surplus as regards policyholders following any dividend or distribution be reasonable in relation to such US insurance subsidiary’s outstanding liabilities and adequate to meet its financial needs.
Under the Bermuda Insurance Act, an insurer is prohibited from declaring or paying a dividend if in breach of its ECR or MMS or if the declaration or payment of such dividend would cause such a breach. Where an insurer fails to meet its MMS on the last day of any financial year, it is prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends during the next financial year without the approval of the BMA. The Bermuda Insurance Act also prohibits our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries from paying a dividend in an amount exceeding 25% of the prior year’s total statutory capital and surplus, unless at least two members of the respective Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary’s board of directors and its principal representative sign and submit to the BMA an affidavit attesting that a dividend in excess of this amount would not cause such Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary to fail to meet its relevant margins. In certain instances, our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries would also be required to provide prior notice to the BMA in advance of the payment of dividends. In the event that such an affidavit is submitted to the BMA in accordance with the Bermuda Insurance Act, and further subject to the applicable Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary meeting its MMS and ECR, such Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary is permitted to distribute up to the sum of 100% of statutory surplus and an amount less than 15% of its total statutory capital. Distributions in excess of this amount require the approval of the BMA. Further, each of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries must obtain the BMA’s prior approval before reducing its total statutory capital as shown in its previous financial year statutory balance sheet by 15% or more. Each of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries is also prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends unless the value of its long-term business assets exceeds its long-term business liabilities, as certified by its approved actuary, by the amount of the dividend and at least the MMS. These restrictions on declaring or paying dividends and distributions under the Bermuda Insurance Act are in addition to those under Bermuda’s Companies Act 1981 (the Companies Act) which apply to all Bermuda companies. Under the Companies Act, a company may not declare or pay a dividend, or make a distribution out of contributed surplus, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that: (1) the company is, or would after the payment be, unable to pay its liabilities as they become due, or (2) the realizable value of the company’s assets would thereby be less than its liabilities.
Regulation of Investments
Each of our US insurance subsidiaries is subject to laws and regulations in each Athene Domiciliary State that require diversification of its investment portfolio and limit the amounts of investments in certain asset categories, such as below-investment grade fixed income securities, real estate-related equity, partnerships, other equity investments, derivatives and alternative investments. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations would cause investments exceeding regulatory limitations to be treated as non-admitted assets for purposes of measuring statutory surplus and, in some instances, could require the divestiture of such non-qualifying investments.
The NAIC is considering actions that may be required to actively manage and oversee the use of private credit rating provider (CRP) ratings in light of the extensive reliance on CRP ratings to assess investment risk for regulatory purposes, including possible changes to the NAIC Securities Valuation Office’s (SVO) “filing exempt” process, which grants an exemption from filing with the SVO for bonds and preferred stock that have been assigned a current, monitored rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.
Additionally, the NAIC is in the process of reviewing the definition, scope and capital charges related to residual tranches of asset backed securities held by life insurance companies. As part of that review, in August 2023, the NAIC adopted an “Interim” Factor for determining capital charges for residual tranches. The RBC base factor for residual tranches will continue to be 30% (with the addition of a sensitivity test) for year-end 2023 reporting, rising to 45% in 2024, unless data is presented establishing a different factor is appropriate. The NAIC also has expressed possible RBC arbitrage concerns regarding certain structured securities including CLOs. In March 2023, the NAIC adopted an amendment to the Purposes and Procedures Manual of the NAIC Investment Analysis Office to assign risk weights to CLOs based on its own modeling as opposed to credit ratings. Under the amendment, the NAIC’s Structured Securities Group will model CLO investments and evaluate tranche level losses across all debt and equity tranches under a series of calibrated and weighted collateral stress scenarios to assign NAIC designations that eliminate RBC arbitrage. The NAIC’s goal is to ensure that the aggregate RBC factor for owning all tranches of a CLO is the same as that required for owning all of the underlying loan collateral, in order to avoid RBC arbitrage. This amendment became effective on January 1, 2024, although this has been delayed as SVO has not completed development of the modeling, and with insurers first reporting the financial modeling NAIC designations for CLOs with their year-end 2024 financial statement filings. It is possible that the NAIC or the Athene Domiciliary States may propose new regulations or changes to statutory accounting principles regarding CLOs. Accordingly, the investment laws in the Athene Domiciliary States and the NAIC’s investment-related activities could prevent our US insurance subsidiaries from pursuing investment opportunities that they believe are beneficial to their policyholders and stockholders, which could in turn preclude us from realizing our investment objectives.
Restrictions on Business Operations
Pursuant to the Bermuda Insurance Act, our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries are not permitted to engage in non-insurance business unless such non-insurance business is ancillary to its core business. Non-insurance business means any business other than insurance business and includes carrying on investment business, managing an investment fund as operator, carrying on business as a fund administrator, carrying on banking business, underwriting debt or securities or otherwise engaging in investment banking, engaging in commercial or industrial activities and carrying on the business of management, sales or leasing of real property.
Guaranty Associations
All 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have insurance guaranty fund laws requiring insurance companies doing business within those jurisdictions to participate in guaranty associations. Guaranty associations are organized to cover, subject to limits, contractual obligations under insurance policies issued by insurance companies which later become impaired or insolvent. These associations levy assessments, up to prescribed limits, on each member insurer doing business in a particular state on the basis of their proportionate share of the premiums written by all member insurers in the lines of business in which the impaired or insolvent insurer previously engaged. Most states limit assessments in any year to 2% of the insurer’s average annual premium for the three years preceding the calendar year in which the impaired insurer became impaired or insolvent. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets, usually over a period of years.
For purposes of guaranty association assessments, long-term care insurance is typically classified as a health insurance product. However, in 2017 the NAIC adopted amendments to the Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Model Act to provide a fifty-fifty split between life insurers and health insurers (including health maintenance organizations) for future long-term care insolvencies. Most states have adopted legislation to codify the NAIC changes into law, including Iowa, New York and Delaware. These changes may result in an increase in future assessments against life insurers such as our US insurance subsidiaries.
Assessments levied against our US insurance subsidiaries by guaranty associations during the year ended December 31, 2023 were not material. While we cannot accurately predict the amount of any such future assessments, or past or future insolvencies of competitors which would lead to such assessments, it is possible that any such assessments with respect to pending insurers’ impairments and insolvencies may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows, and any reserves we have previously established for these potential assessments may not be adequate.
US Federal Oversight
Although the insurance business in the United States is primarily regulated by the states, federal initiatives can affect the businesses of our US insurance subsidiaries in a variety of ways. From time to time, federal measures are proposed which may significantly affect the insurance business. These areas include financial services regulation, securities regulation, derivatives regulation, pension regulation, money laundering, privacy regulation, taxation and the economic and trade sanctions implemented by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC maintains and enforces economic sanctions against certain foreign countries and groups and prohibits US persons from engaging in certain transactions with certain persons or entities. OFAC has imposed civil penalties on persons, including insurers and reinsurers, arising from violations of its economic sanctions program. In addition, various forms of direct and indirect federal regulation of insurance have been proposed from time to time, including proposals for the establishment of an optional federal charter for insurance companies.
Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and authorized the FSOC to designate non-bank financial companies as systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), thereby subjecting them to enhanced prudential standards and supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve). The prudential standards for non-bank SIFIs include enhanced RBC requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, single counterparty exposure limits, governance requirements for risk management, stress test requirements, special debt-to-equity limits for certain companies, early remediation procedures, and recovery and resolution planning. There are currently no such non-bank financial companies designated by FSOC as “systemically significant.” In 2019, the FSOC released final interpretive guidance regarding a revised process for designating non-bank SIFIs that incorporated an activities-based approach to risk assessment. Pursuant to such guidance, the FSOC would pursue entity-specific determinations only if a potential risk or threat could not be addressed through the activities-based approach. In November 2023, the FSOC voted to adopt new guidance regarding the designation of non-bank SIFIs, that replaced the 2019 interpretive guidance, effective January 16, 2024. The changes include a revised approach to SIFI designation based on risk factors contained in a proposed analytic framework, including leverage, liquidity risk and maturity mismatch, interconnections, operational risks, complexity, or opacity, inadequate risk management, concentration, and destabilizing activities, regardless of whether those risks arise from activities, firms, or otherwise. The FSOC’s changes could have the effect of simplifying and shortening its procedures for designating non-bank financial companies as SIFIs, which would subject them to additional supervision, examination, and regulation.There is considerable uncertainty as to the FSOC’s future determination of non-bank SIFIs and/or systemically important activities.
The Dodd-Frank Act, which effected the most far-reaching overhaul of financial regulation in the US in decades, established the Federal Insurance Office within the Treasury Department. While the Director of the Federal Insurance Office does not currently have general supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance, he or she performs various functions with respect to insurance, including serving as a non-voting member of the FSOC and making recommendations to the FSOC regarding non-bank financial companies to be designated as SIFIs. The Director of the Federal Insurance Office has also submitted reports to Congress that could ultimately lead to changes in the regulation of insurers and reinsurers in the US.
The Dodd-Frank Act also authorizes the Federal Insurance Office to assist the Secretary of the Treasury Department in negotiating covered agreements. A covered agreement is an agreement between the United States and one or more foreign governments, authorities or regulatory entities, regarding prudential measures with respect to insurance or reinsurance. In 2017, the US and the EU signed a covered agreement to address, among other things, reinsurance collateral requirements (EU Covered Agreement), and the US released a “Statement of the United States on the Covered Agreement with the European Union,” (Policy Statement) providing the US’ interpretation of certain provisions in the EU Covered Agreement. The Policy Statement provides that the US expects that the GCC developed by the NAIC will satisfy the EU Covered Agreement’s group capital assessment requirement. In addition, in 2018, the Bilateral Agreement between the US and the UK on Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance (UK Covered Agreement) was signed in anticipation of the UK’s exit from the EU. US state regulators had until September 1, 2022 to adopt reinsurance reforms removing reinsurance collateral requirements for EU and UK reinsurers that meet the prescribed minimum conditions set forth in the applicable EU Covered Agreement or UK Covered Agreement or else face potential federal preemption by the Federal Insurance Office. All states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have adopted the NAIC’s amendments to the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law that are intended to implement the reinsurance collateral provisions of the EU Covered Agreement and UK Covered Agreement. See –Credit for Coinsurance Ceded by a US Cedant. The reinsurance collateral provisions of the EU Covered Agreement and the UK Covered Agreement may increase competition, in particular with respect to pricing for reinsurance transactions, by lowering the cost at which competitors of ALRe are able to provide reinsurance to US insurers.
Regulation of FIAs, RILAs, and other Annuity Products
In the past, the SEC and state securities regulators have questioned whether FIAs, such as those sold by our US insurance subsidiaries, should be treated as securities under the federal and state securities laws rather than as insurance products exempted from such laws. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, annuities that meet specific requirements are specifically exempted from being treated as securities by the SEC. Our RILA product is not exempted from being treated as a security by the SEC and state securities regulators, but we expect that the types of FIAs that our US insurance subsidiaries currently sell will meet applicable requirements for exemption from treatment as securities and therefore will remain exempt from being treated as securities by the SEC and state securities regulators. However, there can be no assurance that federal or state securities laws or state insurance laws and regulations will not be amended or interpreted to impose further requirements on FIAs. Treatment of these products as securities would require additional registration and licensing of these products and the agents selling them, as well as cause our US insurance subsidiaries to seek new or additional marketing relationships for these products, any of which may impose significant restrictions on their ability to conduct business as currently operated.
NYSDFS Insurance Regulation 210: Life Insurance and Annuity Non-Guaranteed Elements establishes standards for the determination and readjustment of non-guaranteed elements (NGEs) that may vary at the insurer’s discretion for life insurance policies and annuity contracts delivered or issued in New York. In addition, the regulation establishes guidelines for related disclosure to NYSDFS and policy owners prior to any adverse change in NGEs. The regulation applies to all individual life insurance policies, individual annuity contracts and certain group life insurance and group annuity certificates that contain NGEs. NGEs include premiums, expense charges, cost of insurance rates and interest credits.
Unclaimed Property Laws
Each of our US insurance subsidiaries is subject to the laws and regulations of states and other jurisdictions concerning the identification, reporting and escheatment of abandoned or unclaimed money or property. State treasurers, controllers and revenue departments have been scrutinizing escheatment practices of life insurers with regard to unclaimed life insurance and annuity death benefits. As with state insurance regulators, state revenue authorities have been looking at how life insurers handle unreported deaths, maturity of life insurance and annuity contracts, and contracts that have exceeded limiting age to determine if the companies are appropriately determining when death benefits or other payments under the contracts should be treated as unclaimed property. State treasurers, controllers and revenue departments have audited life insurers, required escheatment and imposed interest penalties on amounts escheated for failure to escheat death benefits or other contract benefits when beneficiaries could not be found at the expiration of statutory dormancy periods. Several states have enacted new laws or adopted new regulations mandating the use by insurance companies of the US Social Security Administration’s Social Security Death Index (Death Master File) or other similar databases to identify deceased persons and to implement more rigorous processes to find beneficiaries. Our US insurance subsidiaries could be subject to risks related to unpaid benefits and the Death Master File.
Regulation of OTC Derivatives
We use derivatives to mitigate a wide range of risks in connection with our businesses, including options purchased to hedge the derivatives embedded in the FIAs that we have issued, and swaps, futures and/or options may be used to manage the impact of increased benefit exposures from our annuity products that offer guaranteed benefits as well as market exposures. Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act creates a comprehensive framework for the federal oversight and regulation of the OTC derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in the derivatives market and required US regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing its provisions.
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act divides regulatory responsibility for swaps in the United States between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with the CFTC regulating swaps and the SEC regulating security-based swaps. Rules adopted by the CFTC and SEC under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act impose a number of requirements related to the trading swaps and security-based swamps, including
mandatory clearing, on-facility trade execution requirements, mandatory minimum margin requirements for uncleared swaps and security-based swaps, as well as reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Derivative clearing requirements and mandatory margin requirements have
increased the cost of our risk mitigation and have had other implications as well. For example, increased margin requirements, combined with netting restrictions and limitations on eligible collateral have reduced our liquidity and required increased holdings of cash and highly liquid securities with lower yields, which could have an adverse impact on income. In addition, the clearing requirements subjects us to documentation that is significantly more counterparty-favorable and entitles counterparties to unilaterally change terms such as trading limits and the amount of margin required. The ability of such counterparties to take such actions could create trading disruptions and liquidity concerns. Additionally, the clearing requirements concentrate counterparty risk in both clearinghouses and clearing members. The failure of a clearinghouse could have a significant impact on the financial system. Even if a clearinghouse does not fail, large losses could force significant capital calls on clearinghouse members during a financial crisis, which could lead clearinghouse members to default. Because the role of clearinghouses is still developing, the related regulations are evolving and the related bankruptcy process is untested, it is difficult to anticipate or identify all risks related to the concentration of counterparty risk in clearinghouses and clearing members and the risk of a clearinghouse default.
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations thereunder and similar regulations adopted by non-US jurisdictions that may indirectly apply to us could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts, and increase our credit risk exposure. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of such regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable which could adversely affect our financial performance.
Consumer Protection Laws and Privacy and Data Security Regulation
Federal and state consumer protection laws affect our operations. As part of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to supervise and regulate institutions that provide certain financial products and services to consumers. Although the consumer financial services subject to the CFPB’s jurisdiction generally exclude insurance business of the kind in which our US insurance subsidiaries engage, the CFPB does have authority to regulate non-insurance consumer services which are offered by issuers of securities in our US insurance subsidiaries’ investment portfolio. Moreover, the CFPB as a regulator may seek to assert jurisdiction over predominantly insurance-related products or services in instances where such products or services are related to or intertwined with the offering of consumer financial products or services more clearly within the CFPB’s remit.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), which implemented fundamental changes in the regulation of the financial services industry in the United States, includes privacy requirements for financial institutions, including obligations to protect and safeguard consumers’ nonpublic personal information and records, and limitations on the re-disclosure and re-use of such information. The GLBA and other federal and state laws and regulations require financial institutions, including insurers, to protect the security and confidentiality of nonpublic personal information, including certain health-related and customer information, regulate the use and disclosure of certain personal information, and require financial institutions to notify customers and other individuals about their policies and practices relating to their collection and disclosure of health-related and customer information and their practices relating to protecting the security and confidentiality of that information. Federal and state laws require notice to affected individuals, regulators and others if there is a breach of the security of certain sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers. In addition, privacy laws also regulate the use and disclosure of personal information, including rules on the disclosure of the medical record and health status information obtained by insurers.
Federal and state lawmakers and regulatory bodies may be expected to consider additional or more detailed regulation regarding these subjects and the privacy and security of nonpublic personal information. Furthermore, the issues surrounding data security and the safeguarding of consumers’ protected information are under increasing regulatory scrutiny by state and federal regulators. The Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Communications Commission, the NYSDFS and the NAIC have undertaken various studies, reports and actions regarding data security for entities under their respective supervision. Additionally, several states have enacted insurance laws, often based on the NAIC model law, that require certain regulated entities to implement and maintain comprehensive information security programs to safeguard the personal information of insureds and enrollees.
In October 2017, the NAIC adopted a new Insurance Data Security Model Law, which is intended to establish the standards for data security and standards for the investigation and notification of data breaches applicable to insurance licensees in states adopting such law, with provisions that are generally consistent with the NYSDFS cybersecurity regulation discussed below. Under the model law, it is intended that companies that are compliant with the NYSDFS cybersecurity regulation are, in general, in compliance with the model law. As with all NAIC model laws, this model law must be adopted by a state before becoming law in such state, and several states, although it is not yet an accreditation standard. As of November 27, 2023, a version of the model law has been adopted in a 23 jurisdictions, including Delaware and Iowa and is pending adoption in four states. We anticipate that more states will begin adopting the model law in the future. The NAIC has also adopted a guidance document that sets forth twelve principles for effective insurance regulation of cybersecurity risks based on similar regulatory guidance adopted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the “Roadmap for Cybersecurity Consumer Protections,” which describes the protections to which the NAIC believes consumers should be entitled from their insurers, agents and other businesses concerning the collection and maintenance of consumers’ personal information, as well as what consumers should expect when such information has been involved in a data breach. We expect cybersecurity risk management, prioritization and reporting to continue to be an area of significant regulatory focus by such regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations.
