Toggle SGML Header (+)


Section 1: 10-K (10-K)

Document
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FORM 10-K
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OR
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
001-37963
 
 
 
(Commission file number)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATHENE HOLDING LTD.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bermuda
 
 
 
98-0630022
 
 
(State or other jurisdiction of
 
 
 
(I.R.S. Employer
 
 
incorporation or organization)
 
 
 
Identification Number)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
96 Pitts Bay Road
Pembroke, HM08, Bermuda
(441) 279-8400
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title of each class
 
 
 
Name of exchange on which registered
 
 
Class A Common Shares, par value $0.001
 
 
 
New York Stock Exchange
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No ¨
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part II of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ¨
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Large accelerated filer x
 
Accelerated filer ¨
 
 
Non-accelerated filer ¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 
Smaller reporting company ¨
 
 
 
 
 
 
Emerging growth company ¨
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As of June 30, 2017, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $5.7 billion. For purposes of this calculation, we define affiliates as directors, executive officers and shareholders possessing greater than 10% of our aggregate voting power. Class M common shares are excluded from this calculation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The number of shares of each class of our common stock outstanding is set forth in the table below, as of January 31, 2018:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Class A common shares
142,449,265

 
Class M-2 common shares
851,103

 
 
 
 
Class B common shares
47,421,940

 
Class M-3 common shares
1,088,000

 
 
 
 
Class M-1 common shares
3,388,890

 
Class M-4 common shares
4,701,866

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the 2018 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders to be filed by the registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the year ended December 31, 2017.



TABLE OF CONTENTS


PART I



PART II



PART III



PART IV






Table of Contents

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS

Unless otherwise indicated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the following terms have the meanings set forth below:

Entities
Term or Acronym
 
Definition
A-A Mortgage
 
A-A Mortgage Opportunities, LP
AAA
 
AP Alternative Assets, L.P.
AAA Investor
 
AAA Guarantor – Athene, L.P.
AADE
 
Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company
AAIA
 
Athene Annuity and Life Company
AAM
 
Athene Asset Management, L.P.
AAME
 
Apollo Asset Management Europe, LLP (together with certain of its affiliates)
ADKG
 
Athene Deutschland Holding GmbH & Co. KG
AGER
 
AGER Bermuda Holding Ltd., now known as Athora Holding Ltd.
AHL
 
Athene Holding Ltd.
ALIC
 
Athene Life Insurance Company
ALRe
 
Athene Life Re Ltd.
AmeriHome
 
AmeriHome Mortgage Company, LLC
Apollo
 
Apollo Global Management, LLC
Apollo Group
 
(1) Apollo, (2) the AAA Investor, (3) any investment fund or other collective investment vehicle whose general partner or managing member is owned, directly or indirectly, by Apollo or one or more of Apollo’s subsidiaries, (4) BRH Holdings GP, Ltd. and its shareholders and (5) any affiliate of any of the foregoing (except that AHL and its subsidiaries and employees of AHL, its subsidiaries or AAM are not members of the Apollo Group)
Athene USA
 
Athene USA Corporation
Athora
 
Athora Holding Ltd., formerly known as AGER Bermuda Holding Ltd.
CoInvest Other
 
AAA Investments (Other), L.P.
CoInvest VI
 
AAA Investments (Co-Invest VI), L.P.
CoInvest VII
 
AAA Investments (Co-Invest VII), L.P.
DLD
 
Delta Lloyd Deutschland AG, now known as Athene Deutschland GmbH
DOL
 
United States Department of Labor
German Group Companies
 
Athene Deutschland GmbH, Athene Deutschland Holding GmbH & Co. KG, Athene Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, Athene Lebensversicherung AG and Athene Pensionskasse AG
London Prime
 
London Prime Apartments Guernsey Holdings Limited
MidCap
 
MidCap FinCo Limited
NAIC
 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
NCL LLC
 
NCL Athene, LLC
NYSDFS
 
New York State Department of Financial Services
Sprint
 
Apollo Asia Sprint Co-Investment Fund, L.P.
Voya
 
Voya Financial, Inc.
VIAC
 
Voya Insurance and Annuity Company
Venerable
 
Venerable Holdings, Inc.


3

Table of Contents

Certain Terms & Acronyms
Term or Acronym
 
Definition
ABS
 
Asset-backed securities
ACL
 
Authorized control level RBC as defined by the model created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
ALM
 
Asset liability management
ALRe RBC
 
The risk-based capital ratio of ALRe, when applying the NAIC risk-based capital factors.
AUM
 
Assets under management
Alternative investments
 
Alternative investments, including investment funds, CLO equity positions and certain other debt instruments considered to be equity-like
Base of earnings
 
Earnings generated from our results of operations and the underlying profitability drivers of our business
BEAT
 
Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax
Bermuda capital
 
The capital of ALRe calculated under U.S. statutory accounting principles, including that for policyholder reserve liabilities which are subjected to U.S. cash flow testing requirements, but excluding certain items that do not exist under our applicable Bermuda requirements, such as interest maintenance reserves
Block reinsurance
 
A transaction in which the ceding company cedes all or a portion of a block of previously issued annuity contracts through a reinsurance agreement
BMA
 
Bermuda Monetary Authority
BSCR
 
Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement
CAL
 
Company action level RBC as defined by the model created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
Capital ratio
 
Ratios calculated (1) with respect to our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, by reference to RBC, (2) with respect to ALRe, by reference to BSCR, and (3) with respect to our German Group Companies, by reference to SCR
CLO
 
Collateralized loan obligation
CMBS
 
Commercial mortgage-backed securities
CML
 
Commercial mortgage loans
Cost of crediting
 
The interest credited to the policyholders on our fixed annuities, including, with respect to our fixed indexed annuities, option costs, presented on an annualized basis for interim periods
DAC
 
Deferred acquisition costs
Deferred annuities
 
Fixed indexed annuities, annual reset annuities and multi-year guaranteed annuities
DSI
 
Deferred sales inducement
Excess capital
 
Capital in excess of the level management believes is needed to support our current operating strategy
FIA
 
Fixed indexed annuity, which is an insurance contract that earns interest at a crediting rate based on a specified index on a tax-deferred basis
Fixed annuities
 
FIAs together with fixed rate annuities
Fixed rate annuity
 
An insurance contract that offers tax-deferred growth and the opportunity to produce a guaranteed stream of retirement income for the lifetime of its policyholder
Flow reinsurance
 
A transaction in which the ceding company cedes a portion of newly issued policies to the reinsurer
GAAP
 
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
GLWB
 
Guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit
GMDB
 
Guaranteed minimum death benefit
IMA
 
Investment management agreement
IMO
 
Independent marketing organization
Invested assets
 
The sum of (a) total investments on the consolidated balance sheet with AFS securities at amortized cost, excluding derivatives, (b) cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash, (c) investments in related parties, (d) accrued investment income, (e) consolidated variable interest entities’ assets, liabilities and noncontrolling interest and (f) policy loans ceded (which offset the direct policy loans in total investments). Invested assets includes investments supporting assumed funds withheld and modco agreements and excludes assets associated with funds withheld liabilities related to business exited through reinsurance agreements and derivative collateral (offsetting the related cash positions)
Investment margin
 
Investment margin applies to deferred annuities and is the excess of our net investment earned rate over the cost of crediting to our policyholders, presented on an annualized basis for interim periods
Liability outflows
 
The aggregate of withdrawals on our deferred annuities, maturities of our funding agreements, payments on payout annuities, and pension risk benefit payments

4

Table of Contents

Term or Acronym
 
Definition
LIMRA
 
Life Insurance and Market Research Association
MCR
 
Minimum capital requirements
MMS
 
Minimum margin of solvency
Modco
 
Modified coinsurance
MVA
 
Market value adjustment
MYGA
 
Multi-year guaranteed annuity
Net investment earned rate
 
Income from our invested assets divided by the average invested assets for the relevant period, presented on an annualized basis for interim periods
Other liability costs
 
Other liability costs include DAC, DSI and VOBA amortization and change in GLWB and GMDB reserves for all products, the cost of liabilities on products other than deferred annuities including offsets for premiums, product charges and other revenues
OTTI
 
Other-than-temporary impairment
Overall tax rate
 
Tax rate including corporate income taxes, the BEAT and excise taxes
Payout annuities
 
Annuities with a current cash payment component, which consist primarily of SPIAs, supplemental contracts and structured settlements
Policy loan
 
A loan to a policyholder under the terms of, and which is secured by, a policyholder’s policy
PRT
 
Pension risk transfer
RBC
 
Risk-based capital
Reserve liabilities
 
The sum of (a) interest sensitive contract liabilities, (b) future policy benefits, (c) dividends payable to policyholders, and (d) other policy claims and benefits, offset by reinsurance recoverable, excluding policy loans ceded. Reserve liabilities also includes the reserves related to assumed modco agreements in order to appropriately match the costs incurred in the consolidated statements of income with the liabilities. Reserve liabilities is net of the ceded liabilities to third-party reinsurers as the costs of the 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
Rider reserves
 
Guaranteed living withdrawal benefits and guaranteed minimum death benefits reserves
RMBS
 
Residential mortgage-backed securities
RML
 
Residential mortgage loan
Sales
 
All money paid into an individual annuity, including money paid into new contracts with initial purchase occurring in the specified period and existing contracts with initial purchase occurring prior to the specified period (excluding internal transfers)
SPIA
 
Single premium immediate annuity
Surplus assets
 
Assets in excess of policyholder obligations, determined in accordance with the applicable domiciliary jurisdiction’s statutory accounting principles
TAC
 
Total adjusted capital as defined by the model created by the NAIC
U.S. RBC Ratio
 
The CAL RBC ratio for AADE, our parent U.S. insurance company
VIE
 
Variable interest entity
VOBA
 
Value of business acquired



5

Table of Contents

As used in this Form 10-K, unless the context otherwise indicates, any reference to “Athene,” “our Company,” “the Company,” “us,” “we” and “our” refer to Athene Holding Ltd. together with its consolidated subsidiaries and any reference to “AHL” refers to Athene Holding Ltd. only.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (report), other than purely historical information, including estimates, projections, statements relating to our business plans, objectives and expected operating results and the assumptions upon which those statements are based, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act).

You can identify forward-looking statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. These statements may include words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “plan,” “intend,” “seek,” “assume,” “believe,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “likely” and other words and terms of similar meaning, including the negative of these or similar words and terms, in connection with any discussion of the timing or nature of future operating or financial performance or other events. However, not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places throughout and give our current expectations and projections relating to our financial condition, results of operations, plans, strategies, objectives, future performance, business and other matters.

We caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and that our actual consolidated results of operations, financial condition and liquidity may differ materially from those made in or suggested by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. There can be no assurance that actual developments will be those anticipated by us. In addition, even if our consolidated results of operations, financial condition and liquidity are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this report, those results or developments may not be indicative of results or developments in subsequent periods. A number of important factors could cause actual results or conditions to differ materially from those contained or implied by the forward-looking statements, including the risks discussed in Item 1A. Risk Factors. Factors that could cause actual results or conditions to differ from those reflected in the forward-looking statements contained in this report include:

the accuracy of management’s assumptions and estimates;
variability in the amount of statutory capital that our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries have or are required to hold;
interest rate fluctuations;
our potential need for additional capital in the future and the potential unavailability of such capital to us on favorable terms or at all;
changes in relationships with important parties in our product distribution network;
the activities of our competitors and our ability to grow our retail business in a highly competitive environment;
the impact of general economic conditions on our ability to sell our products and the fair value of our investments;
our ability to successfully acquire new companies or businesses and/or integrate such acquisitions into our existing framework;
downgrades, potential downgrades or other negative actions by rating agencies;
our dependence on key executives and inability to attract qualified personnel, or the potential loss of Bermudian personnel as a result of Bermuda employment restrictions;
market and credit risks that could diminish the value of our investments;
foreign currency fluctuations;
the impact of changes to the creditworthiness of our reinsurance and derivative counterparties;
changes in consumer perception regarding the desirability of annuities as retirement savings products;
potential litigation (including class action litigation), enforcement investigations or regulatory scrutiny against us and our subsidiaries, which we may be required to defend against or respond to;
the impact of new accounting rules or changes to existing accounting rules on our business;
interruption or other operational failures in telecommunication and information technology and other operating systems, as well as our ability to maintain the security of those systems;
the termination by Athene Asset Management, L.P. (AAM) of its investment management agreements with us and limitations on our ability to terminate such arrangements;
AAM’s dependence on key executives and inability to attract qualified personnel;
increased regulation or scrutiny of alternative investment advisers and certain trading methods;
potential changes to regulations affecting, among other things, transactions with our affiliates, the ability of our subsidiaries to make dividend payments or distributions to us, acquisitions by or of us, minimum capitalization and statutory reserve requirements for insurance companies and fiduciary obligations on parties who distribute our products;
suspension or revocation of our subsidiaries’ insurance and reinsurance licenses;
increases in our tax liability resulting from the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) or unnecessary, ineffective or counterproductive efforts undertaken to mitigate the cost of the BEAT;
improper interpretation or application of Public Law no. 115-97, the Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018 (Tax Act) or subsequent changes to, clarifications of or guidance under the Tax Act that is counter to our interpretation and has retroactive effect;
Athene Holding Ltd. (AHL) or Athene Life Re Ltd. (ALRe) becoming subject to U.S. federal income taxation;
adverse changes in U.S. tax law;
our being subject to U.S. withholding tax under Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act;

6

Table of Contents

our potential inability to pay dividends or distributions; and
other risks and factors listed under Item 1A. Risk Factors.

We caution you that the important factors referenced above may not be exhaustive. In addition, we cannot assure you that we will realize the results or developments we expect or anticipate or, even if substantially realized, that they will result in the consequences or affect us or our operations in the way we expect or anticipate. In light of these risks, you should not place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements contained in this report. The forward-looking statements included in this report are made only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligation, except as may be required by law, to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Comparisons of results for current and any prior periods are not intended to express any future trends, or indications of future performance, unless expressed as such, and should only be viewed as historical data.



7

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Index to Business


8

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Overview

We are a leading retirement services company that issues, reinsures and acquires retirement savings products designed for the increasing number of individuals and institutions seeking to fund retirement needs. We generate attractive financial results for our policyholders and shareholders by combining our two core competencies of (1) sourcing long-term, generally illiquid liabilities and (2) investing in a high quality investment portfolio, which takes advantage of the illiquid nature of our liabilities. Our steady and significant base of earnings generates capital that we opportunistically invest across our business to source attractively-priced liabilities and capitalize on opportunities. Our differentiated investment strategy benefits from our strategic relationship with Apollo Global Management, LLC (Apollo) and its indirect subsidiary, AAM. AAM provides a full suite of services for our investment portfolio, including direct investment management, asset allocation, mergers and acquisition asset diligence and certain operational support services, including investment compliance, tax, legal and risk management support. Our relationship with Apollo and AAM also 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. We are based in Bermuda with our United States (U.S.) subsidiaries’ headquarters located in Iowa.

We began operating in 2009 when the burdens of the financial crisis and resulting capital demands caused many companies to exit the retirement market, creating the need for a well-capitalized company with an experienced management team to fill the void. Taking advantage of this market dislocation, we have been able to acquire substantial blocks of long-duration liabilities and reinvest the related investments to produce profitable returns.

We operate our core business strategies out of one reportable segment, Retirement Services. In addition to Retirement Services, we report certain other operations in Corporate and Other. Retirement Services is comprised of our U.S. and Bermuda operations, which issue and reinsure retirement savings products and institutional products. Retirement Services has retail operations, which provide annuity retirement solutions to our policyholders. Retirement Services also has reinsurance operations, which reinsure multi-year guaranteed annuities (MYGA), fixed indexed annuities (FIA), traditional one year guarantee fixed deferred annuities, immediate annuities and institutional products from our reinsurance partners. In addition, our funding agreement activities and our pension risk transfer (PRT) operations are included in our Retirement Services segment. Corporate and Other includes certain other operations related to our corporate activities, including corporate allocated expenses, merger and acquisition costs, debt costs, certain integration and restructuring costs, certain stock-based compensation and intersegment eliminations. Prior to the deconsolidation of AGER Bermuda Holding Ltd. (AGER) as discussed in greater detail below under –Products–German Products, Corporate and Other included our German operations, which were primarily comprised of participating long-duration savings products. In Corporate and Other we also hold strategic capital in excess of the level of capital we hold in Retirement Services to support our operating strategy. See Note 19 – Segment Information to the consolidated financial statements for additional discussion regarding our segments and related financial information.