For example, on March 1, 2017, the NYSDFS enacted 23 NYCRR 500, a cybersecurity regulation governing financial companies (Cybersecurity Regulation). The Cybersecurity Regulation requires banks, insurers, and other financial services institutions regulated by the NYSDFS, including us, to establish and maintain a cybersecurity program “designed to protect consumers and ensure the safety and soundness of New York State’s financial services industry.” Specifically, the Cybersecurity Regulation imposes a number of obligations, including to take
measures to protect data accessible to third party service providers, adopt multi-factor authentication procedures, designate a chief information security officer who annually reports to the NYSDFS, conduct annual audits, and notify the regulator of any material cybersecurity incident during a specified time period. Since the Cybersecurity Regulation’s effective date, we have committed significant time and resources to comply with its requirements. Moreover, the NYSDFS has increased enforcement of the Cybersecurity Regulation in recent years, and, on June 28, 2023, released a revised draft of proposed amendments to expand the Cybersecurity Regulation (signaling the regulator’s intent to increase obligations under such regulation). The NYSDFS finalized the amendments to the Cybersecurity Regulation on November 1, 2023, with the majority of the new requirements taking effect on April 29, 2024. The amended Cybersecurity Regulation imposes heightened governance and cybersecurity requirements, such as annual audits, vulnerability assessments, and password controls and monitoring. We anticipate that the NYSDFS will continue to examine the cybersecurity programs of financial institutions in the future and such examinations may result in additional regulatory scrutiny, expenditure of resources and possible regulatory actions and reputational harm.
In addition to insurance and other financial institution-specific privacy laws and regulations, an increasing number of states are considering and passing comprehensive privacy legislation. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) was signed in June 2018 and became effective on January 1, 2020 and was amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which went into effect on January 1, 2023. The CPRA also established the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to implement and enforce the law, which may result in additional regulatory scrutiny and risk. To date, the CPPA has issued updated CCPA regulations, which took effect on March 29, 2023; the CPPA has initiated, but not yet completed, further rulemaking activities. The CCPA and accompanying regulations (as amended) impose stringent data privacy and data protection requirements for the data of California residents, including providing the right to request that a business provide access to or delete any personal information about the consumer under certain circumstances, and the right to opt out of the sale of personal information. We have committed significant time and resources to comply with the CCPA’s requirements. The amendments to the CCPA under the CPRA also expanded consumer rights and disclosure obligations. For example, the CPRA gives California residents the ability to opt out of sharing any personal information and limits the use of their sensitive information. Virginia also passed the Virginia Consumer Data Privacy Act which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and affords consumers similar rights to the CCPA, along with additional rights such as the right to opt-out of processing for profiling and targeted advertising purposes. Additional states, such as Colorado, Connecticut and Utah, have passed similar comprehensive privacy legislation that went into effect or will go into effect, in 2023 and impose obligations similar to, but not exactly the same as California and Virginia laws; specifically, the Colorado Privacy Act and Connecticut Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring Act went into effect on July 1, 2023 and the Utah Consumer Privacy Act will go into effect on December 31, 2023. Likewise, in 2024, several states have similar laws that will go into effect, including laws in Montana, Oregon and Texas. Although most of these state laws have certain exemptions for entities subject to certain other federal laws, including the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, these state laws are changing the legal regime and industry standards for privacy, and more states are considering similar comprehensive privacy legislation that may add additional regulatory complexity and other legal risks. We anticipate that additional expenditure of resources will be necessary to respond to the evolving regulatory regimes, and possibly respond to regulatory actions and mitigate reputational harm. We expect that data privacy and cybersecurity will continue to be an area of significant regulatory focus, and it is possible that other jurisdictions consider or enact data privacy regulations.
The Bermuda Personal Information Protection Act 2016 (PIPA) regulates how any individual, entity or public authority may use personal information (meaning any information about an identified or identifiable natural person) in Bermuda where that personal information is used by automated or other means which form, or are intended to form, part of a structured filing system. PIPA reflects a set of internationally accepted privacy principles and good business practices for the use of personal information. Although PIPA was passed on July 27, 2016, the sections that are currently in effect are limited to those that relate to the establishment and appointment of the Privacy Commissioner, the hiring of the Privacy Commissioner’s staff, and the general powers of the Privacy Commissioner to monitor and administer PIPA. The remaining principal sections of PIPA, including conditions for use of personal information, requirements to provide a privacy notice and appoint a privacy officer and access, rectification and erasure rights for individuals, are scheduled to become fully implemented on January 1, 2025. As such, to the extent that we use individuals’ personal information in Bermuda, we will need to comply with the applicable sections of PIPA.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) came into direct effect in all EU Member States on May 25, 2018 and governs the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, and other processing of personal data. The UK has implemented the EU GDPR as the UK GDPR (which sits alongside the UK Data Protection Act 2018, and the UK GDPR together with the EU GDPR shall be referred to as the GDPR). The GDPR has direct effect where an entity is established in the European Economic Area (EEA) or the UK , and has extraterritorial effect where an organization is established outside of the EEA or the UK and processes personal data of individuals in the EEA or the UK in relation to the offering of goods or services to those individuals (the targeting test) or the monitoring of their behavior (the monitoring test). As such, the GDPR applies to us to the extent we are established in an EU Member State or the UK, we are processing personal data in the context of an establishment in an EU Member State or the UK or we meet the requirements of either the targeting test or the monitoring test.
The GDPR imposes onerous and comprehensive privacy, data protection, and data security obligations on controllers and provides certain rights for data subjects, including, among others: (i) accountability and transparency requirements, which require controllers to demonstrate and record compliance with the GDPR and to provide more detailed information to data subjects regarding processing of their personal data; (ii) specific requirements for obtaining valid consent; (iii) obligations to consider data protection when any new products or services are developed and designed to limit the amount of personal data processed; (iv) obligations to comply with data protection rights of data subjects including a right of access to and rectification of, personal data, a right of restriction of processing or to object to processing of personal data and a right to ask for a copy of personal data to be provided to a third party in a useable format and a right of erasure of their personal data in certain circumstances; and (v) an obligation to report personal data breaches to: (A) the data supervisory authority without undue delay (and no later than 72 hours after discovering the personal data breach, where feasible); and (B) affected data subjects, where the personal data breach is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms.
In addition, the EU GDPR prohibits the international transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States and other countries that the European Commission does not recognize as having ‘adequate’ data protection laws unless the parties to the transfer have implemented specific safeguards to protect the transferred personal data. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), in its Schrems II judgement, limited how organizations could lawfully transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States by invalidating the EU-US Privacy Shield for purposes of international transfers and imposed further restrictions on use of the standard contractual clauses (SCCs), including a requirement for companies to carry out a transfer privacy impact assessment (TIA). A TIA, among other things, assesses laws governing access to personal data in the recipient country and considers whether supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under SCCs will need to be implemented to ensure an ‘essentially equivalent’ level of data protection to that afforded in the EEA.
On October 7, 2022, the US President introduced an Executive Order to facilitate a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (DPF) and on July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted its Final Implementing Decision granting the United States adequacy (Adequacy Decision) for EU-US transfers of personal data for entities self-certified to the DPF. Entities relying on SCCs for transfers to the United States are able to rely on the analysis in the Adequacy Decision as support for their TIA regarding the equivalence of US national security safeguards and redress. This may have implications for our cross-border data flows and has and may in the future result in increased compliance costs.
It should be noted that the UK GDPR imposes similar restrictions on transfers of personal data from the UK to jurisdictions that the UK Government does not consider adequate, including the United States, in a similar manner to the EU GDPR. The UK Government has published its own form of the SCCs, known as the International Data Transfer Agreement and an International Data Transfer Addendum to the new EU SCCs. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office has also published its version of the TIA and revised guidance on international transfers, although entities may choose to adopt either the EU or UK style TIA. In terms of international data transfers between the UK and the United States, the US Department of Commerce announced that organizations will also be able to self-certify to the UK and Swiss extensions of the DPF, and on September 21, 2023, the UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology took the decision to establish a UK-US data bridge (i.e., a UK adequacy decision) and adopt UK regulations to implement the UK-US data bridge (UK Adequacy Regulations). The UK Adequacy Regulations have now been passed in the UK Parliament, and personal data may be transferred from the UK under the UK-US data bridge through the UK extension to the DPF, from October 12, 2023 to organizations self-certified under the DPF. Currently, the volume of personal data processed in connection with each entity’s UK activities is insignificant and limited to management and governance matters. We regularly monitor our business activities to ensure we are prepared for compliance, should the UK GDPR ever apply to our business more broadly.
The GDPR also imposes fines for serious breaches of up to the higher of 4% of the organization’s annual worldwide turnover or €20m (under the EU GDPR) or £17.5m (under the UK GDPR). The GDPR identifies a list of points to consider when determining the level of fines for data supervisory authorities to impose (including the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement). Data subjects also have a right to compensation, as a result of an organization’s breach of the GDPR which has affected them, for financial or non-financial losses (e.g., distress). Privacy and data protection compliance has and may in the future require substantial amendments to our procedures and policies. The changes could adversely impact our business by increasing operational and compliance costs or impact business practices. Further, there is a risk that the amended policies and procedures will not be implemented correctly or that individuals within the business will not be fully compliant with the new procedures. If there are breaches of these measures, we could face significant litigation, government investigations, administrative and monetary sanctions as well as reputational damage which may have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial condition and prospects. There is a risk that we could be impacted by a cybersecurity incident that results in loss or unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, potentially resulting in us facing harms similar to those described above.
The BMA has recognized that cyber incidents can cause significant financial losses and/or reputational impacts across the insurance industry and has implemented the Insurance Sector Operation Cyber Risk Management Code of Conduct (the Cyber Risk Code) to ensure that those operating in the Bermuda insurance sector can mitigate such risks. The Cyber Risk Code prescribes the duties, requirements, standards, procedures and principles which all insurers, insurance managers and insurance intermediaries (agents, brokers and insurance marketplace providers) registered under the Bermuda Insurance Act must comply. The Cyber Risk Code is designed to promote the stable and secure management of information technology systems of regulated entities and requires that all registrants implement their own technology risk programs, determine what their top risks are and develop an appropriate risk response. This requires all registrants to develop a cyber risk policy which is to be delivered pursuant to an operation cyber risk management program and appoint an appropriately qualified member of staff or outsourced resource to the role of Chief Information Security Officer. The role of the Chief Information Security Officer is to deliver the operational cyber risk management program.
It is expected that the cyber risk policy will be approved by the registrant’s board of directors at least annually. The BMA will assess a registrant’s compliance with the Cyber Risk Code in a proportionate manner relative to the nature, scale and complexity of its business. While it is acknowledged that some registrants will use a third party to provide technology services and that they may outsource their IT resources (for example, to an insurance manager where applicable), when so outsourced, the overall responsibility for the outsourced functions will remain with the registrant’s board of directors. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Cyber Risk Code will be taken into account by the BMA in determining whether a registrant is conducting its business in a sound and prudent manner as prescribed by the Bermuda Insurance Act and may result in the BMA exercising its powers of intervention and investigation (see below).
Innovation and Technology
There has been increased scrutiny, including from state insurance regulators, regarding the use of “big data” techniques, including artificial intelligence, machine learning and automated decision-making. The NAIC established the Innovation, Cybersecurity and Technology (H) Committee ((H) Committee) to address the insurance implications of cybersecurity and emerging technologies, including big data, artificial intelligence and e-commerce. In December 2023, the (H) Committee adopted the Model Bulletin on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers (AI Bulletin), which outlines how insurance regulators should govern the development, acquisition and use of artificial intelligence technologies, as well as the types of information that regulators may request during an investigation or examination of an insurer in relation to artificial intelligence systems. The (H) Committee also recently agreed to form a new task force in 2024 that will create a regulatory framework for the oversight of insurers’ use of third-party data and models. In related work, the NAIC’s Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (H) Working Group ((H) Working Group) considers big data issues, such as the lack of transparency and potential for bias in algorithms used to synthesize big data. In May 2023, the (H) Working Group issued an artificial intelligence survey for life insurance, and has published a NAIC Staff Report regarding the same on its website. The NAIC’s Accelerated Underwriting (A) Working Group’s work on a draft regulatory guidance document related to the use of external data and data analytics in accelerated underwriting of life insurance has been on hold to allow the (H) Committee to finalize the AI Bulletin.
As a result of increased innovation and technology in the insurance sector, the NAIC is monitoring technology developments that impact the state insurance regulatory framework and has developed or is developing regulatory guidance, as appropriate. For example: (1) the NAIC has adopted amendments to the anti-rebating provisions of the NAIC’s Unfair Trade Practices Act to address new technologies that are being deployed to add value to existing insurance products and services; (2) the NAIC has adopted guiding principles related to artificial intelligence, its use in the insurance sector, and its impact on consumer protection and privacy, marketplace dynamics and the state-based insurance regulatory framework; and (3) the NAIC’s Privacy Protections (H) Working Group (PPWG) is developing a new Insurance Consumer Privacy Protections Model Law (Model 674) to replace the NAIC’s Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Model Act and the NAIC’s Privacy of Consumer Financial and Health Information Regulation. Due to the large number of comments received on a revised draft of Model 674, the PPWG received an extension until December 31, 2024 to develop the new model law.
Additionally, the NAIC and state insurance regulators have been focused on addressing unfair discrimination in the use of consumer data and technology, and some states have passed laws or introduced legislation targeting unfair discrimination practices. For example, in July 2021, Colorado adopted legislation that restricts the use of consumer data sources, algorithms, and predictive models that unfairly discriminate against an individual based on race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender status and would provide the Colorado insurance commissioner with broad rule-making and enforcement authority. Pursuant to such legislation, in September 2023, the Colorado insurance commissioner adopted rules, focused solely on the life insurance industry, establishing expansive requirements for insurers using external consumer data and information sources to establish internal governance and risk management frameworks to ensure that such use does not result in unfairly discriminatory insurance practices. Also in September 2023, Colorado released a draft artificial intelligence testing regulation for life insurance underwriting to complement the rules that were recently adopted. Several states have also issued guidance regarding the use of big data technology in compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
We expect that innovation and technology, including “big data,” will remain an important issue for the NAIC and state insurance regulators. We cannot predict what, if any, changes to laws or regulations may be enacted with regard to innovation and technology in the insurance sector.
Environmental Regulation
Our investment in a limited partnership which is in the business of originating residential mortgage loans (RML), as well as our direct investment in any residential or other mortgage loans, may expose us to various environmental and other regulations. For example, to the extent that we hold whole mortgage loans as part of our investment portfolio, we may be responsible for certain tax payments or subject to liabilities under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. Additionally, we may be subject to regulation by the CFPB as a mortgage holder or property owner. We are currently unable to predict the impact of such regulation on our business.
The NAIC continues to monitor and address how climate-related risks affect the insurance industry and consumers by, among other things, collecting financial data from insurers, including information on insurer investments, which can be used to assess industry investment exposure to various risks, and monitoring and analyzing developments and trends in the financial markets, including with respect to investment exposures. Additionally, the NAIC is considering enhancements to financial solvency regulation manuals to address climate-related risk and resiliency issues.
In 2022, the NAIC adopted a new standard for insurers to report their climate-related risks as part of the NAIC’s annual Climate Risk Disclosure Survey, which applies to insurers that meet the reporting threshold of $100 million in countrywide direct premium and are licensed in one of the participating jurisdictions. The new standard is consistent with the international Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures’ framework for reporting climate-related financial information. Several states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, participate in the NAIC survey for insurers licensed in their jurisdictions.
In 2021, the NYSDFS issued final Guidance for New York Domestic Insurers on Managing the Financial Risks from Climate Change (Guidance), which sets out the NYSDFS’ expectations that all New York insurers begin integrating the consideration of the financial risks from climate change into their governance frameworks, business strategies, risk management processes and scenario analysis, and developing their approach to climate-related financial disclosure. The NYSDFS expects insurers to implement its expectations relating to board governance and to have specific plans in place to implement its expectations relating to organizational structure by August 15, 2022, which our company has implemented, and plans to issue further guidance for implementation of other expectations.
Broker-dealers
Our securities operations, principally conducted by our limited purpose SEC-registered broker-dealer, Athene Securities, LLC (Athene Securities), are subject to federal and state securities and related laws, and are regulated principally by the SEC, state securities authorities and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Athene Securities does not hold customer funds or safekeep customer securities. Athene Securities is the principal underwriter for the RILA and PPVA products that we offer, and has FINRA permissions to retail the PPVA product. Athene Securities previously served as the principal underwriter of a block of variable contracts that were closed to new investors in 2002 and issued by a predecessor of AAIA. Athene Securities continues to receive concessions on those variable annuity contracts. Athene Securities also provides supervisory oversight to Athene employees who are registered representatives.
Athene Securities and employees or personnel registered with Athene Securities are subject to the Exchange Act and to regulation and examination by the SEC, FINRA and state securities commissioners. The SEC and other governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations, as well as state securities commissions in the United States, have the power to conduct administrative proceedings that can result in censure, penalties and fines, disgorgement of profits, restitution to customers, cease-and-desist orders or suspension, termination or limitation of the activities of the regulated entity or its employees.