We believe we hold a sufficient amount of capital in our Retirement Services segment to support our core operating strategies. This level of capital may fluctuate depending on the mix of both our assets and our liabilities, and reflects the level of capital needed to support or improve our current ratings as well as our risk appetite based on our internal risk models. The level of capital we currently allocate to our Corporate non-reportable segment is our U.S. subsidiaries’ statutory capital in excess of a risk-based capital (RBC) ratio of 400%, as well as the Bermuda capital for ALRe in excess of 400% RBC, when applying National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) RBC factors (ALRe RBC). See –Regulation–United States–Tax Reform for discussion regarding the impact of tax reform on our allocation of capital. We view this excess as strategic capital, which we expect to deploy for additional organic and inorganic growth opportunities. For example, in December 2017, we entered into a transaction with Voya Financial, Inc. (Voya), pursuant to which we agreed to reinsure approximately $19 billion of fixed annuities. That transaction, which is expected to close in the second or third quarter of 2018, subject to regulatory approval and customary closing conditions, is expected to result in the deployment of approximately $1 billion of excess capital. In January 2018, we issued $1 billion in aggregate principal amount of our 4.125% Senior Notes due 2028 for general corporate purposes, including to replenish our excess capital in a low interest rate environment. We expect to deploy our excess capital in connection with future growth opportunities and further expect our excess capital position to contribute to ratings improvements over time. We manage our capital to levels which we believe would remain consistent with our current ratings in a recessionary environment.

We have developed organic and inorganic channels to address the retirement services market and grow our assets and liabilities. By focusing on the retirement services market, we believe that we will benefit from several demographic and economic trends, including the increasing number of retirees in the U.S., the lack of tax advantaged alternatives for people trying to save for retirement and expectations of a rising interest rate environment. To date, most of our products sold and acquired have been fixed annuities, which offer people saving for retirement a product that is tax advantaged, has a minimum guaranteed rate of return or minimum cash value and provides protection against investment loss. Our policies often include surrender charges (86% of our deferred annuity products, as of December 31, 2017) or market value adjustments (MVA) (72% of our deferred annuity products, as of December 31, 2017), both of which may increase persistency and protect our ability to meet our obligations to policyholders.


9

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Within our organic channels, we have focused on developing a diverse suite of products that allow us to meet our risk and return profiles, even in today’s low rate environment. Our organic channels currently include: (1) retail, from which we provide retirement solutions to our policyholders primarily through approximately 65 independent marketing organizations (IMOs); (2) flow reinsurance, which provides a diversified channel for us to source long-term liabilities with attractive crediting rates; and (3) institutional, which includes funding agreements and PRT transactions. Our inorganic channel, acquisitions and block reinsurance, contributed significantly to our growth. We believe our internal transaction team, with support from Apollo, has an industry-leading ability to source, underwrite and expeditiously close transactions, which makes us a competitive counterparty for acquisition or block reinsurance transactions. We are highly selective in the transactions we pursue, ultimately closing only those that are well aligned with our core competencies and pricing discipline.

We intend to maintain a presence within each of our distribution channels. However, we do not have any market share targets across our organization, which we believe provides us flexibility to respond to changing market conditions in one or more channels and to opportunistically grow liabilities that generate our desired levels of profitability. In a rising interest rate environment, we believe we will be able to profitably increase the volumes generated through our organic channels, while we believe that more challenging market environments give rise to increased growth through our inorganic channel.

Through our efficient corporate structure and operations, we believe we have built a cost-effective platform to support our growth opportunities. We believe our fixed operating cost structure supports our ability to maintain an attractive financial profile across market environments. Additionally, we believe we have designed our platform to be highly scalable and support growth without significant incremental investment in infrastructure, which allows us to scale our business production up or down because of our cost-effective platform. As a result, we believe we will be able to convert a significant portion of our new business spread into adjusted operating income.

Relationship with Apollo

We have a strategic relationship with Apollo which allows us to leverage the scale of its asset management platform. Apollo’s indirect subsidiary, AAM, serves as our investment manager. In addition to co-founding the Company, Apollo assists us in identifying and capitalizing on acquisition opportunities that have been critical to our ability to significantly grow our business. The Apollo Group consists of (1) Apollo,
(2) AAA Guarantor Athene, L.P. (AAA Investor), (3) any investment fund or other collective investment vehicle whose general partner or managing member is owned, directly or indirectly, by Apollo or one or more of Apollo’s subsidiaries, (4) BRH Holdings GP, Ltd. and its shareholders and (5) any affiliate of any of the foregoing (except that AHL and its subsidiaries and employees of AHL, its subsidiaries or AAM are not members of the Apollo Group). Members of the Apollo Group are significant owners of our common shares and Apollo employees serve on our board of directors. We expect our strategic relationship with Apollo to continue for the foreseeable future. See Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

The Apollo Group controls and is expected to continue to control 45% of the total voting power of AHL and five of our twelve directors are employees of or consultants to Apollo, including our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer who is a dual employee of both AHL and AAM. Further, our bye-laws generally limit the voting power of our Class A common shares (and certain other of our voting securities) such that no person owns (or is treated as owning) more than 9.9% of the total voting power of our common shares (with certain exceptions). See Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Investment in Our Class A Common Shares–The interest of the Apollo Group, which controls and is expected to continue to control 45% of the total voting power of AHL and holds a number of the seats on our board of directors, may conflict with those of other shareholders and could make it more difficult for you and other shareholders to influence significant corporate decisions.



10

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Growth Strategy
The key components of our 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. We believe we have the right people, infrastructure and scale to position us for continued growth. We aim to grow our retail channel in the U.S. by deepening our relationships with our approximately 65 IMOs and more than 34,000 independent agents. Our strong financial position and capital efficient products allow us to be a dependable partner with IMOs and consistently write new business. We work with our IMOs to develop customized, and at times exclusive, products that help drive sales.

We expect our retail channel to continue to benefit from our improving credit profile and our product design capabilities, which allow us to provide a competitive suite of products. We believe this should support growth in sales at our desired cost of crediting through increased volumes via current IMOs and access to new distribution channels, including small to mid-sized banks and regional broker-dealers. We are implementing the necessary technology platform, hiring and training a specialized sales force, and have created products to capture new potential distribution opportunities.

Within our flow reinsurance channel, we target reinsurance business consistent with our preferred liability characteristics, and as such, flow reinsurance provides another opportunistic channel for us to source long-term liabilities with attractive crediting rates. We expect our improving credit profile and growing reputation as a reliable reinsurance counterparty will enable us to attract additional flow reinsurance partners.

We expect to grow our institutional channel by continuing to engage in opportunistic issuances of funding agreements and pursuing additional PRT transactions. We continue to enhance our capabilities in the PRT channel and view this channel, and the funding agreement channel, as sources of future growth. See –Distribution Channels–Institutional–Pension Risk Transfer for further discussion regarding PRT transactions.

Pursue Attractive Inorganic Growth Opportunities. We plan to continue leveraging our expertise in sourcing and evaluating inorganic transactions to grow our business profitably. From our founding through December 31, 2017, we have grown to total assets of $99.7 billion, primarily through acquisitions and block reinsurance transactions. 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 acquirers and block reinsurance counterparties. Furthermore, our business has 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 transact in the acquisitions and block reinsurance markets.
    
For example, in December 2017 a consortium of investors, led by affiliates of Apollo, and certain other investors, agreed to purchase Voya Insurance and Annuity Company (VIAC), including its closed block variable annuity segment, and create a newly formed standalone entity, Venerable Holdings, Inc. (Venerable), that will be the holding company of VIAC. We committed to make a $75 million minority equity investment in VA Capital Company LLC, the holding company of Venerable, and provide financing to Venerable of $150 million, in each case, subject to certain closing adjustments. In connection with these transactions, we agreed to reinsure approximately $19 billion of fixed annuities. These transactions are expected to close in the second or third quarter of 2018 and are subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions.

In furtherance of our strategy of growth through acquisitions and block reinsurance transactions, we routinely review and conduct investigations of potential acquisitions of business or reinsurance of blocks of business, some of which may be material. When we believe a favorable opportunity exists, we seek to enter into discussions with target companies or sellers regarding the possibility of such acquisitions or reinsurance relationships. At any given time, we may be in discussions with one or more counterparties. There can be no assurance that any such negotiations will lead to definitive agreements, or if such agreements are reached, that any transactions would be consummated.

Expand Our Product Offering. Our efforts to date have focused on developing and sourcing retirement savings products and we are continuing such efforts by expanding our retail product offerings. In April 2016, we launched our largest new retail product initiative where we: (1) enhanced our most popular accumulation product, Performance Elite, with two new indices, (2) announced a new MYGA product designed for the bank and broker-dealer channel and (3) introduced an income-focused product, Ascent Pro. With the introduction of our new MYGA product and Ascent Pro, our retail channel is now competing in a much broader segment of the overall retirement market. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2017, new MYGA sales in the IMO and financial institution channels were $486 million and Ascent Pro sales were $1.2 billion.


11

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Leverage Our Unique Relationship with Apollo and AAM. We intend to continue leveraging our unique relationship with Apollo and AAM 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. For instance, through our relationship with Apollo and AAM, we have indirectly invested in companies including MidCap FinCo Limited (MidCap) and AmeriHome Mortgage Company, LLC (AmeriHome). See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Consolidated Investment Portfolio–Alternative Investments for further discussion of MidCap and AmeriHome.

Our relationship with Apollo also allows us to offer creative solutions to insurance companies seeking to restructure their businesses and may enable us source additional volumes of attractively-priced liabilities. For example, the transactions involving Voya described above are expected to provide Voya with a comprehensive solution to its variable annuity exposure, while providing us with a substantial block of fixed annuities, which are well aligned with our core business, without requiring that we acquire Voya’s variable annuity business.

Allocate Assets during Market Dislocations. As we have done successfully in the past, we plan to fully 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 emerging 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 through managing the duration of the liabilities we source with the assets we acquire, and 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 AAM’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.


Products

We principally offer two product lines: annuities and funding agreements. Our primary product line is annuities and includes fixed, payout and PRT annuities. We also offer funding agreements, including those issued to institutional investors and those issued to a special-purpose unaffiliated trust in connection with our funding agreement backed notes (FABN) program.

The following summarizes our total premiums and deposits, comprised of all products deposits, which generally are not included in revenues on the consolidated statements of income, and premiums collected. Premiums and deposits by product, including those assumed through reinsurance and net of those ceded through reinsurance, are as follows:
 
Years ended December 31,
(In millions)
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Annuities
 
 
 
 
 
Fixed indexed annuities
$
5,480

 
$
5,322

 
$
2,808

Fixed rate annuities
873

 
3,565

 
883

Payout annuities
129

 
128

 
219

Pension risk transfer annuities
2,188

 

 

Total annuities products
8,670

 
9,015

 
3,910

Funding agreements
3,054

 

 
250

Life and other (excluding German products)
84

 
31

 
72

German products
203

 
212

 
81

Total premiums and deposits, net of ceded
$
12,011

 
$
9,258

 
$
4,313


Reserve liabilities represents our policyholder liability obligations, including liabilities assumed through reinsurance and net of liabilities ceded through reinsurance, and therefore does not correspond to interest sensitive contract liabilities, future policy benefits, dividends payable to policyholders and other policy claims and benefits as disclosed on our consolidated balance sheets. Reserve liabilities includes the reserves related to assumed modified coinsurance (modco) and funds withheld agreements to appropriately match the costs incurred in the consolidated statements of income with the liabilities. Reserve liabilities is net of the ceded liabilities to third-party reinsurers as the costs of the 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 business following acquisitions.


12

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

The following summarizes our reserve liabilities by product:
 
December 31,
(In millions, except percentages)
2017
 
2016
Annuities
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fixed indexed annuities
$
48,431

 
59.7
 %
 
$
43,527

 
61.3
 %
Fixed rate annuities
13,412

 
16.5
 %
 
13,490

 
19.0
 %
Payout annuities
5,216

 
6.4
 %
 
5,443

 
7.6
 %
Pension risk transfer annuities
2,252

 
2.8
 %
 

 
 %
Total annuities products
69,311

 
85.4
 %
 
62,460

 
87.9
 %
Funding agreements
3,786

 
4.7
 %
 
1,109

 
1.6
 %
Life and other (excluding German products)
2,281

 
2.7
 %
 
2,176

 
3.1
 %
German products
5,979

 
7.4
 %
 
5,381

 
7.6
 %
Intersegment eliminations
(174
)
 
(0.2
)%
 
(152
)
 
(0.2
)%
Total reserve liabilities
$
81,183

 
100.0
 %
 
$
70,974

 
100.0
 %

Annuities

We offer deferred and immediate annuities, which are focused on meeting the needs and objectives of people preparing for, approaching or living in retirement. The combination of financial strength, innovative product design and an effective sales strategy enables us to compete successfully in the market and meet the evolving needs of the rapidly growing population of retirees.

Fixed Indexed Annuities

The majority of our reserve liabilities are FIAs. An FIA is a type of insurance contract in which the policyholder makes one or more premium deposits which earn interest at a crediting rate based on a specified market index on a tax deferred basis and is entitled to receive periodic or lump sum payments a specified number of years after the contract is issued. FIAs allow policyholders the possibility of earning such interest without 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. Our FIAs include a provision for a minimum guaranteed surrender value calculated in accordance with applicable law, as well as death benefits as required by non-forfeiture regulations. 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.

The value to the policyholder of an FIA contract is equal to the sum of premiums paid, premium bonuses, if any, and index credits based on the change in the relevant market index, subject to a cap (a maximum rate that may be credited), spread (a credited rate determined by deducting a specific rate from the index return) and/or a participation rate (a credited rate equal to a percentage of the index return), less any fees for riders. Caps on our FIA products generally range from 2% to 5% when measured annually and 0.5% to 2.0% when measured monthly. Participation rates generally range from 25% to 150% of the performance of the applicable market index. Caps, spreads and participation rates can typically be reset no more frequently than annually, and in some instances no more frequently than every two to four years, at the relevant U.S. insurance subsidiary’s discretion, subject to stated policy minimums. Certain riders provide a variety of benefits, such as lifetime income or additional liquidity, for a set charge. As this charge is fixed, the policyholder may lose principal if the index credits received do not exceed the amount of such charge.

We generate income on FIA products by earning an investment margin, which is based on the difference between income earned on the investments supporting the liabilities and the interest credited to customers, and by charging fees for riders. For the year ended December 31, 2017, retail sales of FIA products were $4.9 billion and flow reinsurance of FIA products was $514 million. According to sales information from participating members of LIMRA, for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 (the most recent period that data is currently available), we were the 2nd largest FIA provider in the U.S. based on retail FIA sales. For the year ended December 31, 2016, retail sales of FIA products were $4.5 billion and flow reinsurance of FIA products was $686 million. According to sales information from participating members of LIMRA, for the year ended December 31, 2016, we were the 3rd largest FIA provider in the U.S. based on retail FIA sales and we were the 3rd largest FIA provider based on fixed indexed deferred annuity assets (exclusive of reinsurance).


13

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Fixed Rate Annuities

Fixed rate annuities include annual reset annuities and MYGAs. Unlike FIAs, fixed rate annuities earn interest at a set rate (or declared crediting rate), rather than a rate that may vary based on an index. Fixed rate annual reset annuities have a crediting rate that is guaranteed for one year. After such period, we have the ability to change the crediting rate at our discretion 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. On April 11, 2016, we introduced our first MYGA product designed for the financial institutions channel. For the year ended December 31, 2017, we had retail sales of $6 million of annual reset annuities and $487 million of MYGAs, as well as flow reinsurance of $361 million of MYGAs. For the year ended December 31, 2016, we had retail sales of $6 million of annual reset annuities and $772 million of MYGAs, as well as flow reinsurance of $2.8 billion of MYGAs. As of December 31, 2017, crediting rates on outstanding annual reset annuities ranged from 1% to 6% and crediting rates on outstanding MYGAs ranged from 1% to 6%. As of December 31, 2017, 58% of our fixed rate annuities were set at the guaranteed minimum crediting rate.