As a registered broker-dealer and member of various self-regulatory organizations, Athene Securities is subject to the SEC’s net capital rule, which specifies the minimum level of net capital a broker-dealer is required to maintain and requires a minimum part of its assets to be kept in relatively liquid form. These net capital requirements are designed to measure the financial soundness and liquidity of broker-dealers. The net capital rule imposes certain requirements that may have the effect of preventing a broker-dealer from distributing or withdrawing capital and may require that prior notice to the regulators be provided prior to making capital withdrawals. Compliance with net capital requirements may limit the ability of our broker-dealer subsidiary to pay dividends to us. The SEC and other governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations, as well as state securities commissions in the United States are currently considering a wide variety of regulatory proposals including issues ranging from cybersecurity to marketing practices, that individually or collectively could increase the costs of Athene Securities and further limits its ability to pay dividends to us.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA)
We also may be subject to regulation by the US Department of Labor (DOL) when providing a variety of products and services to employee benefit plans governed by ERISA. ERISA is a comprehensive federal statute that applies to US employee benefit plans sponsored by private employers and labor unions. Plans subject to ERISA include pension and profit-sharing plans and welfare plans, including health, life and disability plans. Among other things, ERISA imposes reporting and disclosure obligations, prescribes standards of conduct that apply to plan fiduciaries and prohibits transactions known as “prohibited transactions,” such as conflict-of-interest transactions, self-dealing and certain transactions between a benefit plan and a “party in interest.” ERISA also provides for a scheme of civil and criminal penalties and enforcement. We are also subject to ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules for transactions with ERISA plans, which may affect our ability to, or the terms upon which we may, enter into transactions with those plans, even in businesses unrelated to those giving rise to “party in interest” status. The applicable provisions of ERISA and the US Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Internal Revenue Code) are subject to enforcement by the DOL, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Severe penalties are imposed for breach of duty under ERISA.
In April 2016, the DOL issued regulations, which were later vacated effective June 2018, expanding the definition of “investment advice” and broadening the circumstances under which distributors and manufacturers of insurance and annuity products could be considered “fiduciaries” under ERISA. Thereafter, the DOL issued proposed regulatory action to address the vacated definition and issued final regulatory action on December 15, 2020, which confirmed the reinstatement of the definition of “investment advice” that applied prior to 2016 but broadens the circumstances under which financial institutions, including insurers, could be considered fiduciaries under ERISA in connection with recommendations to “rollover” assets from a qualified retirement plan to an IRA. This guidance reverses an earlier DOL interpretation suggesting that rollover advice did not constitute investment advice giving rise to a fiduciary relationship. In connection with the final regulatory action, the DOL issued a prohibited transaction class exemption that allows fiduciaries to receive compensation in connection with providing investment advice, including advice about rollovers, that would otherwise be prohibited as a result of their fiduciary relationship to the ERISA Plan. In order to be eligible for the exemption, the investment advice fiduciary would be required, among other conditions, to acknowledge its fiduciary status, refrain from putting its own interests ahead of the plan beneficiaries’ interests or making material misleading statements, act in accordance with ERISA’s “prudent person” standard of care, and receive no more than reasonable compensation for the advice. In April 2021, the DOL issued additional guidance relating to the definition of investment advice under ERISA, in which it stated that it anticipates taking further regulatory and sub-regulatory action on the topic of fiduciary investment advice. On October 31, 2023, the DOL released a proposed rule to replace the existing definition that, if adopted as written, would expand the circumstances under which certain financial institutions could be considered to be fiduciaries under ERISA. The DOL also released amendments to certain prohibited transaction exemptions, including one that applies to the sale of annuity contracts by insurance companies, that could change the ability of advice fiduciaries to use those exemptions for
certain transactions. The public comment period for the proposed rule expired on January 2, 2024, and we expect a final rule to be published in the near future.
SEC and State Fiduciary Standards
The SEC adopted a rule under the Exchange Act that establishes a standard of conduct for broker-dealers and associated persons of a broker-dealer when they make a recommendation to a retail customer of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities. This rule, called “Regulation Best Interest,” requires broker-dealers, among other things, to: act in the best interest of the retail customer at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the financial or other interest of the broker-dealer ahead of the interests of the retail customer; and address conflicts of interest by establishing, maintaining, and enforcing policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and fully and fairly disclose material facts about conflicts of interest, and in certain identified areas where the SEC has determined that disclosure is insufficient to reasonably address the conflict, to mitigate or, in certain instances, eliminate the conflict. The standard of conduct established by Regulation Best Interest cannot always be satisfied through disclosure alone. Regulation Best Interest became effective on June 30, 2020. Though Regulation Best Interest does not directly impact the sale of our annuity products, with the exception of our RILA product, it will impact how some of our retail distribution partners monitor insurance sales.
In addition, certain states, for example Massachusetts, Nevada, and New Jersey, have proposed measures that would make broker-dealers and sales agents subject to a fiduciary duty when providing products and services to customers. The Massachusetts Securities Division adopted a fiduciary duty rule applicable to broker-dealers when making recommendations concerning securities or investment strategies, effective September 1, 2020; however, consistent with the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, this rule does not apply to advice concerning commodities or insurance products, including life insurance and annuities. On September 5, 2023, the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), the association of state securities administrators in the United States and Canada, proposed revisions to its Model Rule on Dishonest and Unethical Business Practices of Broker-Dealers and Agents; these revisions purport to incorporate the standards of Regulation Best Interest but in fact would expand those requirements in ways that would increase costs to broker-dealers. The SEC did not indicate an intent to preempt state regulation in this area, and some of the state proposals would allow for a private right of action. As a result of these changes, it may become more costly to provide our products and services in the states subject to these rules.
The NAIC has adopted the Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation (SAT), which places responsibilities upon insurers with respect to the suitability of annuity sales, including responsibilities for training agents. Many states, including Athene Domiciliary States, have already enacted laws and/or regulations based on SAT, thus imposing suitability standards with respect to sales of FIAs. The NYSDFS issued (1) a circular letter emphasizing insurers’ obligations under laws and regulations based on SAT when replacing a deferred annuity contract with an immediate annuity contract. and (2) amendments to its regulation based on SAT to incorporate a “best interest” standard with respect to the suitability of life insurance and annuity sales, which amendments took effect on August 1, 2019 with respect to annuity contracts and February 1, 2020 with respect to life insurance policies. Future changes in such laws and regulations, including those that impose a “best interest” standard could adversely impact the way we market and sell our annuity products. The NAIC adopted amendments to the SAT to incorporate a “best interest” or similar standard with respect to the suitability of annuity sales. The amendments include a requirement for producers to act in the “best interest” of a retail customer when making a recommendation of an annuity. A producer is considered to have acted in the best interest of the customer if they have satisfied certain prescribed obligations regarding care, disclosure, conflict of interest and documentation. State adoption of these amendments, and any future changes in such laws and regulations, could adversely affect the way our US insurance subsidiaries market and sell their annuity products. As of November 27, 2023, 40 states, including Iowa and Delaware, have adopted a version of the revised SAT that includes a best interest concept, and six states have pending legislation to adopt a version of the revised SAT that includes a best interest concept.
Regulation of an Insurer’s Stockholders
The BMA maintains supervision over the “controllers” of all registered insurers in Bermuda. For these purposes, a “controller” includes (1) the managing director of the registered insurer or its parent company, (2) the chief executive of the registered insurer or of its parent company, (3) a stockholder controller, and (4) any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the registered insurer or its parent company are accustomed to act.
The definition of stockholder controller is set out in the Bermuda Insurance Act but generally refers to (1) a person who holds 10% or more of the shares carrying rights to vote at a stockholders’ meeting of the registered insurer or its parent company, (2) a person who is entitled to exercise 10% or more of the voting power at any stockholders’ meeting of such registered insurer or its parent company or (3) a person who is able to exercise significant influence over the management of the registered insurer or its parent company by virtue of its shareholding or its entitlement to exercise, or control the exercise of, the voting power at any stockholders’ meeting.
Under the Bermuda Insurance Act, stockholder controller ownership is defined as follows:
| | | | | | | | |
Actual Stockholder Controller Voting Power | | Defined Stockholder Controller Voting Power |
10% or more but less than 20% | | 10% |
20% or more but less than 33% | | 20% |
33% or more but less than 50% | | 33% |
50% or more | | 50% |
Where the shares of a registered insurer, or the shares of its parent company, are traded on a recognized stock exchange, and such stockholder becomes a 10%, 20%, 33%, or 50% stockholder controller of the insurer, that stockholder shall, within 45 days, notify the BMA in writing that such stockholder has become, or as a result of a disposition ceased to be, a controller of any such category.
Any person or entity who contravenes the Bermuda Insurance Act by failing to give notice or knowingly becoming a controller of any description before the required 45 days has elapsed is guilty of an offense under Bermuda law and liable to a fine of $25,000 on summary conviction.
The BMA may file a notice of objection to any person or entity who has become a controller of any category when it appears that such person or entity is not, or is no longer, fit and proper to be a controller of the registered insurer. Before issuing a notice of objection, the BMA is required to serve upon the person or entity concerned a preliminary written notice stating the BMA’s intention to issue formal notice of objection. Upon receipt of the preliminary written notice, the person or entity served may, within 28 days, file written representations with the BMA which shall be taken into account by the BMA in making its final determination. Any person or entity who continues to be a controller of any description after having received a notice of objection is guilty of an offense and liable on summary conviction to a fine of $25,000 (and a continuing fine of $500 per day for each day that the offense is continuing) or, if convicted on indictment, to a fine of $100,000 and/or 2 years in prison.
The permission of the BMA is required, pursuant to the provisions of the Exchange Control Act 1972 and related regulations, for all issuances and transfers of shares of Bermuda companies to or from a non-resident of Bermuda for exchange control purposes, other than in cases where the BMA has granted a general permission. The BMA, in its notice to the public dated June 1, 2005, has granted a general permission for the issue and subsequent transfer of any securities of a Bermuda company from and/or to a non-resident of Bermuda for exchange control purposes for so long as an “Equity Securities” of the company are listed on an “Appointed Stock Exchange” (which includes the NYSE).
Notification of Material Changes
All registered insurers are required to give notice to the BMA of their intention to affect a material change within the meaning of the Bermuda Insurance Act. For the purposes of the Bermuda Insurance Act, the following changes are material: (1) the transfer or acquisition of insurance business, including portfolio transfers or corporate restructurings, pursuant to a court-approved scheme of arrangement under Section 25 of the Bermuda Insurance Act or Section 99 of the Companies Act, (2) the amalgamation with or acquisition of another firm, (3) engaging in unrelated business that is retail business, (4) the acquisition of a controlling interest in an undertaking that is engaged in non-insurance business which offers services and products to persons who are not affiliates of the insurer, (5) outsourcing all or substantially all of the company’s actuarial, risk management, compliance or internal audit functions, (6) outsourcing all or a material part of an insurer’s underwriting activity, (7) the transfer other than by way of reinsurance of all or substantially all of a line of business, (8) the expansion into a material new line of business, (9) the sale of an insurer and (10) outsourcing of an “officer” role, as such term is defined by the Bermuda Insurance Act.
As registered insurers, our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries may not take any steps to give effect to such a material change unless they have first served notice on the BMA that they intend to effect such material change and before the end of 30 days, either the BMA has notified the applicable Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary in writing that the BMA has no objection to such change or that period has lapsed without the BMA having issued a notice of objection.
Before issuing a notice of objection, the BMA is required to serve upon the applicable Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary a preliminary written notice stating the BMA’s intention to issue formal notice of objection. Upon receipt of the preliminary written notice, the applicable Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary may, within 28 days, file written representations with the BMA, which the BMA would take into account in making its final determination.
Policyholder Priority
In the event of a liquidation or winding up of one of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries, policyholders’ liabilities receive prior payment ahead of general unsecured creditors. Subject to the prior payment of preferential debts under Bermuda’s Employment Act 2000 and the Companies Act, the insurance debts of an insurer must be paid in priority to all other unsecured debts of the insurer. Insurance debt is defined as a debt to which an insurer is or may become liable pursuant to an insurance contract, excluding debts owed to an insurer under an insurance contract where the insurer is the person insured. Insurance contract is defined as any contract of insurance, capital redemption contract or a contract that has been recorded as insurance business in the financial statements of the insurer pursuant to the Insurance Accounts 1980 or the Insurance Account Rules 2016, as applicable.
Similarly, in the event of the impairment or insolvency of one of our US insurance subsidiaries, the applicable Commissioner will be authorized and directed to commence delinquency proceedings for the purpose of liquidating, rehabilitating, reorganizing or conserving the applicable US insurance subsidiary pursuant to applicable state insurance laws and regulations. In conducting delinquency proceedings, claims are prioritized and an order of distribution is specified pursuant to applicable state insurance laws and regulations. In each of the Athene Domiciliary States, claims of general unsecured creditors would be subordinated to claims of the insurer’s policyholders and other claimants with priority in accordance with the priority-of-distribution scheme prescribed by applicable state insurance law.
Notification of Cyber Reporting Events
Our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries are each required to notify the BMA forthwith on it coming to the knowledge of the insurer, or where the insurer has reason to believe, that a Cyber Reporting Event (as defined in the Bermuda Insurance Act) has occurred. Within 14 days of such notification, the insurer must also furnish the BMA with a written report setting out all of the particulars of the Cyber Reporting Event that are available to it. A Cyber Reporting Event includes any act that results in the unauthorized access to, disruption, or misuse of electronic systems or information stored on such systems of an insurer, including breach of security leading to the loss or unlawful destruction or unauthorized disclosure of or access to such systems or information where there is a likelihood of an adverse impact to policyholders, clients or the insurer’s insurance business, or an event that has occurred for which notice is required to be provided to a regulatory body or government agency.
Economic Substance Act 2018 (ESA)
In December 2018, the ESA came into effect in Bermuda. Under the provisions of the ESA, every Bermuda registered entity, other than an entity which is resident for tax purposes in certain jurisdictions outside of Bermuda, that carries on as a business in any one or more “relevant activities” referred to in the ESA must satisfy economic substance requirements by maintaining a substantial economic presence in Bermuda. Under the ESA, certain activities, including insurance or holding entity activities (both as defined in the ESA and Economic Substance Regulations 2018) are relevant activities. The ESA applies to our entities registered in Bermuda that carry on “relevant activities” and are not resident for tax purposes in a jurisdiction outside of Bermuda. We are required to file annual declarations with the Registrar of Companies in Bermuda demonstrating that an entity is either a non-resident entity for tax purposes or is otherwise in compliance with economic substance requirements.
Any entity that must satisfy economic substance requirements but fails to do so could face automatic disclosure to competent authorities in the US and EU of the information filed by the entity with the Bermuda Registrar of Companies in connection with the economic substance requirements and may also face financial penalties, restriction or regulation of its business activities and/or removal from the list of registered entities in Bermuda.
UK Corporation Tax
Certain of our subsidiaries are treated as residents in the United Kingdom for UK tax purposes due to being centrally managed and controlled in the UK, and will each be treated as a fiscally opaque company from a UK tax perspective (collectively, UK Resident Companies). Our UK Resident Companies are generally subject to UK corporation tax on their respective worldwide profits. In practice, however, it is not expected that our UK Resident Companies will be liable to account for any material UK corporation tax on the basis that: (1) in the case of the UK Resident Companies that are holding companies, their income and gains should be primarily derived from their holding of shares in direct subsidiaries; and (2) in the case of the UK Resident Companies that are operating companies, the majority of profits will be attributable to their permanent establishments in Bermuda in respect of which “foreign branch exemption elections” (set out in s.18A Corporation Tax Act 2009) have been made. Any dividends received by our UK Resident Companies should be exempt from UK corporation tax and any gains arising to our UK Resident Companies on a disposal of a subsidiary (including any potential future subsidiaries and any disposal or deemed disposal occurring as a result of Redomicile) should be exempt from UK corporation tax on chargeable gains as a result of the application of the UK substantial shareholding exemption set out in Schedule 7AC of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The UK Resident Companies are not required to withhold tax when paying a dividend.
The UK Resident Companies, as UK tax residents, will remain subject to a number of specific UK tax regimes, including the controlled foreign company regime, the anti-hybrids and other mismatches regime the diverted profits tax, and the UK’s implementation of a multinational top-up tax (MTT). In practice, however (subject to a change in law, including as a result of implementing recommendations from the BEPS project) none of these specific regimes are expected to materially impact the UK tax position of the UK Resident Companies. See Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Relating to Taxation-Our structure involves complex provisions of tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. Our structure is also subject to ongoing future potential legislative, judicial or administrative change and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis and Changes in non-US tax law could adversely affect our ability to raise funds from certain investors.
Available Information
Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports are made available, free of charge, on or through the “Investors” portion of our website www.athene.com. Information contained on our website is not part of, nor is it incorporated by reference in, this report or any of our periodic reports. Reports filed with or furnished to the SEC will also be available as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with or furnished to the SEC and are available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.
Certain metrics discussed in this section are based on management view and therefore may not correspond to amounts disclosed in our consolidated financial statements or the notes thereto. For example, investment figures cited represent our net invested assets, which include assets held by cedants that correspond to liabilities ceded to us, but does not include amounts attributable to our noncontrolling interests in ACRA. In the context discussed, we believe that these metrics provide the most comprehensive view of our risk exposures. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Key Operating and Non-GAAP Measures–Net Invested Assets for further discussion.
Risks Relating to Our Business Operations
Our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows depend on the accuracy of our management’s assumptions and estimates, and we could experience significant gains or losses if these assumptions and estimates differ significantly from actual results.
We make and rely on certain assumptions and estimates regarding many matters related to our business, including valuations, interest rates, investment returns, expenses and operating costs, tax assets and liabilities, tax rates, business mix, surrender activity, mortality and contingent liabilities. We also use these assumptions and estimates to make decisions crucial to our business operations, including establishing pricing, target returns and expense structures for our insurance subsidiaries’ products and pension group annuity transactions; determining the amount of reserves we are required to hold for our policy liabilities; determining the price we will pay to acquire or reinsure business; determining the hedging strategies we employ to manage risks to our business and operations; and determining the amount of regulatory and rating agency capital that our insurance subsidiaries must hold to support their businesses. The factors influencing these assumptions and estimates cannot be calculated or predicted with certainty, and if our assumptions and estimates differ significantly from actual outcomes and results, our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows may be materially and adversely affected. Certain of the assumptions relevant to our business are discussed in greater detail below.
•Insurance Products and Liabilities – Pricing of our annuity and other insurance products, whether issued by us or acquired through reinsurance or acquisitions, is based upon assumptions about persistency, mortality and the rates at which optional benefits are elected. A factor which may affect persistency for some of our products is the value of guaranteed minimum benefits. An increase in the value of guaranteed minimum benefits could result in our policies remaining in force longer than we have estimated, which could adversely affect our results of operations. This could be caused by extended periods of poor equity market performance and/or low interest rates, developments affecting customer perception and other factors outside our control. Alternatively, our persistency estimates could be negatively affected during periods of rising equity markets or interest rates or by other factors outside our control, which could result in fewer policies remaining in force than estimated. Therefore, our results will vary based on deviations from expected policyholder behavior.
If emerging or actual experience deviates from our assumptions, such deviations could have a significant effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows. For example, a significant portion of our in-force and newly issued products contain riders that offer guaranteed lifetime income or death benefits. These riders expose us to mortality, longevity and policyholder behavior risks. If actual utilization of certain rider benefits is adverse when compared to our estimates used in setting our reserves for future policy benefits, these reserves may prove to be inadequate and we may be required to increase such reserves. More generally, deviations from our pricing expectations could result in our subsidiaries earning less of a spread between the investment income earned on our subsidiaries’ assets and the interest credited to such products and other costs incurred in servicing the products, or may require our subsidiaries to make more payments under certain products than our subsidiaries had projected.
•Determination of Fair Value – We hold securities, derivative instruments and other assets and liabilities that must be, or at our election are, measured at fair value. Fair value represents the anticipated amount that would be received upon the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction. The determination of fair value involves the use of various assumptions and estimates, and considerable judgment may be required to estimate fair value. Accordingly, estimates of fair value are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that could be realized in a current or future market exchange. As such, changes in or deviations from the assumptions used in such valuations can significantly affect our financial condition and results of operations. During periods of market disruption, including periods of rapidly changing credit spreads or illiquidity, if trading becomes less frequent or market data becomes less observable, it will likely be difficult to value certain of our investments. Further, rapidly changing credit and equity market conditions could materially impact the valuation of investments as reported within our financial statements, and the period-to-period changes in value could vary significantly. Even if our assumptions and valuations are accurate at the time that they are made, the market value of these investments could subsequently decline, which could materially and adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
•Hedging Strategies – We use, and may in the future use, derivatives and reinsurance contracts to hedge risks related to current or future changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities; current or future changes in cash flows; changes in interest rates, equity markets and credit spreads; the occurrence of credit defaults; currency fluctuations; and changes in mortality and longevity. We use equity derivatives to hedge the liabilities associated with our FIAs. Our hedging strategies rely on assumptions and projections regarding our assets and liabilities, as well as general market factors and the creditworthiness of our counterparties, any or all of which may prove to be incorrect or inadequate. Accordingly, our hedging activities may not have the desired impact. We may also incur significant losses on hedging transactions.
•Financial Statements – The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires management to make various estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported therein. These estimates include, but are not limited to, the fair value of investments; impairment of investments and valuation allowances; the valuation of derivatives, including embedded derivatives; future policy benefit and market risk benefit reserves; valuation allowances on deferred tax assets; and stock-based compensation. The assumptions and estimates required for these calculations involve judgment and by their nature are imprecise and subject to changes and revisions over time. Accordingly, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected if actual results differ from assumptions or if assumptions are materially revised.
Interruption or other operational failures in telecommunications, information technology and other operational systems, including as a result of threat actors attacking those systems, or a failure to maintain the security, integrity, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data residing on those systems, including as a result of human error, could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We are highly dependent on automated and information technology systems to record and process our internal transactions and transactions involving our customers, as well as to calculate reserves, perform actuarial analyses, value our investment portfolio and complete certain other components of our financial statements. We could experience a failure of one of these systems, our employees or agents could fail to monitor and implement enhancements or other modifications to a system in a timely and effective manner or our employees or agents could fail to complete all necessary data reconciliation or other conversion controls when implementing a new software system or modifications to an existing system. Additionally, threat actors who are able to circumvent our security measures and penetrate our information technology systems could access, view, misappropriate, alter or delete information in the systems, including personally identifiable customer information and proprietary business information. Information security risks also exist with respect to the use of portable electronic devices, such as laptops, which are particularly vulnerable to loss and theft.
We retain personally identifiable information and other confidential information, including in some instances sensitive personal information such as health-related information, in our information technology systems and those of our business partners. Despite our security and back-up measures, including periodic testing and our business continuity plan, our information technology systems and those of our business partners may be vulnerable to physical or electronic intrusions, computer viruses or other malicious codes, unauthorized or fraudulent access, cyber-attacks such as ransomware, social-engineering attacks, or denial-of-service attacks, programming or other human errors, and other breaches of cybersecurity and information security systems and similar disruptions, and we may not be able to anticipate, detect, repel or implement effective preventative measures against all such threats, particularly because the techniques used are increasingly sophisticated and constantly evolving. We may also be subject to disruptions of any of these systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (for example, natural disasters, acts of terrorism, war, epidemics, pandemics, computer viruses and electrical or telecommunications outages).
All of these risks are also applicable where we rely on third-party suppliers to provide products and services to us and/or our customers. We rely on products and services provided by third-party suppliers to operate certain critical business systems, including without limitation, cloud-based infrastructure, encryption and authentication technology, employee email, and other functions, which exposes us to supply-chain attacks or other business disruptions. While we require our critical third-party suppliers to implement and maintain what we believe to be effective cybersecurity and data protection measures, we cannot guarantee that third parties and infrastructure in our supply chain or our partners’ supply chains have not been compromised or that they do not contain exploitable defects or bugs that could result in a breach of or disruption to our information technology systems or the third-party information technology systems that support our insurance products. Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third-party suppliers may not have adequate information security measures in place. In addition, if one of our third-party suppliers suffers a security breach, which has happened in the past, our response may be limited or more difficult because we may not have direct access to their systems, logs and other information related to the security breach.
The failure of any one of these systems for any reason, or errors made by our employees or agents, could in each case cause significant interruptions to our operations, which could harm our reputation, adversely affect our internal control over financial reporting or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Any compromise of the security of our information technology systems that results in inappropriate disclosure or use of confidential information, including personally identifiable customer information, could damage the reputation of our brand in the marketplace, deter purchases of our products, subject us to heightened regulatory scrutiny or significant civil and criminal liability and require us to incur significant technical, legal and other expenses in connection with our response, recovery, remediation, and compliance efforts. We are also subject to data privacy and security laws applicable to our business in relevant jurisdictions. See Item 1. Business-Regulation-Consumer Protection Laws and Privacy and Data Security Regulation for more information.
A financial strength rating downgrade, potential downgrade or any other negative action by a rating agency could make our product offerings less attractive, inhibit our ability to acquire future business through acquisitions or reinsurance and increase our cost of capital, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Various Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) review the financial performance and condition of insurers and reinsurers, including our subsidiaries, and publish their financial strength ratings as indicators of an insurer’s ability to meet policyholder obligations. These ratings are important to maintain public confidence in our insurance subsidiaries’ products, our insurance subsidiaries’ ability to market their products and our competitive position. Factors that could negatively influence this analysis include:
•changes to our business practices or organizational business plan in a manner that no longer supports our ratings;
•unfavorable financial or market trends;
•changes in NRSROs’ capital adequacy assessment methodologies in a manner that would adversely affect the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries;
•a need to increase reserves to support our outstanding insurance obligations;
•our inability to retain our senior management and other key personnel;
•rapid or excessive growth, especially through large reinsurance transactions or acquisitions, beyond the bounds of capital sufficiency or management capabilities as judged by the NRSROs; and
•significant losses to our investment portfolio.
Some other factors may also relate to circumstances outside of our control, such as views of the NRSRO and general economic conditions. Any downgrade or other negative action by a NRSRO with respect to the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries, or an entity we acquire, or our credit ratings, could materially adversely affect us and our ability to compete in many ways, including the following:
•reducing new sales of insurance products;
•harming relationships with or perceptions of distributors, IMOs, sales agents, banks and broker-dealers;
•increasing the number or amount of policy lapses or surrenders and withdrawals of funds, which may result in a mismatch of our overall asset and liability position;
•requiring us to offer higher crediting rates or greater policyholder guarantees on our insurance products in order to remain competitive;
•increase our borrowing costs;
•reducing our level of profitability and capital position generally or hindering our ability to raise new capital; or
•requiring us to collateralize obligations under or result in early or unplanned termination of hedging agreements and harming our ability to enter into new hedging agreements.
In order to improve or maintain their financial strength ratings, our subsidiaries may attempt to implement business strategies to improve their capital ratios. We cannot guarantee any such measures will be successful. We cannot predict what actions NRSROs may take in the future, and failure to maintain current financial strength ratings could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We rely significantly on third parties for various services, and we may be held responsible for obligations that arise from the acts or omissions of third parties under their respective agreements with us.
We rely significantly on third parties to provide various services that are important to our business, including investment, distribution and administrative services. As such, our business may be affected by the performance of those parties. Additionally, our operations are dependent on various technologies, some of which are provided or maintained by certain key outsourcing partners and other parties. See Item 1. Business–Outsourcing for certain of the functions that we outsource to third parties.
Many of our subsidiaries’ products and services are sold through third-party intermediaries. In particular, our insurance businesses are reliant on such intermediaries to describe and explain these products and services to potential customers, and although we take precautions to avoid this result, such intermediaries may be deemed to have acted on our behalf. If that occurs, the intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of our subsidiaries’ products and services in advertising materials or other external communications, or inappropriate activities by an intermediary or personnel employed by an intermediary could result in liability for us and have an adverse effect on our reputation and business prospects, as well as lead to potential regulatory actions or litigation involving or against us. In addition, we rely on third-party administrators (TPAs) to administer a portion of our annuity contracts, as well as our legacy life insurance business. Some of our reinsurers also use TPAs to administer business we reinsure to them. To the extent any of these TPAs do not administer such business appropriately, we may experience customer complaints, regulatory intervention and other adverse impacts, which could affect our future growth and profitability. Recently, we received a Section 308 information request from the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) relating to the administration and lapse of certain life policies covered by a consent order we entered into with the NYDFS in 2018. Global Atlantic Financial Group Limited (GA) and certain of its affiliates, the reinsurer and administrator of these policies, has been assisting us in our response to the NYDFS and is obligated to indemnify us under the terms of the reinsurance agreement between us and the applicable affiliates of GA. If any of these TPAs or their employees are found to have made material misrepresentations to our policyholders, violated applicable insurance, privacy or other laws and regulations or otherwise engaged in misconduct, we could be held liable for their actions and be subject to regulatory scrutiny, which could adversely affect our reputation, business prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Additionally, past or future misconduct by agents that distribute our subsidiaries’ products or employees of our vendors could result in violations of law by us, regulatory sanctions and/or serious reputational or financial harm and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor associates’ business decisions and to prevent us from taking excessive or inappropriate risks, associates may take such risks regardless of such controls and procedures.
We are subject to significant operating and financial restrictions imposed by our credit agreements and certain letters of credit, and we are also subject to certain operating restrictions imposed by the indenture to which we are a party.
On June 30, 2023, AHL, ALRe, Athene USA Corporation (AUSA) and AARe, as borrowers, entered into a new, five-year revolving credit agreement with a syndicate of banks and Citibank, N.A., as administrative agent (Credit Facility), which replaced our previous revolving credit agreement dated as of December 3, 2019. Also on June 30, 2023, AHL and ALRe entered into a new revolving credit agreement with a syndicate of banks and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent (Liquidity Facility), which replaced our previous revolving credit agreement dated as of July 1, 2022. The Credit Facility, Liquidity Facility, and certain letters of credit also entered into contain various restrictive covenants which restrict the operations of our business. As a result of these restrictions, we may be limited in how we conduct our operations and may be unable to raise additional debt financing to compete effectively or to take advantage of new business opportunities.
In addition to the covenants to which we are subject pursuant to our Credit Facility, Liquidity Facility and certain letters of credit, AHL is also subject to certain limited covenants pursuant to the Indenture, dated January 12, 2018, by and between us and US Bank National Association, as trustee (Base Indenture), as supplemented by the applicable supplemental indenture, by and among us and US Bank National Association, as trustee (together with the Base Indenture, Indenture). The Indenture contains restrictive covenants which limit, subject to certain exceptions, AHL’s and, in certain instances, some or all of its subsidiaries’ ability to make fundamental changes, create liens on any capital stock of certain of AHL’s subsidiaries, and sell or dispose of the stock of certain of AHL’s subsidiaries.
The terms of any future indebtedness we may incur may contain additional restrictive covenants.
We operate in a highly competitive industry that includes a number of competitors, which could limit our ability to achieve our growth strategies and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.
We operate in highly competitive markets and compete with large and small industry participants. We face intense competition, including from US and non-US insurance and reinsurance companies, broker-dealers, financial advisors, asset managers, diversified financial institutions and private equity firms, with respect to both the products we offer and the acquisition and block reinsurance transactions we pursue. We compete based on a number of factors including financial strength ratings, credit ratings, brand recognition, reputation, quality of service, performance of our products, product features, scope of distribution and price. A decline in our competitive position as to one or more of these factors could adversely affect our profitability. In addition, we may in the future sacrifice our competitive or market position in order to improve our short-term profitability, particularly in the highly competitive retail markets, which may adversely affect our long-term growth and results of operations. Alternatively, we may sacrifice short-term profitability to maintain market share and long-term growth.
Many of our competitors are large and well-established and some have greater breadth of distribution; offer a broader range of products, services or features; assume a greater level of risk; or have higher financial strength, claims-paying or credit ratings than we do. Our competitors may also have lower return on capital requirements than we do which may allow them to price products, reinsurance arrangements or acquisitions more competitively. In addition, our competitors, including new market entrants may engage in aggressive, non-economic pricing in an effort to gain market share. If we experience a decline in our competitive position or if our financial strength and credit ratings remain lower than the ratings of certain of our competitors, we may experience increased surrenders and/or an inability to reach sales targets or consummate block reinsurance transactions, which may have a material and adverse effect on our growth, business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.
If we are unable to attract and retain IMOs, banks and broker-dealers, sales of certain of our products may be adversely affected.
We distribute our annuity products through a variable cost distribution network, which includes 51 IMOs, 18 banks and 144 broker-dealers, collectively representing approximately 128,000 independent agents. We must attract and retain such marketers, agents and financial institutions to sell our products. In particular, insurance companies compete vigorously for productive agents. We compete with other life insurance companies for marketers, agents and financial institutions primarily on the basis of our financial position, support services, compensation, credit ratings and product features. Such marketers, agents and financial institutions may promote products offered by other life insurance companies that may offer a larger variety of products than we do. Our competitiveness for such marketers, agents and financial institutions also depends upon the long-term relationships we develop with them. There can be no assurance that such relationships will continue in the future. In addition, our growth plans include increasing the distribution of annuity products through banks and broker-dealers. If we are unable to attract and retain sufficient marketers and agents to sell our products or if we are not successful in expanding our distribution channels within the bank and broker-dealer markets, our ability to compete and our sales volumes and results of operations could be adversely affected.
Our growth strategy includes acquisitions and block reinsurance transactions, and our ability to consummate these transactions on economically advantageous terms acceptable to us in the future is unknown.
We have grown and intend to grow our business in the future in part by acquisitions of other insurance companies and businesses, and through block reinsurance, each of which could require additional capital, systems development and skilled personnel. We may experience challenges identifying, financing, consummating and integrating such acquisitions and block reinsurance transactions. While we have reviewed various opportunities and have successfully completed transactions in the past to facilitate our growth, competition exists in the market for profitable blocks of insurance and businesses. Such competition is likely to intensify as insurance businesses become more attractive targets. It is also possible that merger and acquisition transactions will become less frequent, which could also make it more difficult for us to implement our growth strategy as we have done in the past. Thus, in the future, we may not be able to find suitable acquisition or block reinsurance opportunities that are available at attractive valuations, or at all. Even if we do find suitable opportunities, we may not be able to consummate the transactions on commercially acceptable terms. In addition, to the extent we determine to finance an acquisition or block reinsurance transaction, suitable financing arrangements may not be available on acceptable terms, on a timely basis, or at all. Our acquisition and block reinsurance transaction activities may also divert the attention of our management from our business, which may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
We are subject to risks associated with pandemics, epidemics, disease outbreaks and other public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which could impact our business, financial condition and results of operations in the future.
We are subject to risks associated with pandemics, epidemics, disease outbreaks and other public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic and the responses to the pandemic have adversely impacted global commercial activity and contributed to significant volatility in financial markets. Such public health crises could adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including by adversely impacting the valuations of the investments made by us, which are generally correlated to the performance of the relevant equity and debt markets; increasing volatility in the financial markets; preventing us from capitalizing on certain market opportunities; interrupting global or regional supply chains; hurting consumer confidence and economic activity; straining our liquidity, which may impact our credit ratings and limit the availability of future financing; increasing the rate at which policyholders of our insurance products withdraw their policies; and reducing our ability to understand and foresee trends and changes in the markets in which we operate.
Risks Relating to Liquidity and Regulatory Capital
As a financial services company, we are exposed to liquidity risk, which is the risk that we are unable to meet near-term obligations as they come due.
Liquidity risk is a manifestation of events that are driven by other risk types (e.g. market, policyholder behavior, operational). A liquidity shortfall may arise in the event of insufficient funding sources or an immediate and significant need for cash or collateral. In addition, it is possible that expected liquidity sources, such as our credit facilities, may be unavailable or inadequate to satisfy the liquidity demands described below. In particular, the war between Russia and Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, and inflation (and the responses by the US Federal Reserve), continue to contribute to volatility in the financial markets and may restrict the liquidity sources available to us and further may result in an increase of our liquidity demands. We primarily have liquidity exposure through our collateral market exposure, asset liability mismatch, dependence on the financial markets for funding and funding commitments. If a material liquidity demand is triggered and we are unable to satisfy the demand with the sources of liquidity readily available to us, it may have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Liquidity and Capital Resources for a discussion of our liquidity and sources and uses of liquidity, including information about legal and regulatory limits on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends.
The amount of statutory capital that our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries have, or that they are required to hold, can vary significantly from time to time and is sensitive to a number of factors outside of our control.