Income Riders to Fixed Annuity Products

We broadly characterize the income riders on our deferred annuities as either guaranteed or participating. Guaranteed income riders provide policyholders with a guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB), the amount of which is determined based upon the age of the policyholder when the policy is purchased and when the lifetime income is elected. Riders providing GLWB features permit policyholders to elect to receive guaranteed payments for life from their contract without having to annuitize their policies, which provides policyholders with greater flexibility in the future. Participating income riders tend to have lower levels of guaranteed income 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. LIMRA estimates that 59% of FIA premium for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 (the most recent period that specific market share data is currently available) included an income rider. Much of our in-force block of deferred annuities contains policies with income riders, which were sourced through retail and reinsurance operations as well as acquisitions, such as the substantial block of these policies acquired with Aviva USA Corporation (Aviva USA). Many of our in-force deferred annuities contain policies that provide GLWB. Of the deferred annuities issued through our retail channel or reinsured through our flow reinsurance channel, for the year ended December 31, 2017, 15% contained participating income riders and 18% 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 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. For the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, withdrawals on our deferred annuities were $4.5 billion, 4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, respectively. The surrender charge of most of our products is typically between 8% and 15% of the contract value at contract inception and generally decreases by approximately one percentage point per year during the surrender charge period. The surrender charge period of our most popular products ranges from 3 to 15 years. The average surrender charge (excluding the impact of MVAs) is 7.3% for our deferred annuities as of December 31, 2017.

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 his or her lifetime or over a fixed number of years, depending upon the terms of the contract. Some contracts permit annuitization prior to maturity. In addition to the foregoing rights, a policyholder may also elect to purchase a guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit rider which provides the policyholder with a guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit for the life of the contract.

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.

Pension Risk Transfer Annuities

PRT transactions usually involve a single premium group annuity contract issued for discharging certain pension plan liabilities. Our PRT annuities are nonparticipating contracts. The assets supporting the guaranteed benefits for each contract may be held in a separate account. The group annuity benefits may be purchased for current, retired and/or terminated employees covered under terminating or ongoing pension plans. Both immediate and deferred annuities may be purchased by a single premium at issue. There are generally no cash surrender rights, with some exceptions, including certain contracts that include liabilities for cash balance pension plans or lump sums.


14

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Funding Agreements

We focus on opportunistically issuing funding agreements at attractive risk-adjusted funding costs to institutional investors. 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 London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), the federal funds rate or other major index. See Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Our Business–Uncertainty relating to the LIBOR calculation process and potential phasing out of LIBOR after 2021 may adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and may further affect our ability to issue funding agreements bearing a floating rate of interest.

Life and Other (Excluding German Products)

Life and other products include other retail products, including run-off or ceded business, statutory closed blocks and ceded life insurance.

German Products

Prior to the deconsolidation of AGER discussed below, German products included the annuity, life insurance and unit-linked products managed by the Athene Deutschland GmbH, Athene Deutschland Holding GmbH & Co. KG (ADKG), Athene Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, Athene Lebensversicherung AG (ALV) and Athene Pensionskasse AG (APK) (collectively, German Group Companies). The primary German product type was endowment policies, which were traditional German life insurance policies that included legally guaranteed interest, the right of policyholders to participate in certain portions of ALV’s results and a death benefit.

AGER Deconsolidation

We previously determined that in order to fully capitalize on the opportunity presented by the European market, we would need to commit capital at a level in excess of our targeted investment size, which created the need for third party capital to support growth. We, together with Apollo, undertook a process whereby AGER sought to raise capital as part of a private offering of its equity securities in order to pursue expansion opportunities in Europe. In April 2017, in connection with that private offering, AGER entered into subscription agreements with us, certain affiliates of Apollo and a number of other third-party investors pursuant to which AGER secured commitments from such parties to purchase new common shares in AGER (AGER Offering), subject to required regulatory approval and certain other customary closing conditions.

In November 2017, the AGER board of directors approved resolutions authorizing the closing of the AGER Offering (Closing) to occur on January 1, 2018 and approving a capital call from all of the AGER investors, excluding us. In connection with the Closing and the issuance of shares in respect of the capital call, each of which occurred on January 1, 2018, our equity interest in AGER was exchanged for common shares of AGER. As a result, on January 1, 2018, we held 10% of the aggregate voting power of and less than 50% of the economic interest in AGER and, as such, it is thereafter held as an investment rather than a consolidated subsidiary. Two of our employees have been elected to serve on AGER’s board of directors.

In order to align our interests with those of AGER, in connection with the Closing, we entered into a cooperation agreement with AGER, pursuant to which, among other things, (1) we will have the right to reinsure approximately 20% of the spread business written or reinsured by any insurance or reinsurance company owned or acquired by AGER, (2) AGER’s insurance subsidiaries will be required to purchase certain funding agreements and/or other spread instruments issued by our insurance subsidiaries, (3) we will provide the AGER Group with a right of first refusal to pursue acquisition and reinsurance transactions in Europe (other than the United Kingdom) and (4) the AGER Group will provide us and our subsidiaries with a right of first refusal to pursue acquisition and reinsurance transactions in North America and the United Kingdom.


Distribution Channels

We have developed four dedicated distribution channels: retail, flow reinsurance, institutional and acquisitions and block reinsurance, which support opportunistic origination across differing market environments and which we believe enable us to achieve stable asset growth while maintaining attractive returns.

Retail

We have built a scalable platform that allows us to originate and rapidly grow our business in fixed annuity products directly from our customers despite today’s low-rate environment. We have developed a suite of retirement savings products, distributed through our network of more than 34,000 independent agents in all 50 states. Sales of fixed annuities were $5.4 billion, $5.3 billion and $2.5 billion for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We expect that our improving credit profile will continue to allow us to increase our share with existing IMOs and enter into new relationships with regional banks, broker-dealers and other financial institutions, resulting in a potential increase in annual sales at an attractive cost of crediting. 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.


15

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Flow Reinsurance

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 the 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. In general, annuity reinsurance is executed in the form of either a flow transaction or a block transaction.

We conduct the majority of our reinsurance transactions through our subsidiary, ALRe. Founded on June 9, 2009, ALRe is licensed as a Class E insurer carrying on long-term business in Bermuda; one of the largest reinsurance markets in the world by reserves, with a regulatory regime deemed equivalent to the European Union’s Directive (2009/138/EC) (Solvency II) for commercial insurers. As a fixed annuity reinsurer, ALRe partners with life and annuity insurance companies to develop solutions to their capital requirements, enhance their presence in the retirement market and improve their financial results. The specific liabilities ALRe targets to reinsure include FIAs, MYGAs, traditional one-year guarantee fixed deferred annuities, immediate annuities and institutional products. ALRe only targets business consistent with our preferred liability characteristics, and as such, reinsurance provides another opportunistic channel for us to source long-term liabilities with attractive crediting rates. For various transaction-related reasons, from time to time, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, in particular Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company (AADE), will reinsure business from third-party ceding companies and retrocede a portion of the reinsured business to ALRe. Our flow reinsurance channel generated deposits of $875 million, $3.5 billion, and $1.1 billion for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

ALRe has been involved in reinsurance and retrocession transactions with 18 third-party cedants. As of December 31, 2017, ALRe had on-going flow reinsurance and retrocession treaties involving seven third-party cedants, each rated A- or better, for a quota share of such cedants’ new deposits, including both FIAs and MYGAs.

Institutional

Funding Agreements

We participate in a FABN program, which is a medium-term note program under which funding agreements are issued to a special-purpose trust that issues marketable notes. The notes are underwritten and marketed by major investment banks’ broker-dealer operations and are sold to institutional investors. The proceeds of the issuance of notes are used by the trust to acquire a funding agreement from us with matching interest and maturity payment terms. We are also a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) of Des Moines (FHLBDM) and Indianapolis (FHLBI) and, through membership, we have issued funding agreements to the FHLB in exchange for cash advances. The following represents the aggregate principal amount of funding agreement deposits:
 
Years ended December 31,
(In millions)
2017
 
2016
 
2015
FABN
$
2,750

 
$

 
$
250

FHLB
250

 

 

Total funding agreement deposits
$
3,000

 
$

 
$
250


As of December 31, 2017, we had funding agreements of $3.0 billion outstanding under our FABN program and $573 million outstanding with the FHLB. We have submitted a notice to withdraw our membership in the FHLBI. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Liquidity and Capital Resources–Membership in the Federal Home Loan Bank for additional discussion regarding our withdrawal from the FHLBI.

Pension Risk Transfer

Through PRT, we partner with institutions seeking to transfer and thereby reduce their obligation to pay future pension benefits to retirees. We have built an experienced team and continue to enhance our capabilities in this channel. We work with advisors, brokers and consultants to source PRT transactions and design solutions that meet the needs of prospective PRT counterparties. We are focused on medium- and large-sized deals where we believe we can be competitive. We entered this channel during 2017 and for the year ended December 31, 2017, PRT generated premiums of $2.3 billion. We believe we have established ourselves as a trusted PRT counterparty and expect that our public company status and improving credit profile will enable us to continue to source and execute PRT transactions.


16

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Acquisitions and Block Reinsurance

Acquisitions

Acquisitions are an important source of growth in our business. We have a proven ability to acquire businesses in complex transactions at terms favorable to us, manage the liabilities that we acquire and reinvest the associated assets. Through December 31, 2017, we have closed four acquisition transactions in the U.S.: Liberty Life Insurance Corporation (Liberty Life), Investors Insurance Corporation, Presidential Life Corporation and Aviva USA; and one international acquisition, Delta Lloyd Deutschland AG (DLD), collectively representing reserve liabilities backed by approximately $65.9 billion in total assets (net of $9.3 billion in assets ceded through reinsurance).

The acquisition of Aviva USA marked a significant milestone in our history. As a result of the acquisition we grew to approximately four times our size immediately prior to the acquisition (as measured by total assets). The acquisition significantly enhanced our retail channel, increased our scale, improved our infrastructure and further demonstrated our integration abilities, in this case having successfully integrated a company with a significantly larger employee headcount and IT and operational footprint.

In October 2015, we acquired the German life insurance business of Delta Lloyd N.V., an Amsterdam-based financial services provider. The German life insurance businesses acquired have been in run-off since the beginning of 2010 by action of the predecessor owner. Accordingly, our German insurance subsidiaries do not write new life insurance business, except for a limited number of new co-insurance policies, and all distribution partner contracts have been terminated.

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 relationship with Apollo provides us with distinct advantages relative to other acquirers.

In general, we seek to reinsure or otherwise dispose of those portions of the target company’s business that we do not wish to retain, if any. Our largest reinsurance agreements ceding the obligations of such businesses are described below.

Global Atlantic Financial Group Limited (Global Atlantic) – As part of our acquisition of Aviva USA, we transferred the risk of substantially all of Aviva USA’s life insurance business by reinsuring such business to subsidiaries of Global Atlantic. A description of the transactions is as follows:

We entered into a 100% coinsurance and assumption agreement with Accordia Life and Annuity Company (Accordia), a subsidiary of Global Atlantic. The agreement covers all open block life insurance business issued by Athene Annuity and Life Company (AAIA), except for enhanced guarantee universal life insurance products. Under the terms of the agreement, Accordia maintains a custody account with assets equal to or greater than an agreed-upon required statutory balance that as of December 31, 2017 was $1.9 billion. The agreement provides separate excess of loss coverage for policy liabilities of AAIA related to the former AmerUs Life Insurance Company (AmerUs) closed block (AmerUs Closed Block) that are also subject to existing reinsurance through Athene Re IV, a captive reinsurer that is a subsidiary of AAIA. As of December 31, 2017, outstanding obligations ceded pursuant to this arrangement which remained unnovated amounted to $1.5 billion in statutory reserves. We have no continuing contractual obligations with respect to policies that have been novated.

We entered into a 100% coinsurance agreement with Accordia to cede all policy liabilities for the closed block established in connection with the demutualization of Indianapolis Life Insurance Company (ILICO), which had been previously acquired by Aviva USA. The ILICO Closed Block consists primarily of participating whole life insurance policies. Effective December 1, 2015, Accordia retroceded substantially all of the policy liabilities for the ILICO Closed Block to Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. (Ameritas). Under the terms of the retrocession agreement, Ameritas maintains a trust account with assets equal to or greater than a required statutory balance that as of December 31, 2017 was $675 million. AAIA is permitted to withdraw funds from the trust account under certain circumstances. As of December 31, 2017, outstanding obligations ceded pursuant to this arrangement amounted to $722 million in statutory reserves.


17

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

We entered into the following coinsurance and funds withheld agreements with First Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Company (FAFLIC), a subsidiary of Global Atlantic, to cede substantially all policy liabilities for the below described life insurance policies.

Athene Life Insurance Company of New York (ALICNY) entered into a 100% funds withheld coinsurance agreement with FAFLIC covering certain term and universal life policies which have reserves that are subject to financing arrangements. Under the terms of the agreement, ALICNY maintains a funds withheld account with an agreed-upon statutory balance that as of December 31, 2017 was $263 million.

ALICNY entered into a 100% coinsurance agreement with FAFLIC covering certain term and universal life policies which have reserves that are not subject to financing arrangements. Under the terms of the agreement, FAFLIC maintains a trust account with an agreed-upon required statutory balance that as of December 31, 2017 was $359 million.

ALICNY entered into a 100% coinsurance and assumption agreement with FAFLIC covering substantially all of ALICNY’s in-force life business that is not ceded pursuant to the agreements described in the preceding two paragraphs. Under the terms of the agreement, FAFLIC maintains a trust account with an agreed-upon required statutory balance that as of December 31, 2017 was $422 million.

As of December 31, 2017, outstanding obligations ceded pursuant to the three FAFLIC reinsurance agreements discussed above amounted to $1,238 million in statutory reserves.

We continue to have the primary legal obligation to satisfy claims and obligations relating to those policies not novated to Accordia or FAFLIC. As a consequence, if Accordia or FAFLIC were unable to satisfy its reinsurance obligations on such life policies, we would be responsible for satisfying those contractual obligations reinsured by Accordia or FAFLIC, respectively. We do not maintain a security interest in the custody account discussed above, and therefore in the event of an Accordia insolvency, the assets of the custody account may be available to satisfy the claims of Accordia’s general creditors. In addition, in the event of an Accordia insolvency, our claims against Accordia would be subordinated to those of its policyholders. As of December 31, 2017, both Accordia and FAFLIC were rated A- by A.M. Best.

Protective Life Insurance Company (Protective) – On April 29, 2011, AADE ceded substantially all of its life and health business to Protective under a coinsurance agreement. As part of this transaction, we transferred assets backing reserves and miscellaneous other liabilities on the life and health business. The reserve assets were placed in a trust account maintained by Protective for our benefit to secure the obligations of the reinsurer of the acquired business. As of December 31, 2017, the statutory book value of assets in this trust was $1.5 billion and the outstanding obligations ceded pursuant to the arrangement amounted to $1.5 billion. In the event that Protective is unable to satisfy its reinsurance obligations with respect to the policies ceded and the trust assets prove insufficient to satisfy the resulting obligations, we would have the primary legal obligation to satisfy such deficiency. In the event of a Protective insolvency, our claim against Protective would be subordinated to those of its policyholders. As of December 31, 2017, Protective was rated A+ by A.M. Best.

Block Reinsurance

Unlike acquisitions in which we must 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. The benefit of the block reinsurance structure was highlighted in the transaction with Voya, pursuant to which we agreed to reinsure approximately $19 billion in fixed annuities without assuming any of Voya’s variable annuities.


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 us incremental yield by taking liquidity risk and complexity risk and capitalizing on our long-dated and persistent liability profile to prudently achieve higher net investment earned rates, rather than assuming solely credit risk. Because we have remained disciplined 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 strategic relationship with Apollo and its indirect subsidiary, AAM. AAM provides a full suite of services for our investment portfolio, including direct investment management, asset allocation, mergers and acquisition asset diligence and certain operational support services, including investment compliance, tax, legal and risk management support. AAM provides portfolio management services for substantially all of our invested assets, excluding Germany. As of December 31, 2017, of the total assets AAM managed, 82% were direct asset selection and 18% were indirect through sub-advising to Apollo and its affiliates, in order to access additional sourcing and underwriting capabilities. Substantially all of our assets subject to a sub-advisory arrangement are sub-advised by Apollo affiliates. AAM allocates portions of our asset portfolio to sub-advisors to manage based on market opportunities.


18

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Through our relationship with Apollo, AAM has identified unique investment opportunities for us. AAM’s knowledge of our funding structure and regulatory requirements allows it to design bespoke strategies and investments for our portfolio. For example, we hold a significant investment in MidCap through a consolidated investment fund managed by Apollo, together with loans made directly to MidCap. When we originally invested in MidCap Financial Holdings, LLC (MidCap Financial) in November 2013, MidCap Financial was a specialty finance company which primarily originated lending opportunities in the healthcare sector. With the assistance of Apollo, MidCap Financial entered new lending markets, raised substantial equity capital and restructured as MidCap in January 2015. MidCap represents a unique investment in an origination platform made available to us through our relationship with Apollo and, from time to time, provides us with access to assets for our investment portfolio. As of December 31, 2017, the value of our equity investment in MidCap had appreciated by 31% since our original investment in November 2013.

We are downside focused and our asset allocations reflect the results of stress testing. 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. We protect against rising interest rates, as our assets are generally shorter in effective duration than our liabilities, resulting in a risk profile that we believe could sustain substantial increases in rates over and above what is implied by current futures markets without sustaining net losses. See –Hedging Program and Derivatives for further discussion. As of December 31, 2017, 28% of our invested assets were floating rate investments which would allow us the flexibility to quickly increase our crediting rates in a rising interest rate environment, if desired.

AAM’s investment team and Apollo’s credit portfolio managers employ their deep experience to assist us in sourcing and underwriting complex asset classes. AAM 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 rate-sensitive investments, including collateralized loan obligations (CLO), non-agency RMBS and various types of structured products. These asset classes permit us to earn incremental yield by assuming liquidity risk and complexity risk, rather than assuming solely credit risk.

In addition to our core fixed income portfolio, we opportunistically allocate 5-10% of our portfolio to alternative investments where we primarily focus on fixed income-like, cash flow-based investments. Our alternative investment strategy is inherently opportunistic rather than being derived from allocating a fixed percentage of assets to the asset class and the strategy is subject to internal concentration limits. 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 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 asset portfolio is managed within the limits and constraints 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), CLO, commercial mortgage whole loans and mezzanine loans and alternative investments. We also set credit risk limits for exposure to a single issuer that vary based on ratings. In addition, our asset portfolio is constrained by its scenario-based capital ratio limit and its stressed liquidity limit.


Reserves

We establish and carry actuarially-determined reserves that are calculated to meet our future obligations, which require us to make certain assumptions regarding expenses, investment yields, mortality, morbidity and persistency, with a provision for adverse deviation as appropriate. Each of the relevant assumptions is initially determined as of the date of issue or acquisition. The assumptions used require considerable judgment. We review overall policyholder experience at least annually and update these assumptions when deemed necessary based on additional information that becomes available. For immediate annuity products, assumptions used in the reserve calculation can only be changed if the reserve is deemed to be insufficient. For all other insurance products, current assumptions are used in the updated calculation of reserves.

For FIAs, the aggregate initial liability is equal to the deposit received plus a bonus, if applicable, and is split into a host component and an embedded derivative component. Thereafter, the host contract accretion rate is updated each quarter so that the present value of actual and expected guaranteed cash flows is equal to the initial host value and the embedded derivative liability is recognized at fair value, with the change in fair value recorded in interest sensitive contract benefits in our consolidated statements of income. Changes in, or deviations from, the assumptions used to set our reserves can significantly affect our reserve levels and related results of operations. See Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Our Business–Our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and cash flows depend on the accuracy of our management’s assumptions and estimates, and we could face significant losses if these assumptions and estimates differ significantly from actual results for additional discussion regarding risks related to assumptions and estimates.

Persistency is the probability that a policy will remain in force from one period to the next. We make assumptions about persistency based on expected policyholder behavior in future periods, including full and partial contract surrenders. Policyholder behavior is influenced by a number of factors including, but not limited to, recent and current performance of the policy, contractual guarantees contained within the policy, availability of alternative products and general economic conditions.


19

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

A surrender rate is the percentage of account value surrendered by the policyholder. Our estimate of surrender behavior is based on assumptions reflecting actual experience and we believe that, over the duration of the policies, we may experience a wide range of policyholder behavior and market conditions.

Mortality is the incidence of death among policyholders triggering the payment of underlying insurance benefits by the insurer. Mortality also refers to the ceasing of payments on life-contingent annuities due to the death of the annuitant. We utilize a combination of actual and industry experience when setting our mortality assumptions.

We also set reserves for the guaranteed minimum benefits for some of our products. The assumptions used to establish the liabilities for our product guarantees require considerable judgment. At issue, and at each subsequent valuation, we determine the present value of the cost of guaranteed minimum benefits contained in our policies in excess of benefits that are funded by the account value. We also calculate the expected value of the future cost of providing these benefits. In making these projections, a number of assumptions are made and we update these assumptions as experience emerges, when required. We have limited experience to date on policyholder behavior for our guaranteed minimum benefit products which our acquirees began issuing in 2006, and as a result, future experience could lead to significant changes in our assumptions. If emerging experience deviates from our assumptions on utilizations of these benefits, such deviations could have a significant effect on our reserve levels and related results of operations. We periodically review these assumptions and, if necessary, update them based on additional information that becomes available. Changes in or deviations from the assumptions used can significantly affect our reserve levels and related results of operations.

To the extent actual experience differs from assumptions and estimates used to establish reserves, we may be required to increase or decrease our reserves to reflect changes in our expectations. Any such increase could cause a material increase in our liabilities and a reduction in our profitability, including operating losses and a reduction of capital.


Outsourcing

With regard to our U.S. business, we outsource some portion or all of each of the following functions to third-party service providers:
hosting of financial systems;
service of existing policies;
custody;
administration of annuities issued in support of PRT transactions;
information technology development and maintenance;
investment management; and
call centers.

We closely manage 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 differentiating functions, such as actuarial, product development and risk management functions. In addition, we believe an outsourcing model provides predictable pricing, service levels and volume capabilities and allows us to benefit from technological developments that enhance our customer self-service and sales processes that we would not otherwise be able to take advantage of without reinvesting more of our own capital.

For our retail annuity business, all aspects of new business, including call centers and administration is handled in-house. For some closed in-force blocks of business we partner with Alliance – One Services, Inc., Concentrix Insurance Administrative Solutions Corporation and Infosys McCamish Systems, LLC to provide policy administration services. For annuities issued in support of PRT transactions, we partner with Conduent to provide administration services. For information technology services, we use some providers for managed services or supplemental labor, including Tata Consulting Services Limited and UST Global Inc., and for data center, infrastructure and related services we use a combination of OneNeck (a TDS company) for hosting and UST Global Inc. for managed services. For investment management services, we use AAM and Apollo. We believe we have a good relationship with our principal outsource service providers.


Affiliated Reinsurance

Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries participate in reinsurance arrangements pursuant to which each cedes certain insurance risks to ALRe. ALRe is a fully licensed, operational and fully equity capitalized reinsurance company with third-party clients. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries have entered into modco agreements with ALRe under which they cede to ALRe a 100% quota share of their respective obligations to repay the principal upon maturity or earlier termination and to make periodic interest payments under funding agreements issued by them. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries have similar arrangements with ALRe with respect to substantially all of their other core business, under which generally 80% of all such business is ceded to ALRe on a modco basis. To support these internal reinsurance arrangements, ALRe holds the substantial majority of our capital with $7.0 billion of statutory capital as of December 31, 2017. ALRe had a Bermuda Solvency Capital Requirement (BSCR) ratio of 354% as of December 31, 2017. As a result of the passage of the Tax Act, we may take actions that result in a change in the manner in which our affiliate reinsurance arrangements are structured. See –Regulation–United States–Tax Reform and Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Taxation–Our efforts to mitigate the cost of the BEAT may be unnecessary, ineffective or counterproductive.



20


Hedging Program and Derivatives

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 our assets and liabilities, current or future changes in cash flows, changes in interest rates, equity markets, currency fluctuations and changes in longevity. In particular, we purchase options and equity futures to hedge the market risk exposure inherent in our FIA products, which have crediting rates tied to certain market indices. Our hedging program is focused on hedging our economic risk exposures and reducing the variation in our realized investment margin.

We use a combination of equity options, equity index futures, and variance, interest rate and currency swaps to hedge the risks from the equity derivatives embedded in our FIAs. Through our hedging strategy, we are able to minimize the net impact on capital and surplus of market variations affecting our embedded derivatives.

In addition to hedging the risks from embedded derivatives, we also use currency swaps and futures to hedge mismatches between the currency of our liability cash flows and our assets. Although cash-flow matching and ALM analyses are employed to manage our interest rate and funding exposures, we may also use interest rate derivatives to ensure that our net economic interest rate exposure is within our risk tolerances.


Financial Strength Ratings

Financial strength and credit ratings directly affect our ability to access funding and the related cost of borrowing, the attractiveness of certain of our products to customers, our attractiveness as a reinsurer to potential ceding companies and requirements for derivatives collateral posting. Such 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 December 31, 2017, Fitch Ratings (Fitch), Standard & Poor’s Rating Services (S&P) and A.M. Best Company (A.M. Best) had issued credit or financial strength ratings and outlook statements regarding us as follows:
Company
 
A.M. Best
 
S&P
 
Fitch
Athene Holding Ltd.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Issuer Credit Rating/Counterparty Credit Rating/Issuer Default Rating
 
bbb
 
BBB
 
BBB
Outlook
 
Stable
 
Positive
 
Stable
Athene Life Re Ltd.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial Strength Rating
 
A
 
A-
 
A-
Outlook
 
Stable
 
Positive
 
Stable
Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial Strength Rating
 
A
 
A-
 
A-
Outlook
 
Stable
 
Positive
 
Stable
Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial Strength Rating
 
A
 
A-
 
A-
Outlook
 
Stable
 
Positive
 
Stable
Athene Annuity and Life Company
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial Strength Rating
 
A
 
A-
 
A-
Outlook
 
Stable
 
Positive
 
Stable
Athene Life Insurance Company of New York
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial Strength Rating
 
A
 
Not Rated
 
Not Rated
Outlook
 
Stable
 
Not Rated
 
Not Rated

21

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Rating Agency
 
Financial Strength
Rating Scale
 
Senior Unsecured Notes
Credit Rating Scale
A.M. Best1
 
“A++” to “S”
 
“aaa” to “rs”
S&P2
 
“AAA” to “R”
 
“AAA” to “D”
Fitch3
 
“AAA” to “C”
 
“AAA” to “D”
 
 
 
 
 
1 A.M. Best’s financial strength rating is an independent opinion of an insurer’s or reinsurer’s financial strength and ability to meet its ongoing insurance policy and contract obligations. It is based on a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a company’s balance sheet strength, operating performance and business profile or, where appropriate, the specific nature and details of a security. The analysis may include comparisons to peers, industry standards and proprietary benchmarks as well as assessments of operating plans, philosophy, management, risk appetite and the implicit or explicit support of a parent or affiliate. A.M. Best’s long-term credit ratings reflect its assessment of the ability of an obligor to pay interest and principal in accordance with the terms of the obligation. Ratings from “aa” to “ccc” may be enhanced with a “+” (plus) or “-“ (minus) to indicate whether credit quality is near the top or bottom of a category. A.M. Best’s short-term credit rating is an opinion as to the ability of the rated entity to meet its senior financial commitments on obligations maturing in generally less than one year.
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. Generic rating categories range from “AAA” to “D”. A “+” or “-“ indicates relative strength within a generic category. An S&P credit rating is an assessment of default risk, but may incorporate an assessment of relative seniority or ultimate recovery in the event of default. Short-term issuer credit ratings reflect the obligor’s creditworthiness over a short-term time horizon.
3 Fitch’s financial strength ratings provide an assessment of the financial strength of an insurance organization. The National Insurer Financial Strength Rating is assigned to the insurance company’s policyholder obligations, including assumed reinsurance obligations and policyholder obligations, such as guaranteed investment contracts. Within long-term and short-term ratings, a “+” or a “-” may be appended to a rating to denote relative status within major rating categories.

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 and Fitch 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 their judgment, circumstances so warrant. 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–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. As a result, 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–We operate in a highly competitive industry that includes a number of competitors, many of which are larger and more well-known than we are, 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 market, diverse range of capabilities and broad distribution network uniquely position us to effectively serve consumers’ increasing demand for retirement solutions, particularly in the FIA market.

We face competition in the FIA market from traditional insurance carriers such as Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (Allianz) and American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company (AEL). Principal competitive factors for FIAs are initial crediting rates, reputation for renewal crediting action, product features, brand recognition, customer service, cost, 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. According to LIMRA, for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 (the most recent period specific market share data is currently available), we were the 2nd leading provider of FIAs with a market share of 8.6%, behind Allianz with a market share of 13.6%. The aggregate market share of the top ten providers of FIAs for the same period was 63.2%. According to LIMRA, for the year ended December 31, 2016, the leading two providers of FIAs were Allianz and AEL with market shares of 16.7% and 9.4%, respectively. The aggregate market share of the top ten providers of FIAs for the same period was 65.1%. For the year ended December 31, 2016, we were the 3rd largest FIA provider in the U.S. based on retail FIA sales, with a market share of 7.4%.


22

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Reinsurance markets are highly competitive, as well as cyclical by product and market. As a reinsurer, ALRe competes on the basis of 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 market impact of these and other factors related to reinsurance is generally not consistent across lines of business, domestic and international geographical areas and distribution channels. ALRe’s competition includes other insurance and reinsurance companies, such as Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated and Global Atlantic.

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, such as MetLife, Inc. (MetLife) and American International Group, Inc. Within the funding agreement market, we compete primarily on the basis of perceived financial strength, interest rates and term. With respect to group annuities issued in connection with PRT transactions, we compete with other insurers that offer PRT annuities, such as MetLife and Prudential Financial, Inc. Within the PRT market, we compete primarily on the basis of price, underwriting and investment capabilities.

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 believe that our demonstrated ability to source and consummate complex transactions is a competitive advantage over other similar acquirers. We also 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.

It is unclear at this time what impact, if any, the Tax Act will have on the competitive environment of the markets in which we compete. If U.S.-based competitors use some or all of their tax savings to offset reductions in product pricing, we could see increased price competition, which would place downward pressure on our return targets and on volumes within each of our distribution channels. See –Regulation–United States–Tax Reform.


Employees

As of January 1, 2018, we had approximately 1,125 employees located in Bermuda and the United States. We believe our employee relations are good. None of our employees located in Bermuda or the United States are subject to collective bargaining agreements and we are not aware of any current efforts to implement such agreements.


Regulation

Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are licensed to transact insurance business in, and are subject to regulation and supervision by, all 50 states of the United States and the District of Columbia. ALRe, a Bermuda domiciled insurer, is subject to regulation and supervision by the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) and compliance with all applicable Bermuda law and Bermuda insurance statutes and regulations, including but not limited to Bermuda’s Insurance Act 1978 (Bermuda Insurance Act). Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are licensed, regulated and supervised in all jurisdictions where they conduct insurance business. The extent of such regulation varies, however; most jurisdictions have regulations and laws that require insurers and agents to be licensed and set standards of solvency and business conduct to be maintained by the insurer. Additionally, state statutes and regulations often require state approval of policy forms, policy language, rates and in some instances, marketing materials. Most states’ statutes and regulations prescribe permitted types and concentrations of investments. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are required to file detailed annual financial statements with supervisory agencies in each of the jurisdictions in which they transact an insurance business.

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business and like others in the insurance and financial services industries, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries receive requests for information from government agencies in connection with such agencies’ regulatory or investigatory authority. Such requests can include market conduct examinations, subpoenas or demand letters for documents to assist the government in audits or investigations. Each such subsidiary reviews such requests and notices and takes appropriate action. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries have been subject to certain requests for information and investigations in the past and could be subject to them in the future.

United States

General

Each of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries is organized and domiciled in one of the following states: Delaware, Iowa, or New York (each, an Athene Domiciliary State) and is also licensed in such state as an insurer. The insurance department of each Athene Domiciliary State regulates the applicable U.S. insurance subsidiary, and each U.S. 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, such as the AHL common shares.


23

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

In addition, as part of our acquisition of Aviva USA, we acquired a special-purpose insurance company, Athene Re IV, which is a subsidiary of AAIA. Athene Re IV is domiciled in Vermont and provides reinsurance to AAIA in order to facilitate the reserve financing associated with a closed block of policies resulting from the demutualization of a prior insurance company currently part of AAIA. As part of the acquisition of AAIA, the liabilities associated with such closed block of insurance policies, including any exposure to payments due from such special-purpose insurance company subsidiary, were reinsured to Accordia. We do not write business that requires the use of captive reinsurers. The substantial majority of all policyholder obligations written or held by our insurance subsidiaries are reinsured to ALRe, a fully licensed, operational and fully equity capitalized reinsurance company with third-party clients.

Generally, insurance products underwritten by our U.S. insurance subsidiaries must be approved by the insurance regulators in each state in which they are sold. Those products are also substantially affected by federal and state tax laws. For example, changes in tax law could reduce or eliminate the tax-deferred accumulation of interest credited on the premiums paid by the holders of annuities and life insurance products, which could make such products less attractive to potential purchasers. A shift away from annuity products could reduce the investment income that our U.S. insurance subsidiaries earn on premiums or deposits received from the sale of such products, as well as the assets upon which our U.S. insurance subsidiaries earn income. In addition, certain insurance policies may also be subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).