Our US insurance subsidiaries are subject to state regulations that provide for MCR based on RBC formulas for life insurance companies relating to insurance, business, asset, interest rate and certain other risks. Similarly, our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries are subject to MCR imposed by the BMA through the BMA’s ECR and MMS.
In any particular year, our subsidiaries’ capital ratios and/or statutory surplus amounts may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors, some of which are outside of our control and some of which we can only partially control, including, but not limited to, the following:
•the amount of statutory income or loss generated by our insurance subsidiaries;
•the amount of additional capital our insurance subsidiaries must hold to support their business growth;
•changes in reserve requirements applicable to our insurance subsidiaries;
•changes in market value of certain securities in our investment portfolio;
•recognition of write-downs or other losses on investments held in our investment portfolio;
•changes in the credit ratings of investments held in our investment portfolio;
•changes in the value of certain derivative instruments;
•changes in interest rates;
•credit market volatility;
•changes in policyholder behavior;
•changes in corporate tax rates;
•changes to the RBC formulas and interpretations of the NAIC instructions with respect to RBC calculation methodologies; and
•changes to the ECR, BSCR, or TCL formulas and interpretations of the BMA’s instructions with respect to ECR, BSCR, or TCL calculation methodologies.
Further to NAIC activities with respect to RBC calculation methodologies, the NAIC has recently adopted and is currently considering a variety of reforms to its RBC framework, which could increase the capital requirements for our US insurance subsidiaries. For example, the NAIC recently adopted changes to certain statements of statutory accounting principles in connection with its principles-based bond project, which are currently scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2025, setting forth the factors to determine whether an investment in asset-backed securities qualifies for reporting on an insurer’s statutory financial statement as a bond on Schedule D-1 as opposed to Schedule BA (other long-term invested assets), the latter of which could result, among other things, in the capital charge treatment of an investment being less favorable. The NAIC also adopted an interim change to the life RBC formula for year-end 2023 and 2024 reporting to increase the RBC base factor for residual tranches of structured securities, and will further consider whether to increase or decrease the base factor in 2024. In addition, the NAIC is reviewing changes related to filing exempt status for certain securities, including a proposal that sets forth procedures for the NAIC’s review of investments that are exempt from filing with the NAIC’s Securities Valuation Office, which could result in, among other things, the capital charge treatment of the investment being less favorable.
During the course of 2023, the BMA issued consultation papers, and received feedback from stakeholders, on certain proposed enhancements to Bermuda’s regulatory regime for commercial insurers. The enhancements are aimed at ensuring that the regime continues to remain fit for purpose, in line with international standards and keeps pace with market developments. In addition to potential enhancements to technical provisions and computation of the BSCR, the BMA is seeking to strengthen supervisory cooperation and exchange of information and increased publication of regulatory information to further develop good governance and risk management practices, transparency, and market discipline. As at the end of 2023, draft rules and guidance notes were published for each commercial insurer class and insurance groups with the new requirements expected to come into force on March 31, 2024.
NRSROs may also implement changes to their internal models, which differ from the RBC and BSCR capital models, that have the effect of increasing or decreasing the amount of statutory capital our subsidiaries must hold in order to maintain their current ratings. To the extent that one of our insurance subsidiary’s solvency or capital ratios is deemed to be insufficient by one or more NRSROs to maintain their current ratings, we may take actions either to increase the capitalization of the insurer or to reduce the capitalization requirements. If we are unable to accomplish such actions, NRSROs may view this as a reason for a ratings downgrade. Regulatory developments, including the NAIC’s adoption of amendments to its Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act and Model Regulation requiring, subject to certain exceptions, the filing of a confidential annual group capital calculation and an annual liquidity stress test with the IID, the lead state insurance regulator of our US insurance subsidiaries, may increase the amount of capital that we are required to hold and could result in us being subject to increased regulatory requirements.
If a subsidiary’s solvency or capital ratios reach certain minimum levels, it could subject us to further examination or corrective action imposed by our insurance regulators. Corrective actions may include limiting our subsidiaries’ ability to write additional business, increased regulatory supervision, or seizure or liquidation of the subsidiary’s business, each of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.
Repurchase agreement programs subject us to potential liquidity and other risks.
We may engage in repurchase agreement transactions whereby we sell fixed income securities to third parties, primarily major brokerage firms or commercial banks, with a concurrent agreement to repurchase such securities at a determined future date. These repurchase agreements provide us with liquidity and in certain instances also allow us to earn spread income. Under such agreements we may be required to deliver additional securities or cash as margin to the counterparty if the value of the securities sold decreases prior to the repurchase date. If we are required to return significant amounts of cash collateral or post cash or securities as margin on short notice or have inadequate cash on hand as of the repurchase date, we may be forced to sell securities to meet such obligations and may have difficulty doing so in a timely manner or may be forced to sell securities in a volatile or illiquid market for less than we otherwise would have been able to realize under normal market conditions. Rehypothecation of subject securities by the counterparty may also create risk with respect to the counterparty’s ability to perform its obligations to tender such securities on the repurchase date. Such facilities may not be available to us on favorable terms or at all in the future.
Risks Relating to Market and Credit Risk
Our investments are subject to market and credit risks that could diminish their value and these risks could be greater during periods of extreme volatility or disruption in the financial and credit markets, which could adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.
Our investments and derivative financial instruments are subject to risks of credit defaults and changes in market values. Periods of macroeconomic weakness or recession, heightened volatility or disruption in the financial and credit markets could increase these risks, potentially resulting in other-than-temporary impairment of assets in our investment portfolio. The impact of geopolitical tension, such as a deterioration in the bilateral relationship between the US and China or the war between Russia and Ukraine, including any resulting sanctions, export controls or other restrictive actions that may be imposed by the US and/or other countries against governmental or other entities in, for example, Russia, also could lead to disruption, instability and volatility in the global markets, which may have an impact on our investments across negatively impacted sectors or geographies.
We are also subject to the risk that cash flows generated from the collateral underlying the structured products we own may differ from our expectations in timing or amount. In addition, many of our classes of investments, but in particular our alternative investments, may produce investment income that fluctuates significantly from period to period. Any event reducing the estimated fair value of these securities, other than on a temporary basis, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and cash flows. If our investment manager, Apollo, fails to react appropriately to difficult market, economic and geopolitical conditions, our investment portfolio could incur material losses. Certain of our investments are more vulnerable to these risks than others, as described more fully below.
•Fixed maturity and equity securities – We have significant investments in fixed maturity securities, equity securities, and short-term investments, including our investments in investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds and structured products, which include RMBS and CLOs. An economic downturn affecting the issuers or underlying collateral of these securities, ratings downgrades affecting the issuers or guarantors of such securities, or similar trends and issues could cause the estimated fair value of our fixed income securities portfolio and our earnings to decline and the default rates of the fixed income securities in our portfolio to increase.
•Collateralized loan obligations – We also have significant investments in CLOs. Control over the CLOs in which we invest is exercised through collateral managers, who may take actions that could adversely affect our interests, and we may not have the right to direct collateral management. There may also be less information available to us regarding the underlying debt instruments held by CLOs than if we had invested directly in the debt of the underlying companies. Additionally, the estimated fair values of subordinated tranches of CLOs tend to be much more sensitive to adverse economic downturns and underlying borrower defaults than those of more senior securities. Furthermore, our investments in CLOs are also subject to liquidity risk as there is a limited market for CLOs. Accordingly, we may suffer unrealized depreciation and could incur realized losses in connection with the sale of our CLO interests.
We have a risk management framework in place to identify, assess and prioritize risks, including the market and credit risks to which our investments are subject. As part of that framework, we test our investment portfolio based on various market scenarios. Under certain stressed market scenarios, unrealized losses on our investment portfolio could lead to material reductions in its carrying value. Under some extreme scenarios, total stockholders’ equity could be severely impacted prior to any potential market recovery. See Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risks.
Interest rate fluctuations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.
Interest rate risk is a significant market risk for us. We define interest rate risk as the risk of an economic loss due to changes in interest rates. This risk arises from our holdings in interest rate-sensitive assets (e.g., fixed income assets) and liabilities (e.g., fixed deferred and immediate annuities). Substantial and sustained increases or decreases in market interest rates could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows, including in the following respects:
•Significant changes in interest rates expose us to the risk of not realizing anticipated spreads between overall net investment earned rates and our cost of funds.
•Changes in interest rates may negatively affect the value of our assets and our ability to realize gains or avoid losses from the sale of those assets. Significant volatility in interest rates may have a larger adverse impact on certain assets in our investment portfolio that are highly structured or have limited liquidity.
•Changes in interest rates may cause changes in prepayment rates on certain fixed income assets within our investment portfolio. For instance, falling interest rates may accelerate the rate of prepayment on mortgage loans, while rising interest rates may decrease such prepayments below the level of our expectations. At the same time, falling interest rates may result in the lengthening of duration for our policies and liabilities due to the guaranteed minimum benefits contained in our products, while rising interest rates could lead to increased policyholder withdrawals and a shortening of duration for our liabilities. In either case, we could experience a mismatch in our assets and liabilities and potentially incur significant economic losses.
•During periods of declining interest rates or a prolonged period of low interest rates, our annuity products may be relatively more attractive to existing policyholders than other investment opportunities available to them. This may cause our assumptions regarding persistency to prove inaccurate as our policyholders opt not to surrender or take withdrawals from their products, which may result in us experiencing greater claim costs than we had anticipated and/or cash flow mismatches between assets and liabilities.
•During periods of declining interest rates, we may have to reinvest the cash we receive as interest or return of principal on our investments into lower-yielding high-grade instruments or seek higher-yielding, but higher-risk instruments in an effort to achieve returns comparable with those attained during more stable interest rate environments.
•Certain securitized financial assets are accounted for based on expectations of future cash flows. To the extent future interest rates are lower than we have projected, we will experience slower accretion of discounts on these assets and will have a lower yield on our portfolio.
•An extended period of declining interest rates or a prolonged period of low interest rates may cause us to decrease the crediting rates of our products, thereby reducing their attractiveness.
•In periods of rapidly increasing interest rates, withdrawals from and/or surrenders of annuity contracts may increase as policyholders choose to seek higher investment returns elsewhere. Obtaining cash to satisfy these obligations may require our insurance subsidiaries to liquidate fixed income investments at a time when market prices for those assets are depressed. This may result in realized investment losses.
•An increase in market interest rates could reduce the value of certain of our investments held as collateral under reinsurance agreements and require us to provide additional collateral, thereby reducing our available capital and potentially creating a need for additional capital which may not be available to us on favorable terms, or at all.
We are subject to the credit risk of our counterparties, including ceding companies, reinsurers, plan sponsors and derivative counterparties.
We encounter various types of counterparty credit risk. Our insurance subsidiaries cede certain risk to third-party insurance companies that may cover large volumes of business and expose us to a concentration of credit risk with respect to such counterparties. Such subsidiaries may not have a security interest in the underlying assets and despite certain indemnification rights, we retain liability to our policyholders if a counterparty fails to perform. Certain of our insurance subsidiaries also reinsure liabilities from other insurance companies and these subsidiaries may be negatively impacted by changes in the ceding companies’ ratings, creditworthiness, and market perception, or any policy administration issues. We also assume pension obligations from plan sponsors that expose us to the credit risk of the plan sponsor. In addition, we are exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by our derivative agreement counterparties. If any of these counterparties is not able to satisfy its obligations to us or third parties, including policyholders, we may not achieve our targeted returns and our financial position, results of operations, liquidity and cash flow may be materially adversely affected.
Our investment portfolio may be subject to concentration risk, particularly with respect to single issuers, including Athora, among others; industries, including financial services; and asset classes, including real estate.
We face single issuer concentration risk both in the context of strategic alternative investments, in which we occasionally hold significant equity positions, and large asset trades, in which we generally hold significant debt positions. Our most significant concentration risk exposure arising in the context of strategic alternative investments, on a risk-adjusted basis, is our investment in Athora, an insurance holding company focused on the European life insurance market. Given our significant exposure to these issuers, we are subject to the risks inherent in their business. For example, as a life insurer, Athora is subject to credit risk with respect to its investment portfolio and mortality risk with respect to its product liabilities, each of which may be exacerbated by unforeseen events. Further, Athora has significant European operations, which expose it to volatile economic conditions and risks relating to EU countries and withdrawals thereof. In addition, Athora is subject to multiple legal and regulatory regimes that may hinder or prevent it from achieving its business objectives. To the extent that we suffer a significant loss on our investment in these issuers, including Athora, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected
In addition, from time to time, in order to facilitate certain large asset trades and in exchange for commitment fees, we may commit to purchasing a larger portion of an investment than we ultimately expect to retain, and in such instances we are reliant upon Apollo’s ability to syndicate the transaction to other investors. If Apollo is unsuccessful in its syndication efforts, we may be exposed to greater concentration risk than what we would deem desirable from a risk appetite perspective and the commitment fee that we receive may not adequately compensate us for this risk.
We also have significant investments in nonbank lenders focused on providing financing to individuals or entities. As a result, through these investments, we have significant exposure to credit risk. In addition to the concentration risk arising from our investments in single issuers within the nonbank lending sector of the financial services industry, we have significant exposure to the financial services industry more broadly as a result of the composition of investments in our investment portfolio. Economic volatility or any further macroeconomic, regulatory or other
changes having an adverse impact on the financial services industry more broadly, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
A significant portion of our net invested assets is invested in real estate-related assets. Any significant decline in the value of real estate generally or the occurrence of any of the risks described elsewhere in this report with respect to our real estate-related investments could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Specifically, through our investments in commercial mortgage loans (CML) and CMBS, we have exposure to certain categories of commercial property, including office buildings, retail, that have been adversely affected by the spread of COVID-19 and the work from home trend. In addition, the CML we hold, and the CML underlying the CMBS that we hold, face both default and delinquency risk.
Many of our invested assets are relatively illiquid and we may fail to realize profits from these assets for a considerable period of time, or lose some or all of the principal amount we invest in these assets if we are required to sell our invested assets at a loss at inopportune times.
Many of our investments are in securities that are not publicly traded or that otherwise lack liquidity, such as our privately placed fixed maturity securities, below investment grade securities, investments in mortgage loans and alternative investments. These relatively illiquid types of investments are recorded at fair value. If a material liquidity demand is triggered and we are unable to satisfy the demand with the sources of liquidity available to us, we could be forced to sell certain of our assets and there can be no assurance that we would be able to sell them for the values at which such assets are recorded and we might be forced to sell them at significantly lower prices. In many cases, we may also be prohibited by contract or applicable securities laws from selling such securities for a period of time. Thus, it may be impossible or costly for us to liquidate positions rapidly in order to meet unexpected policyholder withdrawal or recapture obligations. This potential mismatch between the liquidity of our assets and liabilities could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Further, governmental and regulatory authorities periodically review legislative and regulatory initiatives, and may promulgate new or revised, or adopt changes in the interpretation and enforcement of existing, rules and regulations at any time that may impact our investments. For example, Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act governs the submission of quotes into quotation systems by broker-dealers and has historically been applied to the over-the-counter equity markets. Effective October 30, 2023, the SEC adopted an order exempting securities issued pursuant to Rule 144 from the quotation restrictions of Rule 15c2-11. However, for many other privately placed fixed income securities, Rule 15c2-11 restricted the ability of market participants to publish quotations after January 4, 2024. Such change in regulatory requirements could disrupt market liquidity and cause securities in our investment portfolio that are not publicly traded, such as our privately placed fixed maturity securities and below investment grade securities, to lose value, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Our investments linked to real estate are subject to credit risk, market risk, servicing risk, loss from catastrophic events and other risks, which could diminish the value that we obtain from such investments.
A substantial amount of our net invested assets is linked to real estate, including fixed maturity and equity securities, such as CMBS and RMBS, and mortgage loans, consisting of both CML and RML. Defaults by third parties in the payment or performance of their obligations underlying these assets could reduce our investment income and realized investment gains or result in the recognition of investment losses. For example, an unexpectedly high rate of default on mortgages held by a CMBS or RMBS may limit substantially the ability of the issuer of such security to make payments to holders of such securities, reducing the value of those securities or rendering them worthless. The risk of such defaults is generally higher in the case of mortgage securitizations that include “sub-prime” or “alt-A” mortgages. As of December 31, 2023, 4.7% of our net invested assets linked to real estate were invested in such “sub-prime” mortgages and “alt-A” mortgages. Changes in laws and other regulatory developments relating to mortgage loans may impact the investments of our portfolio linked to real estate in the future. Additionally, cash flow variability arising from an unexpected acceleration in the rate of mortgage prepayments can be significant, and could cause a decline in the estimated fair value of certain “interest only” securities.
The CML we hold, and CML underlying the CMBS that we hold, face both default and delinquency risk. Legislative proposals that would allow or require modifications to the terms of CML, an increase in the delinquency or default rate of our CML portfolio or geographic or sector concentration within our CML portfolio could materially and adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations. Our investments in RML and RMBS also present credit risk. Higher than expected rates of default or loss severities on our RML investments and the RML underlying our RMBS investments may adversely affect the value of such investments. A significant number of the mortgages underlying our RML and RMBS investments are concentrated in certain geographic areas. Any event that adversely affects the economic or real estate market in any of these areas could have a disproportionately adverse effect on our RML and RMBS investments. A rise in home prices, concern regarding further changes to government policies designed to alter prepayment behavior, increased availability of housing-related credit and lower interest rates could combine to increase expected or actual prepayment speeds, which would likely lower the valuations of RML and the valuations of RMBS that we carry at a premium to par prices or that are structured as interest only securities and inverse interest only securities. In general, any significant weakness in the broader macro economy or significant problems in a particular real estate market may cause a decline in the value of residential properties securing the mortgages in that market, thereby increasing the risk of delinquency, default and foreclosure. This could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our credit loss experience.
Control over the underlying assets in all of our real estate-related investments is exercised through servicers that we do not control. If a servicer is not vigilant in seeing that borrowers make their required periodic payments, borrowers may be less likely to make these payments, resulting in a higher frequency of delinquency and default. If a servicer takes longer to liquidate nonperforming mortgages, our losses related to those loans
may be higher than we expected. Any failure by a servicer to service RMLs in which we are invested or which underlie a RMBS in which we are invested in a prudent, commercially reasonable manner could negatively impact the value of our investments in the related RML or RMBS.