State insurance authorities have broad administrative powers over our U.S. insurance subsidiaries with respect to all aspects of their insurance business including: (1) licensing to transact business; (2) licensing of producers; (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; (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 or other substitute financing solutions, the terms thereof and the ability of an insurer to take credit on its financial statements for insurance ceded to reinsurers or other substitute financing solutions; (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 U.S. 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 U.S. insurance regulatory framework, and a number of state legislatures have considered or enacted legislative measures that alter, and in many cases increase, state authority to regulate insurance and reinsurance companies. In addition to legislative initiatives of this type, the NAIC and 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 regulation, age, sex and disability-based discrimination, financial services 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.

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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries. AHL has entered into capital maintenance agreements with each of its material U.S. insurance subsidiaries, pursuant to which AHL agrees to provide capital to the subsidiary to the extent that the capital of the subsidiary falls below a specified threshold as set with the applicable subsidiary’s domestic regulator.

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 currently sold products. The NAIC continues to work to reform state regulation in various areas, including comprehensive reforms relating to life insurance reserves.


24

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Pursuant to its “Solvency Modernization Initiative,” the NAIC reviewed the U.S. financial regulatory system and all aspects of financial regulation affecting insurance companies. Though broad in scope, the Solvency Modernization Initiative focused on: (1) capital requirements; (2) corporate governance and risk management; (3) group supervision; (4) statutory accounting and financial reporting; and (5) reinsurance. This initiative resulted in the adoption by the NAIC of the Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) Model Act, which has been enacted by each Athene Domiciliary State, and requires insurance companies 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 no less often than 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 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 with a company’s lead state regulator and made available to other domiciliary regulators within the holding company system.

In December 2012, the NAIC approved a new valuation manual containing a principle-based approach to life insurance company reserves. Principle-based reserving is designed to tailor the reserving process to specific products in an effort to create a principle-based modeling approach to reserving rather than the factor-based approach historically employed. Pursuant to the NAIC’s Standard Valuation Law (SVL) principle-based reserving became effective prospectively on January 1, 2017. Delaware and Iowa have each adopted a form of the SVL. Although the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS) previously announced that New York would adopt principle-based reserving effective January 1, 2018, New York has not yet adopted any legislation (or proposed regulations) concerning principle-based reserving.

In November 2014, the NAIC adopted the Corporate Governance Annual Disclosure Model Act and Model Regulation (together, the Corporate Governance Model Act), which requires an insurer to provide an annual disclosure regarding its corporate governance practices to its lead state and/or domestic regulator. As adopted by the NAIC, the requirements of the Corporate Governance Model Act were intended to be effective January 1, 2016, with the first annual disclosure due by June 1, 2016. The Corporate Governance Model Act must be adopted by the individual states for the new requirements to apply, and specifically in Delaware, Iowa and New York for the changes to apply to our U.S. insurance subsidiaries. Both Delaware and Iowa have adopted forms of the Corporate Governance Annual Disclosure Model Act. To date, New York has not adopted the Corporate Governance Model Act, and it is not possible to predict whether New York will adopt the Corporate Governance Model Act in the future; however, the NAIC has made the Corporate Governance Model Act part of its accreditation standards for state solvency regulation, which may motivate New York to adopt the Corporate Governance Model Act.

Insurance Holding Company Regulation

Each direct and indirect parent of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries (including 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 U.S. 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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries and their affiliates, including any reinsurance transactions, must be fair and reasonable and, if material or of 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. Laws such as these prevent any person from acquiring direct or indirect control of any of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries or their holding companies unless that person has filed a statement with specified information with the commissioner 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 insurance company 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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries (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 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, the Model Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act (Amended Holding Company Model Act) requires any controlling person of a U.S. insurer seeking to divest its controlling interest in the insurance company 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 those instances in which 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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries (including AHL) (in particular through an unsolicited transaction), even if the shareholders of such parent consider such transaction to be desirable. Our bye-laws include limitations on the voting power exercisable by shareholders of the Company other than the Apollo Group so that certain persons or groups (Control Groups) are deemed not to hold more than 9.9% of the total voting power conferred by our shares.


25

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

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. Pursuant to these regulations, the NYSDFS may limit the changes that the acquirer may make to the insurer’s business operations for a specified period of time following the acquisition without the NYSDFS’ prior approval. In particular, the regulation provides the NYSDFS with the specific authority to require acquirers of New York domiciled life insurers to post assets in a trust account for the benefit of the target company’s policyholders. In making such determination, the NYSDFS may consider whether the acquirer is, or is controlled by or under common control with, an investment manager such as Apollo. The NAIC’s former Private Equity Issues Working Group, which was formed to develop best practice recommendations relating to acquisitions of control of insurance or reinsurance companies by private equity and hedge funds, adopted narrative guidance for state insurance examiners to consider in reviewing applications for an acquisition of an insurer. Such guidance has been adopted by the NAIC and is included in the NAIC’s Financial Analysis Handbook.

Although Athene Re IV is not subject to insurance holding company laws, the Vermont insurance regulator may use all or a part of the holding company law framework described above in determining whether to approve a proposed change of control.

In December 2010, the NAIC adopted the Amended Holding Company Model Act. The Amended Holding Company Model Act introduces the concept of “enterprise risk” within an insurance holding company system and imposes more extensive informational requirements on parents and other affiliates of licensed insurers or reinsurers, with the purpose of protecting the licensed companies from enterprise risk, including requiring an annual enterprise risk report by each ultimate controlling person identifying the material risks within the insurance holding company system that could pose enterprise risk to the licensed companies. An enterprise risk is an activity or event involving affiliates of an insurer that could have a material adverse effect on the insurer or the insurer’s holding company system. The Amended Holding Company Model Act must be adopted by the individual states for the new requirements to apply. Iowa, Delaware and New York have each adopted a form of the Amended Holding Company Model Act.

In December 2014, the NAIC adopted additional amendments to the Amended Holding Company Model Act for consideration by the various states that address the authority of an insurance commissioner to act as the group-wide supervisor for an internationally active insurance group or to acknowledge the authority of another regulatory official, from another jurisdiction, to so act. These changes to the Amended Holding Company Model Act must be enacted by the individual states before they will become effective, and specifically in Delaware, Iowa and New York for the changes to apply to our U.S. insurance subsidiaries. Delaware has adopted a form of these changes to the Amended Holding Company Model Act, and Iowa has adopted similar provisions under a predecessor statute. It is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the additional capital requirements, compliance costs or other burdens these changes may impose in the future.

In addition, the NAIC has adopted a revised Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation (SAT), which places new responsibilities upon issuing insurance companies 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 and variable annuities. The NYSDFS issued a circular letter emphasizing insurers’ obligations under laws and regulations based on SAT when replacing a deferred annuity contract with an immediate annuity contract. The NAIC is also considering amendments to the SAT to incorporate a “best interest” standard with respect to the suitability of annuity sales. On December 27, 2017, the NYSDFS proposed amendments to its regulation based on SAT to incorporate a “best interest” standard with respect to the suitability of life insurance and annuity sales. Future changes in such laws and regulations, including those that impose a “best interest” standard or otherwise result from any delay, repeal or modification of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule, could adversely impact the way we market and sell our annuity products. See –ERISA below for further discussion regarding the DOL fiduciary rule.


26

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Restrictions on Dividends and Other Distributions

Current law of two of the Athene Domiciliary States, Delaware and Iowa, permits the payment of 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 dividends from the insurer’s earned profits on its business, which shall not include contributed capital or contributed surplus, and AADE may only pay 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 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. Further, as a condition to approval of Athene’s acquisition of Aviva USA, Athene agreed not to cause ALICNY or AAIA to declare, distribute or pay any dividend for five years from the date of acquisition of control without the prior written consent of the NYSDFS or the Iowa Insurance Division (IID), as applicable. The Athene Domiciliary States’ insurance laws and regulations also require that each of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries’ surplus as regards policyholders following any dividend or distribution be reasonable in relation to such U.S. insurance subsidiary’s outstanding liabilities and adequate to meet its financial needs.

Credit for Reinsurance Ceded

The ability of a ceding insurer to take reserve and capital credit for the reinsurance purchased from reinsurance companies is a significant component of reinsurance regulation. Typically, a ceding insurer will only enter into a reinsurance agreement if it can obtain credit on its statutory basis financial statements against its reserves (report lower net reserves) and/or toward its MCR (the denominator in its RBC calculation) for the reinsurance ceded to the reinsurer. With respect to U.S.-domiciled ceding companies, credit is usually granted when the reinsurer is licensed or accredited in the state where the ceding company is domiciled. States also generally permit ceding insurers to take credit for reinsurance if the reinsurer: (1) is domiciled in a state with a credit for reinsurance law that is substantially similar to the credit for reinsurance law in the ceding insurer’s state of domicile, and (2) meets certain financial requirements. Credit for reinsurance purchased from a reinsurer that does not meet the foregoing conditions is generally allowed to the extent that such reinsurer secures its obligations with qualified collateral.

ALRe has provided, and may in the future provide, reinsurance to our U.S. insurance subsidiaries in the normal course of business. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries have entered into modco agreements with ALRe under which they will cede to ALRe a 100% quota share of their respective obligations to repay the principal upon maturity or earlier termination and to make periodic interest payments under funding agreements issued by them. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries have similar arrangements with ALRe with respect to substantially all of their other core business, under which between 80% and 100% of all such business is ceded to ALRe on a modco basis, net of third party reinsurance. ALRe is not licensed, accredited or approved in any state in the United States and, consequently, ALRe must collateralize its obligations to our U.S. insurance subsidiaries or any third-party cedant in order for any of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries or any third-party cedant to obtain credit against its reserves on its statutory basis financial statements (unless the basis for such reinsurance transaction is modco). ALRe is domiciled in Bermuda, one of the largest reinsurance markets in the world by reserves with a regulatory regime deemed by the European Commission (EC) in November 2015 to be equivalent to the European Union (EU) Solvency II. The delegated act granting Bermuda equivalency under Solvency II was approved by the European Parliament and Council in March 2016.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) provides that only the state in which a ceding insurer is domiciled may regulate the financial statement credit for reinsurance taken by that ceding insurer; other states are no longer able to require additional collateral from unauthorized reinsurers or otherwise impose their own credit for reinsurance laws on ceding insurers that are licensed, but not domiciled, in such other states.

In November 2011, the NAIC adopted amendments to its Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation to implement reinsurance collateral reform. Under the amended Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation, collateral requirements may be reduced from 100% for unauthorized or non-accredited reinsurers meeting certain criteria as to financial strength and reliability that are domiciled in jurisdictions that are found to have strong systems of insurance regulation (each, a “Qualified Jurisdiction”). Once a state legislature enacts the amendments to the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation and the standards become operative in that state, such reinsurers will be eligible to apply for “certified reinsurer” status and reinsurers that become so certified will be permitted to post collateral at reduced levels in that state. The new collateral levels will apply on a prospective basis only. The NAIC recently made the reinsurance collateral reform provisions of the amended Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation an accreditation standard. Delaware and Iowa have adopted the reduced collateral requirements under the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation, and New York has adopted the reduced collateral requirements under a predecessor statute.


27

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

In December 2014, the NAIC approved Bermuda as a “Qualified Jurisdiction,” effective January 1, 2015, with respect to certain classes of insurers, including Class E insurers such as ALRe. The recognition of Bermuda as a Qualified Jurisdiction permits ALRe to apply for “certified reinsurer” status with the ability (if so certified) to post reduced collateral for coverage provided by ALRe to ceding insurers in the United States (including our U.S. insurance subsidiaries). The amount of collateral required to be posted by an insurer with this designation varies based upon the insurers’ credit rating. ALRe has been approved by the Delaware Department of Insurance as a certified reinsurer and is therefore eligible to post reduced collateral equal to 50% of statutory reserves ceded under coinsurance agreements with ceding companies domiciled in the state of Delaware, including AADE. ALRe has not been approved as a certified reinsurer in any other jurisdiction.

Statutory Investment Valuation Reserves

Life insurance companies domiciled in the U.S. 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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries, we do not believe that the impact under current regulations of such reserve requirements will materially affect our U.S. insurance subsidiaries. Insurers domiciled in the U.S. 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 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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries pursuant to their reinsurance agreements with U.S.-based life insurer ceding companies.

Policy and Contract Reserve Adequacy Analysis

The Athene Domiciliary States and other states have adopted laws and regulations with respect to policy and contract reserve sufficiency. Under applicable insurance laws, our U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries may find it necessary to increase reserves, which may decrease their statutory surplus, in order to pass additional cash flow testing requirements.

U.S. Statutory Reports and Regulatory Examinations

Our U.S. 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 U.S. 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 insurance companies that are domiciled in their states. Examinations are generally carried out in cooperation with the insurance departments of other, non-domiciliary states under guidelines promulgated by the NAIC. In late 2017, the Delaware Department of Insurance sent notice of an exam of AADE and Athene Life Insurance Company (ALIC) for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017, which will begin on April 1, 2018. The exam will be conducted in coordination with joint exams conducted by the Iowa Insurance Division for AAIA and Structured Annuity Reinsurance Company (STAR), and by the NYSDFS for Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York (AANY) and ALICNY covering the same time period.

Vermont insurance laws and regulations applicable to Athene Re IV require it to file financial statements with the Commissioner of the Insurance Division of the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation. Additionally, Athene Re IV is subject to periodic financial examinations by the Insurance Division of the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation.


28

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

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 U.S. 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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries are currently undergoing the following market conduct examinations, each in the ordinary course of business: (1) the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions & Professional Registration is conducting a market conduct examination of AAIA, (2) the NYSDFS is conducting a triennial examination of AANY, (3) the NYSDFS is conducting a market conduct examination of ALICNY, (4) the New York Office of the State Comptroller is conducting an audit of AANY and ALICNY regarding abandoned property and (5) the Massachusetts Division of Insurance is conducting a limited scope market conduct examination of AADE. The California Department of Insurance is completing a review of the rating and underwriting practices of AAIA, AADE and AANY.

State insurance regulators have been scrutinizing claims settlement practices of insurance companies with regard to payment of death benefits. Through their authority to regulate market conduct, including claims settlement practices, state insurance regulators have been examining the use by insurance companies of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Social Security Death Index (Death Master File) to identify deceased persons and the processes by which insurance companies search for beneficiaries of life and annuity contracts. In particular, these regulators have been looking at how insurance companies handle unreported deaths, maturity of life insurance and annuity contracts, and contracts that have exceeded limiting age to determine if the companies are appropriately identifying when death benefits or other payments under the contracts should be made. Several states have enacted new laws or adopted new regulations mandating the use by insurance companies of the Death Master File or other similar databases to identify deceased persons and more rigorous processes to find beneficiaries.

In 2013, prior to our acquisition of Aviva USA, it entered into multi-state settlement agreements with the insurance regulators and treasurers for 48 states in connection with certain of its subsidiaries’ use of the Death Master File. As part of the settlement, AAIA and its subsidiary ALICNY agreed to pay a $4 million assessment for examination, compliance and monitoring costs without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and further agreed to adopt policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure timely payment of valid claims to beneficiaries in accordance with insurance laws and to timely report and remit unclaimed proceeds to the appropriate states in connection with unpaid property laws. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries could continue to be subject to risks related to unpaid benefits, the Death Master File, and the procedures required by the prior multi-state settlement as they relate to our annuity business. Furthermore, administrative challenges associated with implementing the procedures described above may make compliance with the multi-state settlement and applicable law difficult and could have a material and adverse effect on our results of operations. AADE is currently undergoing a multi-state unclaimed property examination led by Verus Financial, on behalf of California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. Further, AADE is also a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the West Virginia Treasurer, State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., Case No. 12-C-419, pursuant to which the Treasurer alleges that Liberty Life, now known as AADE, failed to adopt reasonable procedures, such as using the Death Master File, to identify deceased insureds with unpaid death benefits and timely escheat those unclaimed benefits to the state. The Treasurer accordingly seeks to recover unpaid death benefits, statutory interest and penalties.

Another area of focus by state insurance regulators has been on the use of third-party administrators (TPAs) to administer insurance policies.  Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries rely on TPAs to service certain annuity and life insurance policies and have experienced increased service and administration complaints related to the conversion and administration of the Aviva USA life insurance policies reinsured to affiliates of Global Atlantic by the TPA retained by such Global Atlantic affiliates to provide services on such policies, as well as on certain annuity policies that were on Aviva USA’s life systems that were also converted to and are being administered by the same TPA. As a result of these increased complaints and service-related issues, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries have been and may in the future be subject to increased regulatory scrutiny, which could result in fines and penalties, as well as policyholder litigation. See Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—We rely significantly on third parties for investment services and certain other services related to our policies, and we may be held responsible for obligations that arise from the acts or omissions of third parties under their respective agreements with us if they are deemed to have acted on our behalf and Note 18 – Commitments and Contingencies – Litigation, Claims and Assessments to the consolidated financial statements.

Capital Requirements

Regulators of each state have discretionary authority in connection with our U.S. insurance subsidiaries’ continued licensing to limit or prohibit sales to policyholders within their respective states if, in their judgment, the regulators determine that 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.

In order to enhance the regulation of insurers’ solvency, the NAIC adopted a model law to implement RBC requirements for life, health and property and casualty insurance and reinsurance companies. All states have adopted the NAIC’s model law or a substantively similar law. The NAIC Risk-Based Capital for Insurers Model Act requires life insurance companies 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, with ACL calculated as one-half company action level RBC (CAL). Regulators typically use ACL in assessing companies and reviewing solvency requirements. Companies themselves typically report and are compared using the CAL standard.

29

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business


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 conditions. RBC is an additional standard for MCR that insurers must meet to avoid being placed in rehabilitation or liquidation by regulators. The annual Risk-Based Capital Report, and the information contained therein, is not intended by the NAIC as a means to rank insurers.

RBC is a method of measuring the level of capital appropriate for an insurance company to support its overall business operations, in light of its size and risk profile. It provides a means of assessing capital adequacy, where the degree of risk taken by the insurer is the primary determinant. The value of an insurer’s TAC in relation to its RBC, together with its trend in its TAC, is used as a basis for determining regulatory action that a state insurance regulator may be authorized or required to take with respect to an insurer. 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, 2017, each of our U.S. 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, 2017, the CAL RBC ratio of AADE (U.S. RBC ratio) was 490%. The calculation of RBC requires certain judgments to be made, and, accordingly, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries’ current RBC may be greater or less than the RBC calculated as of any date of determination.

Under U.S. statutory accounting principles, our U.S. domiciled subsidiaries defer the portion of realized capital gains and losses on fixed maturity securities attributable to changes in the general level of interest rates into an IMR. The IMR amortizes into future year statutory operating results based on a formula prescribed by the NAIC. The IMR provides a buffer to our statutory capital and surplus in the event we have to sell securities in an unrealized loss position. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, our aggregate IMR balance was $211 million and $217 million, respectively.

Insurance Regulatory Information System Ratios

The NAIC has established the Insurance Regulatory Information System (IRIS) to assist state insurance departments in their oversight of the financial condition of insurance companies operating in their respective states. IRIS is a series of financial ratios calculated by the NAIC based on financial information submitted by insurers on an annual basis. Each ratio has an established “usual range” of results. The NAIC shares the IRIS ratios calculated for each insurer with the interested state insurance departments. Generally, an insurance company will be required to explain ratios that fall outside the usual range, and may be subject to regulatory scrutiny and action if one or more of its ratios fall outside the specified ranges. None of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are currently subject to non-ordinary course regulatory scrutiny based on their IRIS ratios.

Regulation of Investments

Each of our U.S. 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. Accordingly, the investment laws in the Athene Domiciliary States could prevent our U.S. insurance subsidiaries from pursuing investment opportunities which they believe are beneficial to their shareholders, which could in turn preclude Athene from realizing its investment objectives.

Guaranty Associations

All 50 states 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 life 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. Assessments levied against our U.S. insurance subsidiaries by guaranty associations during each of the past five years have not been material. While Athene cannot accurately predict the amount of future assessments or future insolvencies of competitors which would lead to such assessments, Athene believes that assessments with respect to pending insurance company impairments and insolvencies will not have a material effect on Athene’s financial condition or results of operations.


30

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Federal Oversight

Although the insurance business in the United States is primarily regulated by the states, federal initiatives can affect the businesses of our U.S. 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 U.S. persons from engaging in certain transactions with certain persons or entities. OFAC has imposed civil penalties on persons, including insurance and reinsurance companies, 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. On April 21, 2017, the President of the United States issued an executive memorandum (Executive Memorandum) to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department), directing the Secretary of the Treasury Department to conduct a review of, and report to the President regarding, FSOC processes and imposing a temporary moratorium on non-emergency SIFI determinations and designations pending completion of such review and receipt of such report. The requested report, which the Treasury Department published on November 17, 2017, recommends significant changes to the FSOC processes for making SIFI determinations and designations. As a result, there is considerable uncertainty as to the future of federal regulation of non-bank SIFIs. If the FSOC were to determine that Athene USA Corporation
(Athene USA) or any of our U.S. subsidiaries is a non-bank SIFI, such entity would become subject to certain of these enhanced prudential standards.

The Dodd-Frank Act, which effected the most far-reaching overhaul of financial regulation in the U.S. in decades, established the Federal Insurance Office within the Treasury Department. While currently not having a general supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance, the Director of the Federal Insurance Office 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 Federal Insurance Office has been charged with providing reports to the U.S. Congress on (1) the global reinsurance market (provided in January 2015), (2) modernization of U.S. insurance regulation and possible federal involvement in supervision of insurance group holding companies (provided in December 2013) and (3) state regulators’ ability to access reinsurance information (provided in November 2013). Such reports could ultimately lead to changes in the regulation of insurers and reinsurers in the United States, including insurance group holding companies.

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. The Federal Insurance Office is further charged with determining, in accordance with the procedures and standards established under the Dodd-Frank Act, whether state laws are preempted by a covered agreement. Pursuant to this authority, in September 2017, the U.S. and the European Union signed a covered agreement to address, among other things, reinsurance collateral requirements (Covered Agreement). The Covered Agreement became provisionally effective on November 7, 2017, following completion of the European Union’s procedural requirements, but must be approved by the European Parliament before it is treated as fully effective. The reinsurance collateral provisions of the 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 U.S. insurers. We cannot predict with any certainty what impact the Covered Agreement will have on our business, whether the Covered Agreement will be implemented or what the impact of such implementation will be on our business.

FIAs

In recent years, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state securities regulators have questioned whether FIAs, such as those sold by our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, should be treated as securities under the federal and state securities laws rather than as insurance products exempted from such laws. On December 17, 2008, the SEC voted to approve Rule 151A, and apply federal securities oversight to FIAs issued on or after January 12, 2011. On July 12, 2010, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Rule 151A. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, annuities that meet specific requirements are specifically exempted from being treated as securities by the SEC. We expect that the types of FIAs our U.S. 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 U.S. 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.


31

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Unclaimed Property Laws

Each of our U.S. 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 insurance companies with regard to unclaimed life insurance and annuity death benefits. As with state insurance regulators, state revenue authorities have been looking at how life insurance companies 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 insurance companies, required escheatments 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.

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. 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 market and requires U.S. regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing its provisions. Regulations have been finalized and implemented in many areas and are being finalized for implementation in others.

The Dodd-Frank Act divides the regulatory responsibility for swaps in the United States between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The CFTC regulates swaps and swap entities, and the SEC regulates security-based swaps and security-based swap entities. The CFTC and the SEC have jointly finalized certain regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act, including critical rulemakings on the definitions of “swap,” “security-based swap,” “swap dealer,” “security-based swap dealer,” “major swap participant” and “major security-based swap participant.” In addition, the CFTC has substantially finalized its required rulemaking under the Dodd-Frank Act, including regulations relating to the registration and regulation of swap dealers, major swap participants and swap execution facilities, reporting, recordkeeping, mandatory clearing, mandatory on-facility trade execution and mandatory minimum margin requirements. The SEC has yet to implement its regulatory regime for security-based swaps and market participants transacting in security-based swaps, including security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants subject to the SEC’s oversight. As a result of this bifurcation and the different pace at which the agencies have promulgated and implemented regulations, different transactions are subject to different levels of regulation.

The Dodd-Frank Act and the CFTC rules thereunder require us, in connection with certain swap transactions, to comply with mandatory clearing and on-facility trade execution requirements, and it is anticipated that the types of swaps subject to these requirements will be expanded over time. In addition, new regulations require us to comply with mandatory minimum margin requirements for uncleared swaps and, in some instances, uncleared security-based swaps. Derivative clearing requirements and mandatory margin requirements could increase the cost of our risk mitigation and could have other implications. For example, increased margin requirements, combined with netting restrictions and restrictions on securities that qualify as eligible collateral, could reduce our liquidity and require increased holdings of cash and highly liquid securities with lower yields causing a reduction in income. In addition, the requirement that certain trades be centrally cleared through clearinghouses subjects us to documentation that is significantly more counterparty-favorable and may entitle counterparties to unilaterally change terms such as trading limits and the amount of margin required. The ability of any such counterparty to take such actions could create trading disruptions and liquidity concerns. Finally, the requirement that certain trades be centrally cleared through clearinghouses concentrates 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 clearinghouses are still developing and the related bankruptcy process is untested, it is difficult to anticipate or identify all risks related to the default of a clearinghouse.

The Dodd-Frank Act and new regulations thereunder and similar regulations issued by non-U.S. 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 the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations thereunder and other similar regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable which could adversely affect our financial performance. Additionally, we have always been subject to the risk that hedging and other management procedures might prove ineffective in reducing the risks to which insurance policies expose us or that unanticipated policyholder behavior or mortality, combined with adverse market events, could produce economic losses beyond the scope of the risk management techniques employed. Any such losses could be increased by the increased cost of entering into derivatives and the reduced availability of customized derivatives that might result from the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act.


32

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the future of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act and the related regulations implemented by the CFTC and the SEC and their impact on us remain uncertain and unpredictable, particularly in light of actions taken by the Trump administration. On February 3, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order that establishes core principles for regulating the U.S. financial system and provides a framework for comprehensive change to current financial regulation (Financial Order), and on February 24, 2017, President Trump also signed an Executive Order that requires federal agencies to designate a “Regulatory Reform Officer” and a “Regulatory Reform Task Force” to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to repeal, replace or modify regulations that, among others, inhibit job creation, are ineffective or impose costs that exceed benefits (Reform Order, and collectively with the Financial Order, Executive Orders). As of the date of this filing, there have not been any further announcements or actions by the CFTC or SEC relating to the regulatory reform, if any, that will be implemented as a result of the Executive Orders. Thus, at this point it is difficult to predict the impact of the Executive Orders on Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, derivatives regulatory schemes in other jurisdictions and our derivatives activities.

Consumer Protection Laws and Privacy and Data Security Regulation

Numerous other federal and state laws also affect Athene’s earnings and activities, including federal and state consumer protection laws. 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 U.S. insurance subsidiaries engage, the CFPB does have authority to regulate non-insurance consumer services which are offered by issuers of securities in our U.S. insurance subsidiaries’ investment portfolio.

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, and 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. State laws regulate use and disclosure of Social Security numbers and federal and state laws require notice to affected individuals, law enforcement, regulators and others if there is a breach of the security of certain nonpublic personal information, including Social Security numbers. In addition, state laws and regulations restrict 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, particularly in light of the number and severity of recent U.S. companies’ data breaches. 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. Some states have recently enacted new insurance laws that require certain regulated entities to implement and maintain comprehensive information security programs to safeguard the personal information of insureds and enrollees.

The new cybersecurity regulation published by the NYSDFS, which became effective on March 1, 2017, with ongoing compliance deadlines over the following 24 months, requires banks, insurance companies, 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.” We are working to implement the requirements of the regulation and may be required to incur significant expense in order to meet its requirements. We anticipate that the NYSDFS will examine the cybersecurity programs of financial institutions in the future and that may result in additional regulatory scrutiny, expenditure of resources and possible regulatory actions and reputational harm. We are in the process of updating processes and procedures to comply with the new requirements. We cannot predict the effect or the amount of compliance costs that will be incurred if state and federal regulators pursue investigations and increase the regulatory requirements for the security of protected information.

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 above. As with all NAIC model laws, this model law must be adopted by a state before becoming law in such state. Neither Delaware nor Iowa has adopted a version of the Insurance Data Security Model Law. 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 insurance companies, 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.

Further, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, 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.


33

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Finally, 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 regulation. 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.

Broker-dealers

Our securities operations, principally conducted by our limited purpose SEC-registered broker-dealer, Athene Securities, LLC, are subject to federal and state securities and related laws, and are regulated principally by the SEC, state securities authorities and FINRA. Athene Securities, LLC does not hold customer funds or safekeep customer securities or otherwise engage in any securities transactions. Athene Securities, LLC was the principal underwriter of a block of variable annuity contracts which has been closed to new investors since 2002. The closed block of variable annuity contracts was issued by a predecessor of AAIA. Athene Securities, LLC continues to receive concessions on those variable annuity contracts. Athene Securities, LLC also provides supervisory oversight to Athene employees who are registered representatives.

Employees or personnel registered with Athene Securities, LLC 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, fines, 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, LLC 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 could limit operations that require the intensive use of capital, such as trading activities and underwriting, and may limit the ability of our broker-dealer subsidiaries to pay dividends to us.

ERISA

We also may be subject to regulation by the 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 U.S. 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. Our insurance businesses provide services to employee benefit plans subject to ERISA. 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 U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Internal Revenue Code) are subject to enforcement by the DOL, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Severe penalties are imposed for breach of duties under ERISA.

On April 6, 2016, the DOL issued the fiduciary rule which imposes upon third parties who sell annuities within ERISA plans or to individual retirement account (IRA) holders a fiduciary duty to retirement investors. For the year ended December 31, 2017, of our total deposits of $11.5 billion from our organic channels, 33% were associated with sales of FIAs to employee benefit plans and IRAs and 3% were associated with traditional fixed annuities sold to employee benefit plans and IRAs. The requirements of the fiduciary rule were originally scheduled to begin to be implemented on April 10, 2017, with full implementation on January 1, 2018. The DOL delayed the applicability date of the fiduciary rule for 60-days to June 9, 2017 and, in addition to delaying the applicability date, the DOL adjusted the exemption requirements that apply to sales in the interim period starting June 9, 2017 until the full compliance date of January 1, 2018. On July 6, 2017, the DOL issued a request for information regarding the fiduciary rule. The DOL indicated that the information gathered from the responses to the request for information “could form the basis of new exemptions or changes/revisions”. Along with the request for comments about the fiduciary rule and its impact, the DOL asked for commentary regarding the potential impact of extending the January 1, 2018 full compliance date. At the end of November 2017, the DOL published an amendment to the rule extending the full compliance date from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019.

We cannot predict with any certainty the impact of the regulation and exemptions, but the regulation and exemptions could alter the way our products and services are marketed and sold, particularly to purchasers of IRAs and individual retirement annuities. If fully implemented in its current form in July 2019, the DOL fiduciary rule could have an adverse effect on our ability to write new business.


34

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

The SEC has indicated that it will work with the DOL to propose rules creating a uniform standard of conduct applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers, which, if adopted, may affect the distribution of our products. In addition, the NAIC is working to propose changes to the SAT to include best interest. Should the SEC or NAIC rules, if adopted, not align with the finalized DOL fiduciary rule related to conflicts of interest in the provision of investment advice, the distribution of our products could be further complicated. The DOL has also issued a number of regulations recently, and may issue similar additional regulations, that increase the level of disclosure that must be provided to plan sponsors and participants. These ERISA disclosure requirements will likely increase the regulatory and compliance burden on us, resulting in increased costs.

Tax Reform

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the Tax Act into law, which introduced significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code. While our expectations may be subject to change as we continue to evaluate the impact of the Tax Act on our business, we expect the following notable impacts:

Overall tax rate – Although the Tax Act reduces corporate income tax rates to 21% beginning in 2018, it also imposes a new minimum tax, referred to as the BEAT, which taxes modified taxable income at a rate of 5% beginning in 2018, increasing to 10% in 2019 and 12.5% in 2026. In general, 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 payments to foreign affiliates, as well as the “base erosion percentage” of any net operating loss deductions. The BEAT applies only to the extent it exceeds a taxpayer’s regular corporate income tax liability (determined without regard to certain tax credits). The BEAT is expected to apply to our U.S. subsidiaries with respect to payments to our Bermuda subsidiary, ALRe. The BEAT does not apply to premium paid to ALRe directly by unaffiliated ceding companies or investment income earned on ALRe’s surplus assets, which together currently represent approximately 15-20% of our pre-tax income. In addition to the BEAT, the 1% excise tax (which is included in policy and other operating expenses on the consolidated statements of income) that we currently pay will remain in place for reinsurance payments to ALRe.