Our investments in assets linked to real estate are also subject to loss in the event of catastrophic events, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and fires.
In addition to the credit and market risk that we face in relation to all of our real estate-related investments, certain of these investments may expose us to various environmental, regulatory and other risks. Any adverse environmental claim or regulatory action against us resulting from our real-estate related investments could adversely impact our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our investment portfolio may include investments in securities of issuers based outside the US, including emerging markets, which may be riskier than securities of US issuers.
We may invest in securities of issuers organized or based outside the US that may involve heightened risks in comparison to the risks of investing in US securities, including unfavorable changes in currency rates and exchange control regulations, reduced and less reliable information about issuers and markets, less stringent accounting standards, illiquidity of securities and markets, higher brokerage commissions, transfer taxes and custody fees, local economic or political instability and greater market risk in general. In particular, investing in securities of issuers located in emerging market countries involves additional risks, such as exposure to economic structures that are generally less diverse and mature than, and to political systems that can be expected to have less stability than, those of developed countries; national policies that restrict investment by foreigners in certain issuers or industries of that country; the absence of legal structures governing foreign investment and private property; an increased risk of foreclosure on collateral located in such countries; a lack of liquidity due to the small size of markets for securities of issuers located in emerging markets; and price volatility.
As of December 31, 2023, 34% of the carrying value of our available-for-sale (AFS) securities, including related parties, was comprised of securities of issuers based outside of the US and debt securities of foreign governments. Of our total AFS securities, including related parties, as of December 31, 2023, 10% were invested in CLOs of Cayman Islands issuers (for which the underlying assets are largely loans to US issuers) and 25% were invested in other non-US issuers. While we invest in securities of non-US issuers, the currency denominations of such securities usually match the currency denominations of the liabilities that the assets support. When the currency denominations of the assets and liabilities do not match, we generally undertake hedging activities to eliminate or mitigate currency mismatch risk. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Investment Portfolio for further information on international exposure.
While we seek to hedge foreign currency risks, foreign currency fluctuations may reduce our net income and our capital levels, adversely affecting our financial condition.
We are exposed to foreign currency exchange rate risk through the investments in our investment portfolio that are denominated in currencies other than the US dollar or are issued by entities which primarily conduct their business outside of the US, as well as insurance liabilities, funding agreements and other transactions that are denominated in currencies other than the US dollar. We are also exposed to foreign currency exchange risk through our investment in certain subsidiaries domiciled in foreign jurisdictions, both as a result of our direct investment and as a result of currency mismatches between the assets and liabilities of those subsidiaries. We may employ various strategies (including hedging) to manage our exposure to foreign currency exchange risk. To the extent that these exposures are not fully hedged or the hedges are ineffective, our results or equity may be reduced by fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates that could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Climate change and regulatory and other efforts to reduce climate change, as well as environmental, social and governance requirements could adversely affect our business.
We face a number of risks associated with climate change including both transition and physical risks. The transition risks that could impact our company and our investment portfolio include those risks related to the impact of US and foreign climate- and environmental, social and governance (ESG)-related legislation and regulation, as well as risks arising from climate-related business trends. Moreover, our investments are subject to risks stemming from the physical impacts of climate change. In particular, climate change may impact asset prices and the value of our investments linked to real estate. For example, rising sea levels may lead to decreases in real estate values in coastal areas. We have significant concentrations of real estate investments and collateral underlying investments linked to real estate in areas of the United States prone to catastrophe, including California, sections of the northeastern US, the South Atlantic states and the Gulf Coast.
New climate change-related regulations or interpretations of existing laws may result in enhanced disclosure obligations that could negatively affect our investments and also materially increase our regulatory burden. We also face business trend-related climate risks. Certain investors are increasingly taking into account ESG factors, including climate risks, in determining whether to invest in our preferred shares, debt securities and FABN program. Our reputation and investor relationships could be damaged as a result of our involvement in certain industries, investments or transactions associated with activities perceived to be causing or exacerbating climate change, as well as any decisions we make to continue to conduct or change our activities in response to considerations relating to climate change.
Furthermore, our financial and operational results could be impacted by emerging risk and changes to the regulatory landscape in areas like ESG matters. Changes and uncertainty in US and non-US legislation, policy or regulation regarding ESG practices may result in higher regulatory costs, compliance costs and increased capital expenditures, and changes in regulations may impact asset prices, resulting in realized or
unrealized losses on our investments. Undertaking initiatives to address ESG practices, including those related to human capital management such as talent attraction and development, DEI and employee health and safety, could increase our cost of doing business and actual or perceived failure to adequately address ESG expectations of our various stakeholders could lead to a tarnished reputation and loss of customers.
Financial markets have been subject to inflationary pressures, and continued rising inflation may adversely impact our business and results of operations.
Financial markets have been subject to inflationary pressures, and we cannot predict the extent to which rising inflation may be transitory. Certain of our products are sensitive to inflation rate fluctuations, and a sustained increase in the inflation rate may adversely affect our business and results of operations. For example, failure to accurately anticipate higher inflation and factor it into our product pricing assumptions may result in mispricing of our products, which could materially and adversely impact our results of operations. Inflation also impacts our investment portfolio and nature of our liability profile, thereby impacting our investment portfolio’s rate of investment return and corresponding investment income. Continued rising inflation could adversely impact returns on our investment portfolio and results of operations.
Risks Relating to Our Relationship with Apollo
There are potential conflicts of interests between Apollo, our corporate parent, and the holders of our preferred stock.
AGM is the beneficial owner of 100% of our common stock and controls all of the voting power to elect members to our board of directors. As a result, AGM could exercise significant influence and control over corporate matters for the foreseeable future, including approval of significant corporate transactions, appointment of members of our management, approval of the termination of our investment management agreements (IMA) and determination of our corporate policies.
The interests of our common stockholder, AGM, may conflict with the interests of our preferred stockholders. Actions that AGM takes as our sole common stockholder may not be favorable to our preferred stockholders. For example, the concentration of voting power held by AGM, the significant representation on our board of directors by individuals who are employees of AGM, or the limitations on our ability to terminate IMAs with Apollo covering assets backing reserves and surplus in ACRA could delay, defer or prevent a change of control of us or impede a merger, takeover or other business combination which a preferred stockholder may otherwise view favorably. AGM may, in its role as our sole common stockholder, vote in favor of a merger, takeover or other business combination transaction which our preferred stockholders might not consider in their best interests, including those transactions in which the AGM may have an interest. Further, AGM may cause us to declare a cash dividend on shares of our common stock, including dividends of a greater amount than in prior years. Moreover, as a subsidiary of Apollo, we may bear a greater share of expenses than prior to our merger with Apollo.
Our conflicts committee and our disinterested directors analyze these conflicts to protect against potential harm resulting from conflicts of interest in connection with transactions that we have entered into or will enter into with Apollo or its affiliates. Specifically, our bylaws require that the conflicts committee (in accordance with its charter and procedures) approve certain material transactions by and between us and Apollo or its affiliates, including entering into material agreements or the imposition of any new fee or increase in the rate at which fees are charged to us, subject to certain exceptions. See Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence. These conflicts provisions will not, by themselves, prohibit transactions with Apollo or its affiliates. In addition, our conflicts committee may exclusively rely on information provided by Apollo, including with respect to fees charged by Apollo or its affiliates, and with respect to the historical performance or fees of unrelated service providers used for comparison purposes, and may not independently verify the information so provided.
Apollo charges us management fees based on the composition and value of our assets. Substantially all of our net invested assets are managed by Apollo. Our investment policies permit Apollo to invest in securities of issuers with which it is affiliated, including funds managed by Apollo. Apollo may make such investments at its discretion, subject only to the approval of our conflicts committee in certain cases and/or certain regulatory approvals. Accordingly, Apollo may have a conflict of interest in managing our investments, which could increase amounts payable by us for asset management services or cause us to receive a lower return on our investments than if our investment portfolio was managed by another party. Asset management fees are paid based on the value of our net invested assets regardless of the results of our operations or investment performance. Therefore, Apollo could be incentivized to exercise its influence to cause us to increase our net invested assets, which may have an adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We have made investments in collective investment vehicles managed by Apollo affiliates, including seed investments in new investment vehicles or investment strategies offered by Apollo which have limited track records, as well as junior and subordinated tranches of structured investment vehicles which may assist Apollo in meeting certain regulatory requirements applicable to Apollo as the sponsor of such vehicles. Such Apollo affiliates may charge us or such vehicles management or other fees, that independently, or when taken together with other fees charged by Apollo, may not be the lowest fee available for similar investment management services offered by unrelated managers. In addition, it is possible that such unrelated managers may perform better than Apollo. Apollo is not obligated to devote any specific amount of time to our affairs, or to the funds in which we are invested. Affiliates of Apollo manage and expect to continue to manage other client accounts, some of which have objectives similar to ours, including collective investment vehicles managed by Apollo and in which Apollo may have an equity interest. We will compete with other Apollo clients not only in terms of time spent on management of our portfolio, but also for allocation of assets that do not have significant supply. In addition, there may be different Apollo investment teams investing in the same strategies for different clients, including us. As a result, we may compete with other Apollo clients for the same investment opportunities, potentially disadvantaging us. Apollo may also manage accounts whose asset management fee schedules, investment objectives and policies differ from ours, which may cause Apollo to allocate securities in a manner that may have an adverse effect on our ability to source appropriate assets and meet our strategic objectives.
Under our fee agreement with ISG (Fee Agreement), Apollo receives higher sub-allocation fees for investing in asset classes with higher alpha generating abilities. See Note 16 – Related Parties–Apollo–Fee structure to the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the sub-allocation fees. There is no assurance that higher returns will be achieved by investing in these asset classes. Accordingly, Apollo is incentivized to increase the amount of investments subject to higher sub-allocation fees, which may result in greater risk to the returns in our investment portfolio. While we believe that we and Apollo have each implemented appropriate risk governance regarding asset allocation, it is possible that such incentives could result in increased holdings of assets with higher alpha generating abilities, and if such investments fail to perform, it could have an adverse impact on our investment results.
From time to time, Apollo may acquire investments on our behalf which are senior or junior to other instruments of the same issuer that are held by, or acquired for, another Apollo client (for example, we may acquire junior debt while another Apollo client may acquire senior debt). In the event such an issuer enters bankruptcy or becomes otherwise insolvent, the client holding securities which are senior in preference may have the right to aggressively pursue the issuer’s assets to fully satisfy the issuer’s indebtedness to the client, and the client holding the investment which is junior in the capital structure may not have access to sufficient assets of the issuer to completely satisfy its claim against the issuer and may suffer a loss. It is our understanding that Apollo has adopted procedures that are designed to enable it to address such conflicts and to ensure that clients are treated fairly and equitably in these situations. However, given Apollo’s fiduciary obligations to the other client, Apollo may be unable to manage our investment in the same manner as would have been possible without the conflict of interest. In such event, we may receive a lower return on such investment than if another Apollo client was not in a different part of the capital structure of the issuer.
Apollo and its affiliates have diverse and expansive private equity, credit and real estate investment platforms, investing in numerous companies across many industries. If Apollo acquires or forms a company with a business strategy competing with ours, additional conflicts may arise between us and Apollo or between us and such company in executing our plans, including with respect to the allocation of investments or the ability to execute on corporate opportunities. Our certificate of incorporation provides that Apollo and its members and affiliates (including certain of our directors) generally have no duty to refrain from engaging, directly or indirectly, in the same or similar business activities or lines of business that we do.
Apollo and its affiliates regularly obtain material non-public information regarding various potential acquisition or trading targets. When Apollo and its affiliates obtain material non-public information regarding a potential acquisition or trading target, Apollo becomes restricted from trading in such acquisition or trading target’s outstanding securities. Some of such securities may be potential investment opportunities for us, or may be owned by us and be potential disposition opportunities. The inability of Apollo to purchase or sell such investments on our behalf as a result of these restrictions may result in us acquiring investments that may otherwise underperform the restricted investments that Apollo would have acquired, or incurring losses on investments that Apollo would have sold, on our behalf, had such restrictions not been in place.
James R. Belardi, our Chief Executive Officer, also serves as a member of the board of directors and an executive officer of AGM and as Chief Executive Officer of ISG and receives compensation from ISG for services he provides. Mr. Belardi also owns profits interest in ISG and in connection with such interest receives a specified percentage of other fee streams earned by Apollo from us, including sub-allocation fees. Mr. Belardi is also a director of the general partner of ISG. Accordingly, Mr. Belardi’s involvement as a member of our board of directors and management team, as an officer and director of AGM, and as an officer of ISG and director of ISG’s general partner may lead to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, certain members of our board of directors also serve on the board of directors of AGM or ISG or are employees of Apollo or its affiliates, which could also lead to potential conflicts of interest. See Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
We rely on our investment management agreements with Apollo for the management of our investment portfolio. Apollo may terminate these arrangements at any time, and there are limitations on our ability to terminate investment management agreements covering assets backing reserves and surplus in ACRA, which may adversely affect our investment results.
We rely on Apollo to provide us with investment management services pursuant to various IMAs. Apollo relies in part on its ability to attract and retain key people, and the loss of services of one or more of the members of Apollo or any of its subsidiaries’ senior management could delay or prevent Apollo from fully implementing our investment strategy.
ACRA System IMA Termination Rights
The Fee Agreement provides that, with respect to IMAs covering assets backing reserves and surplus in ACRA, whether from internal reinsurance, third party reinsurance, or inorganic transactions (ACRA System IMAs), among us or any of our subsidiaries, on the one hand, and ISG, or another member of the Apollo Group (as defined in our certificate of incorporation) on the other hand, we may not, and will cause our subsidiaries not to, terminate any ACRA System IMA, other than on June 4, 2023 or any two year anniversary of such date (each such date, an IMA Termination Election Date) and any termination on an IMA Termination Election Date requires (1) the approval of two-thirds of our Independent Directors (as defined in our bylaws) and (2) prior written notice to ISG or the applicable Apollo subsidiary of such termination at least 30 days, but not more than 90 days, prior to an IMA Termination Election Date. If our Independent Directors make such election to terminate and notice of such termination is delivered, the termination will be effective no earlier than the second anniversary of the applicable IMA Termination Election Date (IMA Termination Effective Date). Notwithstanding the foregoing, our board of directors may only terminate an ACRA System IMA on an IMA Termination Election Date for “AHL Cause” as defined in the Fee Agreement and pursuant to the provisions set forth therein. The limitations on our ability to terminate the ACRA System IMAs with the applicable Apollo subsidiary could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
The Fee Agreement gives our Independent Directors complete discretion, while acting in good faith, as to whether to determine if an AHL Cause event has occurred with respect to any ACRA System IMA with the applicable Apollo subsidiary, and therefore our Independent Directors are under no obligation to make, and accordingly may exercise their discretion never to make, such a determination.
The boards of directors of our subsidiaries may terminate an ACRA System IMA with the applicable Apollo subsidiary relating to the applicable subsidiary if such subsidiary’s board of directors determines that such termination is required in the exercise of its fiduciary duties. If our subsidiaries do elect to terminate any such agreement, other than as provided above, we may be in breach of the Fee Agreement, which could subject us to regulatory scrutiny, expose us to stockholder lawsuits and could have a negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Termination by Apollo
We may be adversely affected if Apollo elects to terminate an IMA at a time when such agreement remains advantageous to us. We depend upon Apollo to implement our investment strategy. Further, Apollo does not face the restrictions described above with regards to its ability to terminate any ACRA System IMA with us and may terminate such agreements at any time. If Apollo chooses to terminate such agreements, there is no assurance that we could find a suitable replacement or that certain of the opportunities made available to us as a result of our relationship with Apollo would be offered by a suitable replacement, and therefore our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely impacted by our failure to retain a satisfactory investment manager.
Interruption or other operational failures in telecommunications, information technology and other operational systems at Apollo or a failure to maintain the security, integrity, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data residing on Apollo’s systems, including as a result of human error, could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We are highly dependent on Apollo, as our investment manager, to maintain information technology and other operational systems to record and process its transactions with respect to our investment portfolio, which includes providing information that enables us to value our investment portfolio and may affect our financial statements. Apollo could experience a failure of one of these systems, its employees or agents could fail to monitor and implement enhancements or other modifications to a system in a timely and effective manner or its employees or agents could fail to complete all necessary data reconciliation or other conversion controls when implementing a new software system or modifications to an existing system. Additionally, anyone who is able to circumvent Apollo’s security measures and penetrate its information technology systems could access, view, misappropriate, alter or delete information in the systems, including proprietary information relating to our investment portfolio. The maintenance and implementation of these systems at Apollo is not within our control. Should Apollo’s systems fail to accurately record information pertaining to our investment portfolio, we may inadvertently include inaccurate information in our financial statements and experience a lapse in our internal control over financial reporting. The failure of any one of these systems at Apollo for any reason, or errors made by its employees or agents, could cause significant interruptions to its operations, which could adversely affect our internal control over financial reporting or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
The historical investment portfolio performance of Apollo should not be considered as indicative of the future results of our investment portfolio, or our future results or our ability to declare and pay dividends on our preferred stock.
Our investment portfolio’s returns have benefited historically from investment opportunities and general market conditions that currently may not exist and may not repeat themselves, and there can be no assurance Apollo will be able to avail itself of profitable investment opportunities in the future. Furthermore, the historical returns of our investments managed by Apollo are not directly linked to our ability to declare and pay dividends on our preferred stock, which is affected by various factors, one of which is the value of our investment portfolio. In addition, Apollo is compensated based on the aggregate value of the assets it manages on our behalf and on the allocation of those assets to certain fee categories, rather than on the investment returns achieved. Accordingly, there can be no guarantee Apollo will be able to achieve any particular return for our investment portfolio in the future.
The returns that we expect to achieve on our investment portfolio may not be realized.