Within the context of affiliated modco arrangements, which is how much of our internal reinsurance is structured, it is our belief that the BEAT was generally intended to require the add back of the net amount paid or accrued by our U.S. subsidiaries to ALRe for premiums, investment income, reserve changes, other consideration and expenses (net basis). However, there is significant uncertainty regarding the computation of the BEAT in the context of affiliated modco arrangements, including whether the BEAT applies on a net basis or instead requires the add back of the gross amount paid or accrued, without reduction for claims or other expenses. In light of this uncertainty, we have begun to take actions that would allow us to mitigate the potential effect of the BEAT on our results of operations should the BEAT require the add back of the gross amounts in this manner. Depending on the ultimate interpretation of the Tax Act and the actions that we take, we currently expect that our overall tax rate will be between 12 – 16%, on average, beginning in 2019. Until there is more clarity regarding the computation of the BEAT in the context of modco arrangements, we anticipate that our 2018 annual financial results will reflect an overall tax rate of approximately 14 – 15%.

The estimated future overall tax rates presented above incorporate various assumptions and actual results may vary. See Item 1A. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Our Business–Our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and cash flows depend on the accuracy of our management’s assumptions and estimates, and we could face significant losses if these assumptions and estimates differ significantly from actual results and Item IA. Risk Factors–Risks Relating to Taxation–Our efforts to mitigate the cost of the BEAT may be unnecessary, ineffective or counterproductive.

Risk-based capital – Depending on the reaction of the NAIC to the passage of the Tax Act, the change in the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% could result in a reduction of our RBC ratios. At present, the NAIC RBC calculations employ the statutory corporate tax rate of 35% in calculating several aspects of RBC. If the NAIC RBC calculations simply employ the new statutory corporate tax rate of 21% with no other adjustments, our RBC ratios, along with those of other fixed annuity writers and life insurers in general, are expected to decrease. If such were the case as of December 31, 2017, we estimate the decrease to our overall NAIC RBC ratios would have been approximately 10 – 15%. Our capital ratios under the various rating agency models are not expected to be materially impacted by the change in tax rate, and those models are an important consideration in determining the appropriate levels of capital to run our business. Our initial assessment of the level of capital that we deem appropriate to run our business has not been impacted materially by the change in tax rate.

Deferred tax assets and liabilities – As a result of the reduction in the corporate income tax rate, we recorded a $7 million decrease to our deferred tax liability in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2017. See Note 15 – Income Taxes to the consolidated financial statements.

Target returns – Historically, we have generally targeted mid-teen returns for sources of organic growth and mid-teen or higher returns for sources of inorganic growth. The Tax Act may alter the way that we price our products or otherwise impact targeted returns on organic production and may further affect the returns that we target for sources of inorganic growth, in each case, potentially resulting in a decrease of our targeted returns on a temporary or permanent basis. In addition, we expect that the Tax Act will cause a reduction of the returns that we realize on our in-force business.


35

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Other provisions of the Tax Act could significantly increase the tax liability of our U.S. subsidiaries in future tax periods by accelerating items of income or deferring deductions. Although the acceleration of an item of income or deferral of a deduction in one tax period allows a taxpayer to recognize less taxable income in a future period, there can be no assurance that we will be able to utilize any resulting deferred tax assets in future tax periods.

The foregoing represents our initial expectations of certain of the effects of the Tax Act and may be subject to change as additional guidance is made available and as we continue to evaluate the effect of this legislation on our business. See Item 1A. Risk FactorsRisks Relating to Taxation for further information on how the Tax Act could impact us.


Bermuda

General

The Bermuda Insurance Act regulates the insurance business of ALRe, and provides that no person may carry on any insurance business in or from within Bermuda unless registered as an insurer under the Bermuda Insurance Act by the BMA. The BMA is required by the Bermuda Insurance Act to determine whether the 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 –Fit and Proper Controllers 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 to the BMA powers to supervise, investigate and intervene in the affairs of insurance companies.

The Bermuda Insurance Act imposes on Bermuda insurance companies solvency standards as well as auditing and reporting requirements. Certain significant aspects of the Bermuda insurance regulatory framework are set forth below.

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 (property and casualty business). Special purpose business is fully funded insurance business approved by the BMA to be written by a company registered as a Special Purpose 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.

ALRe, which is incorporated to carry on long-term business, is registered as a Class E insurer which 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. ALRe is not licensed to conduct general business and has not sought authorization as a reinsurer in any state or jurisdiction of the U.S. Consequently, in order for its ceding companies to receive statutory reserve or RBC credit for the reinsurance provided by ALRe; ALRe typically structures its reinsurance transactions in one of three ways: (1) coinsurance, where ALRe’s liabilities to ceding companies in connection with reinsurance transactions are secured by assets held in trust for the benefit of the applicable ceding company, (2) funds withheld, where, although ALRe recognizes an insurance reserve liability, the assets to secure such liabilities are held and maintained by the applicable ceding company, or (3) modco, where both the insurance reserves and assets supporting the reserves are retained by the applicable ceding company.

Cancellation of Insurer’s Registration

The BMA could revoke or suspend ALRe’s license in circumstances in which (1) it is shown that false, misleading or inaccurate information has been supplied to the BMA by ALRe or on its behalf for the purposes of any provision of the Bermuda Insurance Act, (2) ALRe has ceased to carry on business, (3) ALRe has persistently failed to pay fees due under the Bermuda Insurance Act, (4) ALRe has been shown to have not complied with a condition attached to its registration or with a requirement made of it under the Bermuda Insurance Act, (5) ALRe is convicted of an offense against a provision of the Bermuda Insurance Act or (6) ALRe is, in the opinion of the BMA, found not to have been carrying on business in accordance with sound insurance principles.

Head Office and Principal Representative

An insurer is required to establish and maintain its head and principal office in Bermuda, which requires certain officers and a director to reside in Bermuda, and to appoint and maintain a principal representative in Bermuda. It is the duty of the principal representative to forthwith notify the BMA where the principal representative believes there is a likelihood of the insurer becoming insolvent or that a reportable “event” has, to the principal representative’s knowledge, occurred or is believed to have occurred. Examples of such a reportable “event” include failure by the insurer to comply substantially with a condition imposed upon the insurer by the BMA relating to a solvency margin or other ratio or a significant loss which is likely to cause the insurer to fail to comply with its Enhanced Capital Requirement (ECR), as discussed below.


36

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Public Disclosure

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.

Independent Approved Auditor

Insurers must appoint an independent auditor who will annually audit and report on the insurer’s statutory financial statements (Bermuda Financial Statements) and financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (GAAP) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), each of which are required to be filed annually with the BMA. The auditor must be approved by the BMA as the independent auditor of the insurer.

Approved Actuary

Long-term insurers must appoint an actuary approved by the BMA. In order to be approved, the actuary must be a member in good standing of either the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, the Casualty Actuarial Society, the Institute of Actuaries of Australia, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (for the United Kingdom (UK)), the Society of Actuaries, the American Academy of Actuaries or a member of an actuarial body recognized by the BMA. Additionally, the actuary must be qualified to provide an opinion in accordance with the requirements of the Bermuda Insurance Act.

A Class E insurer is required to submit annually an opinion of its approved actuary with its capital and solvency return. The approved actuary’s opinion must state, among other things, whether or not the aggregate amount of technical provisions shown in the statutory economic balance sheet as of the end of the relevant financial year meets the requirements of the Bermuda Insurance Act and makes reasonable provision for the total technical provisions of the insurer under the terms of its insurance contracts and agreements.

Non-insurance Business

Pursuant to the Bermuda Insurance Act, as a Class E insurer, ALRe is not permitted to engage in non-insurance business unless that 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.

Annual Financial Statements, Annual Statutory Financial Return and Annual Capital and Solvency Return

Class E insurers must file annual Bermuda Financial Statements and financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP or IFRS within four months of the end of each fiscal year, unless such deadline is specifically extended. The Bermuda Insurance Act prescribes rules for the preparation and substance of statutory financial returns, which include, in statutory form, an insurer information sheet, an auditor’s report, a balance sheet, income statement, a statement of capital and surplus and notes thereto. The Bermuda Financial Statements include detailed information and analysis regarding premiums, claims, reinsurance and investments of the insurer.

In addition, each year a Class E insurer is 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 insurer’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.

Minimum Margin of Solvency (MMS), ECR and Restrictions on Dividends and Distributions

Class E insurers must at all times maintain an MMS and an 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.


37

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

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. Under the Bermuda Insurance Act, ALRe is prohibited 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 ALRe’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 ALRe to fail to meet its relevant margins. In certain instances, ALRe 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 ALRe meeting its MMS and ECR, ALRe 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, ALRe 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. ALRe 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.

At the time of filing its statutory financial statements, a Class E insurer is also required to deliver to the BMA a declaration of compliance, in such form and with such content as may be prescribed by the BMA, declaring whether or not the Class E insurer has, with respect to the preceding financial year (1) complied with all requirements of the minimum criteria applicable to it; (2) complied with the MMS as of its financial year end; (3) complied with the applicable enhanced capital requirements as of its financial year end; and (4) complied with applicable conditions, directions and restrictions imposed on, or approvals granted to, the Class E insurer. The declaration of compliance is required to be signed by two directors of the Class E insurer and if the Class E insurer has failed to comply with any of the requirements referenced in (1) through (4) above or observe any limitations, restrictions or conditions imposed upon the issuance of its license, if applicable, the Class E insurer will be required to provide the BMA with details of such failure in writing. A Class E insurer shall be subject to a civil penalty in the form of a fine for failure to comply with a duty imposed on it in connection with the delivery of the declaration of compliance.

The MMS 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.

The BMA has embedded an economic balance sheet (EBS) framework as part of the Capital and Solvency Return 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) a Class E Insurer must have total statutory capital and surplus as reported on the insurer’s statutory balance sheet greater than the 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 to an amount that is equal to or exceeds the value of its ECR.

A Class E insurer is required to maintain available statutory capital and surplus at a level equal to or in excess of its ECR which is established by reference to the Class E BSCR model. The BSCR model provides a method for determining an insurer’s capital requirements (statutory 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 factors to asset, premium, reserve, creditor, probable maximum loss and operation items, with higher factors applied to items with greater underlying risk and lower factors for less risky items.

As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, ALRe’s EBS capital and surplus resulted in BSCR ratios of 354% and 228%, respectively. 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 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 Class E 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 Class E 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 Class E insurer shall furnish the BMA with (1) unaudited statutory economic balance sheets and unaudited interim statutory financial statements prepared in accordance with 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.

All Bermuda companies must comply with the provisions of the Companies Act regulating the payment of dividends and making distributions from contributed surplus. 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.


38

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Eligible Capital

To enable the BMA to better assess the quality of the insurer’s capital resources, a Class E insurer is 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.

The characteristics of the capital instruments that must be satisfied to qualify as Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 Capital are set out in the Insurance (Eligible Capital) Rules 2012, and any amendments thereto. Under these rules, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 Capital may, until January 1, 2024, include capital instruments that do not satisfy the requirement that the instrument be non-redeemable or settled only with the issuance of an instrument of equal or higher quality upon a breach, or that the coupon payment on the instrument be cancellable or deferrable indefinitely, upon breach, or if it would cause a breach, of the ECR.

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. We do not currently use any such instruments.

Code of Conduct

Every Bermuda registered insurer must comply with the Insurance Code of Conduct (Code of Conduct) which prescribes the duties and standards that must be complied with to ensure sound corporate governance, risk management and internal controls are implemented. The BMA will assess an insurer’s compliance with the Code of Conduct in a proportionate manner relative to the nature, scale and complexity of its business. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Code of Conduct will be taken into account by the BMA in determining whether an insurer 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) and, in the case of ALRe, as a Class E insurer, will be a factor in calculating the operational risk charge under the insurer’s BSCR or approved internal model.

Fit and Proper Controllers

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 shareholder 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 shareholder 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 shareholders’ 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 shareholders’ 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 shareholders’ meeting.

Under the Bermuda Insurance Act, shareholder controller ownership is defined as follows:
Actual Shareholder Controller Voting Power
Defined Shareholder 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 shareholder becomes a 10%, 20%, 33%, or 50% shareholder controller of the insurer, that shareholder shall, within 45 days, notify the BMA in writing that such shareholder has become, or as a result of a disposition ceased to be, a controller of any such category.

Under our bye-laws, we have imposed restrictions on the ownership by holders of our Class A common shares (other than the Apollo Group) controlling more than 9.9% of the voting power associated with our common shares. The voting rights exercisable by shareholders of the Company other than the Apollo Group will be limited so that Control Groups are not deemed to hold more than 9.9% of the total voting power conferred by our shares. In addition, our board of directors retains certain discretion to make adjustments to the aggregate number of votes attaching to the shares of any person or group that they consider fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that such person or group will not hold more than 9.9% of the total voting power represented by our then outstanding shares. As such, other than the Apollo Group (at the 33% shareholder controller level), no shareholder will be considered, according to the Bermuda Insurance Act, a shareholder controller of ALRe.


39

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

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 description where 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.

Notice of Change of Controllers and Officers

All registered insurers are required to give written notice to the BMA of the fact that a person has become, or ceased to be, a controller or officer of the registered insurer within 45 days of becoming aware of such fact. An officer in relation to a registered insurer means a director, chief executive or senior executive performing duties of underwriting, actuarial, risk management, compliance, internal audit, finance or investment matters.

Notification of Material Changes

All registered insurers are required to give notice to the BMA of their intention to effect 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 unaffiliated, third-party 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 and 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 a registered insurer, ALRe may not take any steps to give effect to such a material change unless it has first served notice on the BMA that it intends to effect such material change and before the end of 30 days, either the BMA has notified ALRe in writing that it 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 would be required to serve upon ALRe a preliminary written notice stating the BMA’s intention to issue formal notice of objection. Upon receipt of the preliminary written notice, ALRe could, within 28 days, file written representations with the BMA which the BMA would be required to take into account in making its final determination.

Supervision, Investigation and Intervention

The BMA may appoint an inspector with powers to investigate the affairs of an insurer if the BMA believes that an investigation is required in the interests of the insurer’s policyholders or potential policyholders. In order to verify or supplement information otherwise provided to the inspector, the BMA may direct an insurer to produce documents or information relating to matters connected with its business.

If it appears to the BMA that there is a risk of an insurer becoming insolvent, or that it is in breach of the Bermuda Insurance Act or any conditions imposed upon its registration, the BMA may, among other things, direct the insurer (1) not to take on any new insurance business, (2) not to vary any insurance contract if the effect would be to increase its liabilities, (3) not to make certain investments, (4) to realize certain investments, (5) to maintain or transfer to the custody of a specified bank, certain assets, (6) not to declare or pay any dividends or other distributions or to restrict the making of such payments, (7) to limit its premium income, (8) not to enter into any specified transaction with any specified persons or persons of a specified class, (9) to provide such written particulars relating to the financial circumstances of the insurer as the BMA thinks fit, (10) to obtain the opinion of an actuary loss reserve specialist and to submit it to the BMA, and (11) to remove a controller or officer.


40

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Group Supervision

The BMA may, in respect of an insurance group, determine whether it is appropriate for it to act as its group supervisor. An insurance group is defined as a group of companies that conducts exclusively, or mainly, insurance business. The BMA may make such determination where it ascertains that (1) the group is headed by a “specified insurer” (that is to say, it is headed by either a Class 3A, Class 3B or Class 4 general business insurer or a Class C, Class D or Class E long-term insurer or another class of insurer designated by order of the BMA); or (2) where the insurance group is not headed by a “specified insurer,” where it is headed by a parent company which is incorporated in Bermuda or (3) where the parent company of the group is not a Bermuda company, in circumstances where the BMA is satisfied that the insurance group is directed and managed from Bermuda or the insurer with the largest balance sheet total is a specified insurer.

Where the BMA determines that it should act as the group supervisor, it shall designate a specified insurer that is a member of the insurance group to be the designated insurer (Designated Insurer) and it shall give to the Designated Insurer and other competent authorities written notice of its intention to act as group supervisor. Once the BMA has been designated as group supervisor, the Designated Insurer must ensure that an approved group actuary is appointed to provide an opinion as to the adequacy of the insurance group’s insurance reserves as reported in its group statutory financial returns.

Pursuant to its powers under the Bermuda Insurance Act, the BMA will maintain a register of particulars for every insurance group for which it acts as the group supervisor detailing, among other things, the names and addresses of the Designated Insurer, each member company of the insurance group falling within the scope of group supervision, the principal representative of the insurance group in Bermuda, other competent authorities supervising other member companies of the insurance group, and the insurance group auditors. The Designated Insurer must notify the BMA of any changes to the above details entered on the register of an insurance group.