We make certain assumptions regarding our future financial performance, including but not limited to, target returns on our organic and inorganic channels and target net spreads. Included within these assumptions are estimates regarding the level of returns to be achieved on our investment portfolio, including assumptions regarding the expected future performance of assets directly originated by Apollo. These returns are subject to market and other factors and we can give no assurance that they will ultimately be achieved. Actual results may differ, perhaps significantly, from our current expectations. To the extent that such differences occur, our future financial performance may be materially and adversely different than that communicated herein and elsewhere.
Risks Relating to Insurance and Other Regulatory Matters
Our industry is highly regulated and we are subject to significant legal restrictions and obligations, and these restrictions and obligations may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and prospects.
We are subject to a complex and extensive array of laws and regulations that are administered and enforced by many regulators, including the BMA, US state insurance regulators, US state securities administrators, US state banking authorities, the SEC, FINRA, the DOL, the IRS and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. See Item 1. Business–Regulation for a summary of certain of the laws and regulations applicable to our business. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us to administrative penalties imposed by a particular governmental or self-regulatory authority, unanticipated costs associated with remedying such failure or other claims, harm to our reputation, revocation of our certificate of incorporation or interruption of our operations, any of which could have a material and adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
In addition to these restrictions, guaranty associations may subject us to assessments that require us to pay funds, subject to certain limits, to cover contractual obligations under insurance policies issued by insurance companies which become impaired or insolvent. Although we have historically not paid material amounts in connection with these assessments, we cannot accurately predict the magnitude of such amounts in the future, or accurately predict which past or future insolvencies of competitors could lead to such assessments. Any such future assessments may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows and any reserves we have previously established for these potential assessments may not be adequate.
In addition to the foregoing risks, the financial services industry is the focus of increased regulatory scrutiny as various US state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations conduct inquiries and investigations into the products and practices of the companies within this industry. Governmental authorities and standard setters in the US and worldwide (including the IAIS) have become increasingly interested in potential risks posed by the insurance industry as a whole, and to commercial and financial activities and systems in general, as indicated by the development of the global insurance capital standard by the IAIS to be applicable to IAIGs, as well as the US NAIC’s adoption of the GCC and LST. The IID has adopted the GCC and LST amendments, which now are applicable to us. On February 6, 2024, the IID identified AGM as meeting the criteria as an IAIG and further identified AHL as the Head of the IAIG. As a result of these identifications, we expect AHL to be subject to the relevant capital standard that the US applies to IAIGs. At this time, we do not expect a significant impact on AHL’s capital position or capital structure; however, we cannot fully predict with certainty the impact (if any) on AHL’s capital position or capital structure and any other burdens being named an IAIG may impose on AHL or its insurance affiliates. See Item 1. Business–Regulation–Regulation of an Insurance Group for further discussion. While we cannot predict the exact nature, timing or scope of possible governmental initiatives, there may be increased regulatory intervention in the insurance and financial services industry in the future.
Our failure to obtain or maintain licenses and/or other regulatory approvals as required for the operations of our insurance subsidiaries may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and prospects.
Each regulator retains the authority to license insurers in its jurisdiction and an insurer generally may not operate in a jurisdiction in which it is not licensed. We have US domiciled insurance subsidiaries that collectively are currently licensed to do business in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. Our ability to retain these licenses depends on our and our subsidiaries’ ability to meet requirements established by the NAIC and adopted by each state, such as RBC standards and surplus requirements. Some of the factors influencing these requirements, particularly factors such as changes in equity market levels, the value of certain derivative instruments that do not receive hedge accounting, the value and credit ratings of certain fixed-income and equity securities in our investment portfolio, interest rate changes, changes to the applicable RBC formulas and the interpretation of the NAIC’s instructions with respect to RBC calculation methodologies, are out of our control.
In addition, licensing regulations differ as to products and jurisdictions and may be subject to interpretation as to whether certain licenses are required with respect to the manner in which we may sell or service some of our products in certain jurisdictions. The degree of complexity is heightened in the context of products that are issued through our institutional channel, including our pension group annuity products, where one product may cover risks in multiple jurisdictions.
If the factors discussed above adversely affect us or a state regulator interprets a licensing requirement differently than we do and we are unable to meet the requirements above, our subsidiaries could lose their licenses to do business in certain states; be subject to additional regulatory oversight; have their licenses suspended; be subject to rescission requests, fines, administrative penalties or payments to policyholders; or be subject to seizure of assets. A loss or suspension of any of our subsidiaries’ licenses or an inability of any of our insurance subsidiaries to be able to sell or service certain of our insurance products in one or more jurisdictions may negatively impact our reputation in the insurance market and result in our subsidiaries’ inability to write new business, distribute funds or pursue our investment/overall business strategy.
The licenses currently held by our insurance subsidiaries are limited in scope with respect to the products that may be sold within the respective jurisdictions. To the extent that our insurance subsidiaries seek to sell products for which we are not currently licensed, such subsidiaries would be required to become licensed in each of the respective jurisdictions in which such products are expected to be sold. There is no assurance that our insurance subsidiaries would be able to obtain the relevant licenses and the subsidiaries’ inability to do so may impair our competitive position and reduce our growth prospects, causing our financial position, results of operations and cash flows to fall below our current expectations.
Our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries, as Bermuda domiciled insurers, are also required to maintain licenses. Each of our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries is licensed as a reinsurer in Bermuda. Bermuda insurance statutes and regulations and policies of the BMA require that our Bermuda reinsurance subsidiaries, among other things, maintain a minimum level of capital and surplus; satisfy solvency standards; restrict dividends, distributions and reductions of capital; obtain prior approval or provide notification to the BMA, as the case may be, of ownership, transfer and disposition of stockholder controller shares; maintain a head office and have certain officers resident in Bermuda; appoint and maintain a principal representative in Bermuda; and provide for the performance of certain periodic examinations of itself and its financial condition. A failure to meet these conditions may result in the suspension or revocation of a Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary’s license to do business as a reinsurance company in Bermuda, which would mean that such Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary would not be able to enter into any new reinsurance contracts until the suspension ended or it became licensed in another jurisdiction. Any such suspension or revocation of a Bermuda reinsurance subsidiary’s license would negatively impact its and our reputation in the reinsurance marketplace and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
UK law imposes licensing and other regulatory requirements in respect of insurance and reinsurance business carried out in the UK. Certain of our subsidiaries are UK tax resident companies but do not have the UK regulatory licenses required to write or carry out insurance business in the UK. Accordingly, their business does not involve transactions with UK domiciled clients and we believe that their operations and governance arrangements are otherwise undertaken to comply with UK regulatory requirements. ALReI is a Bermuda domiciled and regulated reinsurance subsidiary that is not a UK tax resident and does not have the UK regulatory licenses required to write or carry out insurance business in the UK. ALReI assumed reinsurance business from a UK domiciled client in December 2019, and will continue to seek other such opportunities going forward, in accordance with and as permitted under UK law. We believe ALReI’s business, operations and governance arrangements are undertaken to comply with UK law. We will continue to monitor developments in UK regulation to seek to cause the UK tax resident companies and ALReI to comply with UK law and regulation at all times; however, there can be no assurance that the UK regulatory authorities will not interpret the application of the relevant rules in a manner that differs from our interpretation and challenge the existing or future arrangements. In 2024, AHL is no longer a UK tax resident company.
The process of obtaining licenses is time consuming and costly, and we may not be able to become licensed in jurisdictions other than those in which our subsidiaries are currently licensed and/or for products for which we are currently licensed. The modification of the conduct of our business resulting from our and our subsidiaries becoming licensed in certain jurisdictions or for certain products could significantly and negatively affect our business. In addition, our inability to comply with insurance statutes and regulations could materially and adversely affect our business by limiting our ability to conduct business as well as subjecting us to penalties and fines.
Changes in the laws and regulations governing the insurance industry or otherwise applicable to our business, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and prospects.
Certain of the laws and regulations to which we are subject are summarized in Item 1. Business–Regulation. Changes in the laws and regulations relevant to our business may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and prospects. Certain of the risks associated with changes in these laws and regulations are discussed in greater detail below.
The Dodd-Frank Act made sweeping changes to the regulation of financial services entities, products and markets. Historically, the federal government had not directly regulated the insurance business. However, the Dodd-Frank Act generally provides for enhanced federal supervision of financial institutions, including some insurance companies in defined circumstances, as well as financial activities that are deemed to represent a systemic risk to financial stability or the economy. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are or may become applicable or relevant to us, our competitors or those entities with which we do business, including, but not limited to: the establishment of a comprehensive federal regulatory regime with respect to derivatives – see Item 1, Business–Regulation–Regulation of OTC Derivatives for further information; the establishment of consolidated federal regulation and resolution authority over SIFIs and/or systemically important financial activities; the establishment of the Federal Insurance Office; changes to the regulation of broker-dealers and investment advisors; changes to the regulation of reinsurance; changes to regulations affecting the rights of stockholders; the imposition of additional regulation over credit rating agencies; and the imposition of concentration limits on financial institutions that restrict the amount of credit that may be extended to a single person or entity.
Legislative or regulatory requirements imposed by or promulgated in connection with the Dodd-Frank Act may impact us in many ways, including, but not limited to: placing us at a competitive disadvantage relative to our competition or other financial services entities; changing the competitive landscape of the financial services sector or the insurance industry; making it more expensive for us to conduct our business; requiring the reallocation of significant company resources to government affairs; increasing our legal and compliance related activities and the costs associated therewith as the Dodd-Frank Act may permit the preemption of certain state laws when inconsistent with international agreements, such as the EU Covered Agreement and the UK Covered Agreement; and otherwise having a material adverse effect on the overall business climate as well as our financial condition and results of operations.
Heightened standards of sales conduct as a result of the implementation of SAT, including state adoption of a revised SAT version that includes a best interest concept, or the adoption of other similar proposed rules or regulations could also increase the compliance and regulatory burdens on our representatives, and could lead to increased litigation and regulatory risks, changes to our business model, a decrease in the number of our securities-licensed representatives and a reduction in the products we offer to our clients, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In addition, we expect the worldwide demographic trend of population aging will cause policymakers to continue to focus on the framework of US and non-US retirement systems, which may drive additional changes regarding the manner in which individuals plan for and fund their retirement, the extent of government involvement in retirement savings and funding, the regulation of retirement products and services and the oversight of industry participants. Any incremental requirements, costs and risks imposed on us in connection with such current or future legislative or regulatory changes, may constrain our ability to market our products and services to potential customers, and could negatively impact our profitability and make it more difficult for us to pursue our growth strategy.
Although we are subject to regulation in each state in which we conduct business, in many instances the state insurance laws and regulations emanate from the NAIC. State insurance regulators and the NAIC regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Any proposed or future legislation or NAIC initiatives, if adopted, may be more restrictive on our ability to conduct business than current regulatory requirements or may result in higher costs or increased statutory capital and reserve requirements. Changes in these laws and regulations or interpretations thereof are often made for the benefit of the consumer and at the expense of the insurer and could have a material adverse effect on our domestic insurance subsidiaries’ businesses, financial condition and results of operations. We are also subject to the risk that compliance with any particular regulator’s interpretation of a legal or accounting issue may not result in compliance with another regulator’s interpretation of the same issue, particularly when compliance is judged in hindsight. There is an additional risk that any particular regulator’s interpretation of a legal or accounting issue may change over time to our detriment, or that changes to the overall legal or market environment, even absent any change of interpretation by a particular regulator, may cause us to change our views regarding the actions we need to take from a legal risk management perspective, which could necessitate changes to our practices that may, in some cases, limit our ability to grow and improve profitability.
Risks Relating to Taxation
The Redomicile may adversely affect the US federal income tax relating to the ownership of our shares by non-US holders.
We changed the domicile of AHL from Bermuda to the United States, causing AHL to become a US-domiciled corporation and a US taxpayer effective December 31, 2023. Following the Redomicile, dividend income with respect to our shares constitutes US-source income for U.S. federal income tax purposes that, in the case of non-US holders of our shares, generally is subject to a 30% withholding tax (or a lower treaty rate). Only certain of our shares provide for payments of additional amounts in the event such a withholding tax is imposed, and holders of such shares may be required to provide information or take other actions to claim such additional amounts. Investors should consult with their tax advisors about the U.S. federal income tax considerations applicable to their ownership of our shares.
Our structure involves complex provisions of tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. Our structure is also subject to ongoing future potential legislative, judicial or administrative change and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.
The tax treatment of our structure and transactions undertaken by us depends in some instances on determinations of fact and interpretations of complex provisions of US federal, state, local and non-US income tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. In addition, US federal, state, local and non-US income tax rules are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS, the US Department of the Treasury, and state, local and non-US legislative and regulatory bodies, which frequently results in revised interpretations of established concepts, statutory changes, revisions to regulations and other modifications and interpretations. It is possible that future legislation increases the US federal income tax rates applicable to corporations, limits further the deductibility of interest or effects other changes that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
On August 16, 2022, the US government enacted the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). The IRA contains a number of tax-related provisions, including a 15% minimum corporate income tax on certain large corporations as well as an excise tax on stock repurchases. The impact of the IRA on our financial condition will depend on the facts and circumstances of each year.
Non-US, state and local governments may enact legislation that could result in changes to non-US, state and local tax law and regulations, which may have a material impact on our financial position and results of operations. In particular, both the level and basis of taxation may change. We cannot predict whether any particular proposed legislation will be enacted or, if enacted, what the specific provisions or the effective date of any such legislation would be, or whether it would have any effect on us. As such, we cannot assure you that future legislative, administrative or judicial developments will not result in an increase in the amount of US or non-US tax payable by us, our subsidiaries or investors in our shares. If any such developments occur, our business, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected and such developments could have an adverse effect on your investment in our shares.
Our effective tax rate and tax liability is based on the application of current income tax laws, regulations and treaties. These laws, regulations and treaties are complex, and the manner in which they apply to us and our subsidiaries is sometimes open to interpretation. Significant management judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowance recorded against our net deferred tax assets. Although management believes its application of current laws, regulations and treaties to be correct and sustainable upon examination by the tax authorities, the tax authorities could challenge our interpretation resulting in additional tax liability or adjustment to our income tax provision that could increase our effective tax rate and/or have other unforeseen tax consequences.
In addition, we or certain of our subsidiaries are currently (or have been recently) under tax audit in various jurisdictions, and these jurisdictions or any others where we conduct business may assess additional tax against us. While we believe our tax positions, determinations, and calculations are reasonable, the final determination of tax upon resolution of any audits could be materially different from our historical tax provisions and accruals. Should additional material taxes be assessed as a result of an audit, assessment or litigation, there could be an adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows in the period or periods for which that determination is made.
The US Congress, the OECD and other government bodies and organizations in jurisdictions where we and our affiliates invest or conduct business have continued to recommend and implement changes related to the taxation of multinational companies. The OECD, which represents a coalition of member countries, has proposed and driven the implementation by its member countries of changes to numerous long-standing tax principles through its BEPS project, which is focused on a number of issues, including profit shifting among affiliated entities in different jurisdictions, interest deductibility and eligibility for the benefits of double tax treaties. Several of the BEPS measures, including measures covering treaty abuse, the deductibility of interest expense, local nexus requirements, transfer pricing and hybrid mismatch arrangements, are relevant to our group structure and the structure of some of our investments. OECD member countries have been moving forward on the BEPS agenda but, because timing of implementation and the specific measures adopted vary among participating member countries, significant uncertainty remains regarding the full impact of the BEPS project for our business. Uncertainty remains around (among other matters) access to tax treaties for some of our investments, which could create situations of double taxation and adversely impact our investment returns.
In July 2016, the EU adopted the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive 2016/1164 (commonly referred to as ATAD I), which directly implements some of the BEPS project actions points within EU law. EU Member States had until December 31, 2018 to transpose ATAD I into their domestic laws (except for the provisions on exit taxation, which had to be transposed by December 31, 2019). On May 29, 2017, the Council of the EU formally adopted the Council Directive amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries (commonly referred to as ATAD II). ATAD II came into force in Member States on January 1, 2020 (subject to relevant derogations).
In addition, the OECD is continuing to work on a two-pillar initiative, “BEPS 2.0,” which is aimed at (1) shifting taxing rights to the jurisdiction of the consumer (Pillar One) and (2) ensuring all companies pay a global minimum tax (Pillar Two). Pillar One will, broadly, re-allocate taxing rights over 25% of the residual profits of multinational enterprises (MNEs) with global turnover in excess of 20 billion euros (excluding extractives and regulated financial services) to the jurisdictions where the customers and users of those MNEs are located. Pillar Two will, broadly, consist of two interlocking domestic rules (together the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules (GloBE Rules)): (1) an Income Inclusion Rule (IIR), which imposes top-up tax on a parent entity in respect of the low-taxed income of a constituent entity; and (2) an Undertaxed Payment Rule (UTPR), which denies deductions or requires an equivalent adjustment to the extent the low-taxed income of a constituent entity is not subject to tax under an IIR. There will also be a treaty-based Subject To Tax Rule that allows source jurisdictions to impose limited source taxation on certain related party payments subject to tax below a minimum rate.
For countries other than the US, the OECD recommended model GloBE Rules for Pillar Two in late 2021. The OECD also released further guidance on the model GloBE Rules throughout 2022 and 2023. This includes the release in early February 2023 of technical guidance which
comments in particular on the interaction between the model GloBE Rules and current US tax law, and the release in July 2023 of further administrative guidance which contains details of how to calculate tax for the purposes of Pillar Two. Many aspects of Pillar Two have become effective as of January, 1, 2024, with other aspects expected to become effective in 2025.
Several aspects of the model GloBE Rules, including whether some or all of our business and the companies in which we invest may fall within the scope of the exclusions therefrom, currently remain unclear or uncertain notwithstanding existing commentary and guidance. The United Kingdom enacted legislation in July 2023 implementing the IIR via a “multinational top-up tax” (MTT) (alongside a UK domestic top-up tax) that will apply to multinational enterprises for accounting periods beginning on or after December 31, 2023. On November 29, 2023, a Finance Bill was introduced to U.K. Parliament which proposes certain amendments to the IRR which was previously enacted in the MTT legislation. These amendments include new provisions relating to the UK’s implementation of a UTPR rule for accounting periods beginning on or after December 31, 2024.
It is likely that other countries or jurisdictions will implement the recommended model GloBE Rules (including either or both of the IIR or UTPR) as drafted or in a modified form, although some countries may not introduce such changes. As noted below (See The recently enacted Bermuda corporate income tax, or other changes in Bermuda tax laws, may negatively affect our earnings and results from operations), Bermuda in particular has enacted the Bermuda CIT in response to the Pillar Two initiative. The implications of these rules for our business remain uncertain, both at a domestic level in Bermuda and in terms of how the Bermuda CIT (which does not come into full effect until January 1, 2025) might interact with the UK MTT and UTPR legislation or other Pillar Two implementing legislation in relevant jurisdictions.
The timing, scope and implementation of any of the potential Pillar Two provisions into the domestic law of relevant countries remains subject to significant uncertainty, and the content of existing and future OECD guidance (and its consistency with current international tax principles or with implementing legislation of relevant countries) also remains uncertain. Depending on how the model GloBE Rules are implemented or clarified by additional commentary or guidance in the future, they may result in material additional tax being payable by our business and the businesses of the companies in which we invest. The ultimate implementation of the BEPS project may also increase the complexity and the burden and costs of compliance and advice relating to our ability to efficiently fund, hold and realize investments, and could necessitate or increase the probability of some restructuring of our group or business operations. The implementation of the BEPS project may also lead to additional complexity in evaluating the tax implications of ongoing investments and restructuring transactions within our business.
Changes in non-US tax law could adversely affect our ability to raise funds from certain investors.
The OECD has developed the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) for exchange of information pursuant to which many countries have now signed multilateral agreements. Rules and regulations are currently and will continue to be introduced (particularly pursuant to the EU “Directive on Administrative Co-Operation”, or “DAC 6”, and the OECD’s model Mandatory Disclosure Rules) which require the reporting to tax authorities of information about certain types of arrangements, including arrangements which may circumvent the CRS. Compliance with CRS and other similar regimes could result in increased administrative and compliance costs and could subject our investment entities to increased non-US withholding taxes.
Certain of our non-US subsidiaries may be subject to US federal income taxation in an amount greater than expected.
Certain of our non-US subsidiaries are treated as foreign corporations under the Internal Revenue Code (such subsidiaries, the Non-US Subsidiaries). Each of the Non-US Subsidiaries currently intends to operate in a manner that will not cause it to be subject to US federal income taxation on a net basis in any material amount. However, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether a foreign corporation is engaged in a trade or business (or has a permanent establishment) in the US, as the law is unclear and the determination is highly factual and must be made annually, and therefore there can be no assurance that the IRS will not successfully contend that a Non-US Subsidiary that does not intend to be treated as engaged in a trade or business (or as having a permanent establishment) in the US does, in fact, so engage (or have such a permanent establishment). If any such Non-US Subsidiary is treated as engaged in a trade or business in the US (or as having a permanent establishment), it may incur greater tax costs than expected on any income not exempt from taxation under an applicable income tax treaty, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Certain of our subsidiaries treated as resident in the UK for UK tax purposes (UK Resident Companies) expect to qualify for the benefits of the income tax treaty between the US and the UK (UK Treaty) by reason of being subsidiaries of AGM or by reason of satisfying an ownership and base erosion test. Accordingly, our UK Resident Companies are expected to qualify for certain exemptions from, or reduced rates of, US federal taxes that are provided for by the UK Treaty. However, there can be no assurances that our UK Resident Companies will continue to qualify for treaty benefits or satisfy all of the requirements for the tax exemptions and reductions they intend to claim. If any of our UK Resident Companies fails to qualify for such benefits or satisfy such requirements, it may incur greater tax costs than expected, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
AHL may be subject to UK taxation by reason of its historic UK tax residency or as a result of ceasing to be a UK tax resident.
In 2024, AHL expects to no longer be a resident of the UK for tax purposes on the basis that it is not incorporated in the UK and its central management and control is no longer exercised from the UK. Further, it is expected that AHL will conduct its affairs in a manner that ensures that it is not regarded as carrying on a trade in the UK through a UK “permanent establishment” or “UK Representative.” Accordingly, AHL does not expect to be generally subject to UK tax on its worldwide profits.
While it is not anticipated that any adverse UK tax consequences should arise to AHL as a result of its historic UK tax residency, it is possible that HMRC may nonetheless seek to assert UK taxation with respect to AHL’s historic or future income or gains (including, without limitation, under a number of specific UK tax regimes, including the controlled foreign company regime, the hybrids and other mismatches regime, the diverted profits tax and the UK’s implementation of the OECD’s “Pillar Two” global minimum tax in the form of a multinational top-up tax). The UK tax regime also provides for certain forms of “exit taxation” to occur where a company ceases to be a UK tax resident (broadly, by deeming such companies (in certain circumstances) to have effected a deemed realization of their assets and liabilities at fair market value upon departure). We do not anticipate material adverse UK tax consequences for AHL arising as a result of the Redomicile or by reason of its historic UK tax residency, or as a result of ceasing to be a UK tax resident.
The Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) may significantly increase our tax liability.
The BEAT operates as a minimum tax and is generally calculated as a percentage (10% for taxable years before 2026 and 12.5% thereafter) of the “modified taxable income” of an “applicable taxpayer.” Modified taxable income is calculated by adding back to a taxpayer’s regular taxable income the amount of certain “base erosion tax benefits” with respect to certain payments made to foreign affiliates of the taxpayer, as well as the “base erosion percentage” of any net operating loss deductions. The BEAT applies for a taxable year only to the extent it exceeds a taxpayer’s regular corporate income tax liability for such year (determined without regard to certain tax credits).
Certain of our reinsurance agreements require our US subsidiaries (including any non-US subsidiaries that have elected to be subject to US federal income taxation) to pay or accrue substantial amounts to certain of our non-US reinsurance subsidiaries that would be characterized as “base erosion payments” with respect to which there are “base erosion tax benefits.” These and any other “base erosion payments” may cause us to be subject to the BEAT. In addition, tax authorities may disagree with our BEAT calculations, or the interpretations on which those calculations are based, and assess additional taxes, interest and penalties.
We will establish our tax provision in accordance with US GAAP. However, there can be no assurance that this provision will accurately reflect the amount of US federal income tax that we ultimately pay, as that amount could differ materially from the estimate. There may be material adverse consequences to our business if tax authorities successfully challenge our BEAT calculations, in light of the uncertainties described above.
Changes in US tax law might adversely affect demand for our products.
Many of the products that we sell and reinsure benefit from one or more forms of tax-favored status under current US federal and state income tax regimes. For example, we sell and reinsure annuity contracts that allow the policyholders to defer the recognition of taxable income earned within the contract. Future changes in US federal or state tax law could reduce or eliminate the attractiveness of such products, which could affect the sale of our products or increase the expected lapse rate with respect to products that have already been sold. Decreases in product sales or increases in lapse rates, in either case, brought about by changes in US tax law, may result in a decrease in net invested assets and therefore investment income and may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
There is US income tax risk associated with reinsurance between US insurance companies and their Bermuda affiliates.
If a reinsurance agreement is entered into among related parties, the IRS is permitted to reallocate or recharacterize income, deductions or certain other items, and to make any other adjustment, to reflect the proper amount, source or character of the taxable income of each of the parties. If the IRS were to successfully challenge our reinsurance arrangements, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.
The recently enacted Bermuda corporate income tax, or other changes in Bermuda tax laws, may negatively affect our earnings and results from operations.
On December 27, 2023, the Government of Bermuda enacted the Corporate Income Tax Act 2023 (Bermuda CIT). Commencing on January 1, 2025, the Bermuda CIT generally will impose a 15% corporate income tax on entities that are tax residents in Bermuda or have a Bermuda permanent establishment and are members of multi-national groups with consolidated revenues in excess of €750 million for at least two of the last four fiscal years. The Bermuda CIT also includes various transitional provisions and elections that may reduce the amount of tax imposed. We expect that our subsidiaries that are organized in Bermuda generally will be subject to tax under the Bermuda CIT. We are continuing to evaluate the impact of the Bermuda CIT on our operations, including the transitional provisions and elections that may be available to mitigate such impact. No assurances can be provided that the Bermuda CIT, or future amendments, regulations or other guidance in respect of the Bermuda CIT, will not negatively affect our earnings and results of operations.
The Bermuda Minister of Finance, under the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966 of Bermuda, as amended, has issued Tax Assurance Certificates to our Bermuda subsidiaries assuring such entities that if any legislation is enacted in Bermuda that would impose tax computed on profits or income, or computed on any capital asset, gain or appreciation, or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any such tax will not be applicable to such entities or any of their operations, shares, debentures or other obligations until March 31, 2035, except insofar as such tax applies to persons ordinarily resident in Bermuda or to any taxes payable in respect of real property owned or leased by such entities in Bermuda. Given the limited duration of the Bermuda Minister of Finance’s assurances, and that the Bermuda CIT described above was enacted notwithstanding such assurances, we cannot assure you that we will not be subject to any other Bermuda taxes before or after March 31, 2035.
Risks Relating to Investment in Our Securities
AHL is a holding company with limited operations of its own. As a consequence, AHL’s ability to pay dividends on its securities and to make timely payments on its debt obligations will depend on the ability of its subsidiaries to make distributions or other payments to it, which may be restricted by law.
AHL is a holding company with limited business operations of its own. AHL’s primary subsidiaries are insurance and reinsurance companies that own substantially all of our assets and conduct substantially all of our operations. Accordingly, AHL’s payment of dividends and ability to make timely payments on its debt obligations is dependent, to a significant extent, on the generation of cash flow by its subsidiaries and their ability to make such cash or other assets available to it, by dividend or otherwise. Dividends or distributions that may be paid by AHL’s insurance subsidiaries are limited or restricted by applicable insurance or other laws that are based in part on the prior year’s statutory income and surplus, or other sources. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Liquidity and Capital Resources–Holding Company Liquidity–Dividends from Subsidiaries.
AHL’s subsidiaries may not be able to, or may not be permitted to, make distributions to enable AHL to meet its obligations and pay dividends. These limitations on AHL’s subsidiaries’ abilities to pay dividends to AHL may negatively impact AHL’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. If AHL is not able to receive sufficient distributions from its subsidiaries, AHL may be required to raise funds through the incurrence of indebtedness, issuance of equity or sale of assets. AHL’s ability to access funds through such methods is subject to market conditions and there can be no assurance that AHL would be able to raise funds on favorable terms or at all.
Each subsidiary is a distinct legal entity and legal and contractual restrictions may also limit AHL’s ability to obtain cash from its subsidiaries. In addition to the specific restrictions described above, AHL’s subsidiaries, as members of its insurance holding company system, are subject to various statutory and regulatory restrictions on their ability to pay dividends to AHL, as further described in Item 1. Business–Regulation–Regulation of an Insurance Group–Insurance Holding Company Regulation.
Our certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for certain legal actions between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a judicial forum viewed by the stockholders as more favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, and the enforceability of the exclusive forum provision may be subject to uncertainty.
Article XIII of our certificate of incorporation provides that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for: (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our current or former directors, officers, other employees or stockholders to us or our stockholders; (c) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (DGCL), our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; or (d) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine, except for, as to each of (a) through (d) above, any claim as to which the Court of Chancery determines that there is an indispensable party not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery (and the indispensable party does not consent to the personal jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery within ten days following such determination), which is vested in the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or forum other than the Court of Chancery, or for which the Court of Chancery does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The exclusive forum provision also provides that it will not apply to claims arising under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or other federal securities laws for which there is exclusive federal or concurrent federal and state jurisdiction. Stockholders cannot waive, and will not be deemed to have waived under the exclusive forum provision, the Company’s compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although we believe this exclusive forum provision benefits us by providing increased consistency in the application of Delaware law in the types of lawsuits to which it applies, this exclusive forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, other employees or stockholders, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Further, in the event a court finds the exclusive forum provision contained in the Certificate of Incorporation to be unenforceable or inapplicable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, operating results and financial condition.
General Risk Factors
We may be the target or subject of, and may be required to defend against or respond to, litigation, regulatory investigations or enforcement actions.
We operate in an industry in which various practices are subject to potential litigation, including class actions, and regulatory scrutiny. We, like other financial services companies, are involved in litigation and arbitration in the ordinary course of business and may be the subject of regulatory proceedings (including investigations and enforcement actions). Plaintiffs may seek large or indeterminate amounts of damages in litigation and regulators may seek large fines in enforcement actions. Given the large or indeterminate amounts sometimes sought, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation and enforcement actions, it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of one or more matters could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings and Note 17 – Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements for certain matters to which we are a party. Even if we ultimately prevail in any litigation or receive positive results from investigations, we could incur material legal costs or our reputation could be materially adversely affected.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 1C. Cybersecurity
We have developed a comprehensive information security program that is designed to protect and preserve the confidentiality, integrity, and continued availability of all information that we own or possess. The program is a critical component of our overall IT Security, Risk, and Compliance Management Program, which is based, in part, on recognized frameworks established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the International Organization for Standardization and other applicable industry standards.
Key features of the program include:
•Implementation of a detailed cyber incident response plan that provides controls and procedures for identifying, assessing, containing, remediating, escalating, and reporting cyber incidents.
•Cross-functional approach to addressing cybersecurity risk, with engagement among internal working groups such as Risk, Information Technology, Operations, Procurement, Legal, Compliance, and Internal Audit functions.
•Information security policies and procedures that are reviewed at least annually and updated to reflect changes in law, technology, practice, and emerging threats.
•Cybersecurity awareness training for employees, upon hire and at least annually thereafter;
•Ongoing monitoring, and periodic assessment and testing, of our networks and systems for threats, vulnerabilities, and other cybersecurity risks, internal and external.
•Periodic tabletop exercises and response readiness assessments, with participation from senior executives, led by outside advisors who provide a third-party independent assessment of our technical program and internal response preparedness; results are provided to the audit committee.
•Development of risk mitigation strategies that may defray costs associated with an information security breach.
•Periodic cyber drills and disaster recovery tests which are designed to help ensure our business operations can continue in the event of a cybersecurity attack.
•Comprehensive internal risk assessment of critical third-party service providers, including of their cybersecurity posture prior to onboarding; contractual requirements for critical third-party service providers to adhere to our standards and incidents reporting; once engaged, critical third-party service providers are required to maintain a comprehensive cybersecurity plan in conformity with industry standards.
We engage industry specialists and other third parties in connection with such processes.
Our information security program is managed by our Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) with collaboration across lines of businesses and corporate functions. The CISO is a senior-level executive responsible for establishing and executing our information security strategy, including cybersecurity oversight. The CISO reports directly to our Chief Information Officer (CIO), who reports directly to our Chief Operating Officer (COO). The CIO and CISO are members of the management operational risk committee, which reports to the management risk committee. The COO is a member of the management risk committee, which reports to the board risk committee. See Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—Corporate Governance—Committees of the Board of Directors—Management Committees for additional information about the management operational risk committee, which is responsible for overseeing operational risk, including cybersecurity risk, and the management risk committee, which is responsible for overseeing overall corporate risk.
In addition, the CIO, CISO, General Counsel and certain other members of senior management meet periodically with the audit, risk, and legal and regulatory committees of the board of directors to review our information technology and cybersecurity risk profile and to discuss risk mitigation plans. While the board risk committee is ultimately responsible for overseeing the management of our information security program at the board level, the audit and legal and regulatory committees assist the risk committees in fulfilling its duties. Each of the board committees regularly briefs the full board of directors on matters reported to them. See Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—Corporate Governance—Risk Management Oversight for additional information regarding the role of our board of directors in risk management oversight, including its oversight of risks from cybersecurity threats. As of February 1, 2024, we have not identified any risks from cybersecurity threats, including as a result of any previous cybersecurity incidents, that have materially affected us, our business strategy, results of operation or financial condition. See Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business Operations—Interruption or other operational failures in telecommunications, information technology and other operational systems, including as a result of threat actors attacking those systems, or a failure to maintain the security, integrity, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data residing on those systems, including as a result of human
error, could have a material adverse effect on our business and Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Relationship with Apollo—Interruption or other operational failures in telecommunications, information technology and other operational systems at Apollo or a failure to maintain the security, integrity, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data residing on Apollo’s systems, including as a result of human error, could have a material adverse effect on our business for further discussion of the risks we face from cybersecurity threats.
The CIO is responsible for managing our information technology strategy. Our CIO has over 30 years of insurance and financial services operations and technology experience, including as chief information officer at large insurance companies; and received a Bachelor of Science in business management and a Master of Business Administration in management information systems.
The CISO is responsible for managing our information security program. Our CISO has over 20 years of information technology experience and over 15 years of information security experience; is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional, Certified Information Systems Auditor, Certified Information Systems Manager, and Check Point Certified Engineer; and holds a Bachelor of Arts in statistical science, a Bachelor of Science in computer science, and a Master of Business Administration in business.
Item 2. Properties
We own our corporate headquarters located at 7700 Mills Civic Pkwy, West Des Moines, Iowa. We lease our head office for Bermuda operations in Hamilton, Bermuda. We consider these facilities and other properties to be suitable and adequate for the management and operation of our business.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are subject to litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business, including litigation principally relating to our indexed annuity business. We cannot assure you that our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover all liabilities arising out of such claims. The outcomes of legal proceedings and claims brought against us are subject to significant uncertainty. There is significant judgment required in assessing both the probability of an adverse outcome and the determination as to whether an exposure can be reasonably estimated. In management’s opinion, the ultimate disposition of any current legal proceedings or claims brought against us will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Litigation is, however, inherently uncertain and an adverse outcome from such litigation could have a material effect on the operating results of a particular reporting period.
From time to time, in the ordinary course of business and like others in the insurance and financial services industries, we receive requests for information from government agencies in connection with such agencies’ regulatory or investigatory authority. Such requests can include financial or market conduct examinations, subpoenas or demand letters for documents to assist such agencies in audits or investigations. We and each of our US insurance subsidiaries review such requests and notices and take appropriate action. We have been subject to certain requests for information and investigations in the past and could be subject to them in the future.
Descriptions of certain legal proceedings affecting us, if any, are included in Note 17 – Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.