As group supervisor, the BMA will perform a number of supervisory functions including (1) coordinating the gathering and dissemination of information which is of importance for the supervisory task of other competent authorities, (2) carrying out a supervisory review and assessment of the insurance group, (3) carrying out an assessment of the insurance group’s compliance with the rules on solvency, risk concentration, intra-group transactions and good governance procedures, (4) planning and coordinating, with other competent authorities, supervisory activities in respect of the insurance group, both as a going concern and in emergency situations, (5) coordinating any enforcement action 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.

In carrying out its functions, the BMA may make rules for (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.

The BMA has not yet designated any long-term life reinsurers, such as ALRe, for group supervision, accordingly, we are not currently subject to group supervision. The BMA may, however, exercise its authority to act as our group supervisor in the future.

Disclosure of Information

In addition to powers under the Bermuda Insurance Act to investigate the affairs of an insurer, the BMA may require certain information from an insurer (or certain other persons) to be produced to the BMA. Further, the BMA has been given powers to assist other regulatory authorities, including foreign insurance regulatory authorities, with their investigations involving insurance and reinsurance companies in Bermuda but subject to restrictions. For example, the BMA must be satisfied that the assistance being requested is in connection with the discharge of regulatory responsibilities of the foreign regulatory authority. Further, the BMA must consider whether cooperation is in the public interest. The grounds for disclosure are limited and the Bermuda Insurance Act provides for sanctions for breach of the statutory duty of confidentiality.

Certain Other Bermuda Law Considerations

All Bermuda “exempted companies” are exempt from certain Bermuda laws restricting the percentage of share capital that may be held by non-Bermudians. However, exempted companies may not participate in certain business transactions, including (1) the acquisition or holding of land in Bermuda except that which is required for their business and held by way of lease or tenancy for terms of not more than 50 years or, with the consent of the Bermuda Minister of Finance, land which is used to provide accommodation or recreational facilities for officers and employees for a term not exceeding 21 years, (2) the taking of mortgages on land in Bermuda to secure an amount in excess of $50,000 without the consent of the Bermuda Minister of Finance, (3) the acquisition of any bonds or debentures secured by any land in Bermuda, other than certain types of Bermuda government securities or securities issued by Bermuda public authorities or (4) the carrying on of business of any kind in Bermuda, except in furtherance of the business carried on outside Bermuda or under license granted by the Bermuda Minister of Finance. Generally it is not permitted without a special license granted by the Bermuda Minister of Finance to insure Bermuda domestic risks or risks of persons of, in or based in Bermuda.


41

Table of Contents

Item 1.    Business

Exchange Control

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 (which includes the Class A common 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 any “Equity Securities” of the company (which includes the Class A common shares) are listed on an “Appointed Stock Exchange” (which includes the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)). The BMA accepts no responsibility for our financial soundness or the correctness of any of the statements made or opinions expressed in this report.


Available Information

Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to reports filed pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act are made available, free of charge, on or through the “Investor Relations” 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. The public may read and copy any materials we have filed with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room located at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 800-SEC-0330. 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.



42

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Risks Relating to Our Business

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

We make and rely on certain assumptions and estimates regarding many items, including interest rates, investment returns, expenses and operating costs, tax assets and liabilities, business mix, surrender activity, mortality and contingent liabilities, related to our business and anticipated results that affect amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto. 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, determining the amount of reserves we are required to hold for our policy liabilities, the price we will pay to acquire or reinsure business, the hedging strategies to manage risks to our business and operations and the amount of regulatory and rating agency capital that our insurance subsidiaries must hold to support their businesses. The factors influencing these business decisions cannot be predicted with certainty and if our assumptions and estimates differ significantly from actual outcomes and results, our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and cash flows may be materially and adversely affected.

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. 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 differences between actual and expected withdrawals from our subsidiaries’ products.

Certain of our deferred annuity products also contain optional benefit riders, including guaranteed lifetime income or death benefits, that may be exercised at certain points of time under the terms of a contract. We set prices for such products using assumptions about mortality, the rate of election of deferred annuity living benefits and other optional benefits offered to our policyholders. The profitability of these products may be lower than expected if actual policyholder utilization of these benefits varies adversely from our assumptions.

We license analytic software with actuarial modeling capabilities from third parties to facilitate the pricing of our products, make projections of our in-force business for planning purposes and objectively assess the risks in our subsidiaries’ insurance and reinsurance asset and liability portfolios. These actuarial models help us to measure and control risk accumulation, inform management and other stakeholders of capital requirements and manage the risk/return profile and amount of capital required to cover the risks in each of our subsidiaries’ insurance and reinsurance contracts and our overall portfolio of insurance and reinsurance contracts. However, given the inherent uncertainty of modeling techniques and the application of such techniques, these models and databases may not accurately address the emergence of a variety of matters which might impact certain of our subsidiaries’ products. Accordingly, these models may inaccurately predict the exposures that our subsidiaries are assuming and our financial results may be adversely impacted, perhaps significantly.

If emerging or actual experience deviates from our assumptions regarding any of the above factors, such deviations could have a significant effect on our reserve levels and our related results of operations and financial condition. 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 them. Conversely, if policies lapse at a significantly higher rate than expected, we may need to accelerate the amortization of deferred acquisition costs (DAC), value of business acquired (VOBA) and deferred sales inducement (DSI) balances. 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. We have limited experience to date on policyholder behavior for our guaranteed minimum benefit products. As a result, future experience could deviate significantly from our assumptions. Such acceleration of expense amortization, reduced spread or increased payments could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Determination of Fair Value

As defined under GAAP, fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability between market participants in the principal market or in the most advantageous market when no principal market exists. Adjustments to transaction prices or quoted market prices may be required in illiquid or disorderly markets in order to estimate fair value. Different valuation techniques may be appropriate under the circumstances to determine the value that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction. Market participants are assumed to be independent, knowledgeable, able and willing to transact an exchange and not under duress. Nonperformance or credit risk is considered in determining fair value. Considerable judgment may be required in interpreting market data used to develop the estimates of 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.


43

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

For example, the valuation of investments involves considerable judgment, is subject to considerable variability and is revised as additional information becomes available. As such, changes in, or deviations from, the assumptions used in such valuations can significantly affect our financial statements. 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 has been and will likely continue to be difficult to value certain of our investments, such as certain of our real-estate related investments, structured products and alternative investments. There may be certain asset classes in active markets with significant observable data that could become illiquid in a difficult financial environment. 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. Our ability to sell investments, or the price ultimately realized for investments, depends upon the demand and liquidity in the market and increases the use of judgment in determining the estimated fair value of certain investments. Even if our assumptions and valuations are accurate at the time that they are made, the same factors influencing our valuations of such investments could cause the market value of these investments to decline, which could materially and adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Additionally, we also use, and may in the future 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 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 also rely on assumptions and projections regarding our assets, liabilities (including with respect to the optional benefits offered as part of our products), general market factors and the creditworthiness of our counterparties that may prove to be incorrect or inadequate. Accordingly, our hedging activities may not have the desired beneficial impact on our financial condition or results of operations. Hedging strategies involve transaction and other costs, and if we terminate any hedging arrangements, including reinsurance contracts, we may also be required to pay additional costs, such as transaction fees or breakage costs. We may also incur losses on transactions after taking into account our hedging strategies, which may have a material and adverse effect on our financial condition and cash flows.

Financial Statements and Results

The preparation of our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto in accordance with GAAP requires management to make various estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts in our financial statements. 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, DAC, DSI and VOBA, future policy benefit reserves, valuation allowances on deferred tax assets, and stock-based compensation. For example, the calculations we use to estimate DAC, DSI and VOBA are necessarily complex and involve analyzing and interpreting large quantities of data. 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 results may be adversely affected from time to time by actual results differing from assumptions, changes in estimates and changes resulting from implementing more sophisticated administrative systems and procedures that facilitate the calculation of more precise estimates. Any of these inaccuracies could require us, among other things, to accelerate the amortization of DAC, DSI and VOBA, which would result in a charge to earnings, or in a restatement of our historical financial statements or other material adjustments to our financial statements. Additionally, the potential for unforeseen developments, including changes in laws, may result in losses and loss expenses materially different from the reserves initially established, which could also materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

BEAT Mitigating Actions

In light of the possibility of material additional tax cost to our U.S. subsidiaries and the lack of clear guidance regarding the appropriate method by which to compute the BEAT, we are undertaking certain actions and exploring various alternatives intended to mitigate the potential effect of the BEAT on our results of operations in the event it is determined that none of the amounts paid or accrued by ALRe to our U.S. subsidiaries are taken into account in the calculation of “base erosion payments” or “base erosion tax benefit.” We have made estimates regarding the overall tax rate we expect to experience as a result of undertaking such actions. The determination of each such figure, or range of figures, involves numerous estimates and assumptions regarding the efficacy of such actions in bringing about the desired outcomes and the magnitude of such outcomes to be experienced. To the extent that actual experience differs from the estimates and assumptions inherent in our projections, our future overall tax rate may deviate materially from the estimates provided and our financial condition and results of operations may be materially less favorable than are implied by the projections provided.


44

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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 U.S. 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, ALRe is subject to MCR imposed by the BMA through its ECR and MMS. The BSCR is based on the BMA’s Economic Balance Sheet (EBS) regulatory framework, which was granted equivalency to Solvency II in March 2016.

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

the amount of statutory income or losses generated by our insurance subsidiaries (which itself is sensitive to equity, credit, and real estate market conditions);
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;
the value of certain derivative instruments;
changes in interest rates;
credit market volatility;
changes in policyholder behavior;
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.

The financial strength and credit ratings of our insurance subsidiaries are significantly influenced by their statutory surplus amounts and these MCRs. 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. Additional statutory reserves may be required as the result of mandatory annual asset adequacy analysis, and rising or falling interest rates and widening credit spreads could alter this cash flow testing analysis. In addition, NRSROs may downgrade the investments held in our portfolio, which could result in impairments and therefore a reduction of the RBC ratios of our U.S. domiciled insurance subsidiaries or an increase in the ECR of ALRe. Lower corporate tax rates may also impact capital and capital ratios such as RBC ratios, as lower tax rates reduce the value of deferred tax assets and may lower the calculated RBC ratio. However, following the adoption of the recent tax changes, the NAIC and the rating agencies have yet to promulgate changes to their capital models and factors.

To the extent that one of our insurance subsidiary’s solvency or capital ratios is deemed to be insufficient by one or more NRSROs, 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. 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, including limitations on our subsidiaries’ ability to write additional business, supervision by regulators, seizure or liquidation, each of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

The BMA released consultation papers in November 2016, March 2017 and November 2017 that propose further updates to certain aspects of the EBS framework. The BMA is expected to release final guidance mid-2018 after reviewing industry trial run results of these changes. The final rules are expected to take effect on January 1, 2019. If the final guidance, when completed and adopted, materially increases the ECR, it could materially and adversely affect our BSCR ratio and, correspondingly, our capital in excess of BMA requirements.


45

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Interest rate fluctuations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations 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 and liabilities, primarily as a result of issuing or reinsuring fixed deferred and immediate annuities and investing primarily in fixed income assets. As of December 31, 2017, reserves for fixed deferred and immediate annuities net of reinsurance made up the substantial majority of our reserve liabilities. Substantial and sustained increases or decreases in market interest rates can affect the profitability of our insurance products and the fair value of our investments. These fluctuations could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations 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 the crediting rates to our policyholders, which are a significant source of our adjusted operating income. We have the ability to adjust crediting rates, including caps and participation rates for FIAs, on many of our annuity liabilities (subject to minimum guaranteed values). However, we may not be able to adjust such rates in a timely manner or to the extent desired to adequately respond to the effect that changes in interest rates may have on the returns on our investments. Many of our annuity products have surrender and withdrawal penalty provisions designed to prevent early policyholder withdrawals in rising interest rate environments and to help ensure targeted spreads are earned. However, competitive factors, including the need or desire to manage levels of surrenders and withdrawals, may limit our ability to adjust or maintain crediting rates at levels necessary to avoid narrowing of spreads under certain market conditions.

Changes in interest rates may also negatively affect the value of our assets and our ability to realize gains or avoid losses from the sale of those assets, all of which also ultimately affect our earnings and/or capital. Significant volatility in interest rates may have a larger adverse impact on certain assets in our investment portfolio which are highly structured or have limited liquidity, including our real estate-related assets, structured products and alternative investments, which may not have active trading markets, making the disposition of such assets difficult.

Changes in interest rates may also affect changes in prepayment rates on certain of the real estate-related assets, structured products and alternative investments in which we invest. 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 economic losses, which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

During periods of declining interest rates or a prolonged period of low interest rates, life insurance and annuity products may be relatively more attractive to consumers due to minimum guarantees that are mandated by law or by regulators at the time that we price these products, resulting in a higher persistency than we anticipated, potentially resulting in greater claims costs on our guaranteed minimum benefit riders than we expected and cash flow mismatches between our assets and liabilities. In addition, the surrender and withdrawal penalties we impose on certain of our annuity products may further increase persistency during such periods. Certain statutory capital and reserve requirements are based on formulas or models that consider interest rates, and an extended period of low interest rates may increase the statutory capital we are required to hold and the amount of assets we must allocate to support statutory reserves, which could decrease the spread income that we are able to earn from these products. This reduced spread could also force us to accelerate amortization of DAC and/or VOBA, which would have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, 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 lower-credit instruments in order to maintain comparable returns, each of which could have a material and adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Certain securitized financial assets are accounted for based on expectations of future cash flows. To the extent the coupon on these instruments or the underlying collateral is based on a reference rate (for example, LIBOR), we use the market observed forward curve in our cash flow projections. As of December 31, 2017, we held $22.4 billion of securitized financial assets that have floating rate coupons or adjustable rate collateral. To the extent 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, which would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

An extended period of declining interest rates or a prolonged period of low interest rates may cause us to change our long-term view of the interest rates that we can earn on our investments, causing us to change the long-term interest rate that we assume in our evaluation of our insurance liabilities, reducing the attractiveness of our subsidiaries’ products.


46

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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 because of increases in interest rates. This may result in realized investment losses. Regardless of whether we realize an investment loss, such cash payments would result in a decrease in total invested assets and may decrease our levels of profitability or results of operations. Premature withdrawals or unexpected surrenders may also cause us to accelerate amortization of DAC and/or VOBA, which would also adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

An increase in market interest rates could also reduce the value of certain of our alternative investments held as collateral under reinsurance agreements and create a need for ALRe to provide additional collateral to support the reserve requirements of our ceding companies, 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, when needed.

We operate in a highly competitive industry that includes a number of competitors, many of which are larger and more well-known than we are, 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. These companies compete for an increasing pool of retirement assets, driven primarily by aging of the U.S. population and the reduction in, and concerns about the viability of, financial safety nets historically provided by governments and employers. In each of our subsidiaries’ businesses we face intense competition, including from U.S. and non-U.S. insurance and reinsurance companies, broker-dealers, financial advisors, asset managers and diversified financial institutions, both for customers for our subsidiaries’ products and in the acquisition and block reinsurance markets. We compete based on a number of factors including perceived financial strength, 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.

In recent years, there has been substantial consolidation among companies in the financial services industry due to economic turmoil resulting in increased competition from large, efficient, well-capitalized financial services firms. Many of our competitors are large and well-established and some have greater market share or breadth of distribution, offer a broader range of products, services or features, assume a greater level of risk while maintaining financial strength ratings or have higher financial strength, claims-paying or credit ratings than we do. Our competitors may also have lower operating costs or return on capital requirements than we do which may allow them to price products, reinsurance arrangements or acquisitions more competitively. The competitive pressures arising from consolidation could result in increased pressure on the pricing of certain of our products and services, and could harm our ability to maintain or increase profitability. In addition, if our financial strength and credit ratings remain lower than the ratings of certain of our competitors, we may experience increased surrenders and/or an inability to reach sales targets, which may have a material and adverse effect on our growth, business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

A significant portion of our retail annuities are sold through a proprietary distribution network.

We distribute annuity products through independent producers affiliated with certain IMOs. A significant portion of our retail annuity production results from sales of product in our BalancedChoice Annuity product series, which contains certain product features that are licensed from a third-party actuarial firm. Only IMOs which are affiliated with the Annexus Group are permitted to distribute the BalancedChoice Annuity product series. If we experienced a disruption in our relationship with the Annexus Group, it could have an adverse effect for a period of time on our annuity sales of this product series.

We are subject to general economic conditions, including prevailing interest rates, levels of unemployment and financial and equity and credit market performance, which may affect, among other things, our ability to sell our products, the fair value of our investments and whether such investments become impaired and the surrender rate and profitability of our policies.

Factors such as equity prices, equity market volatility, interest rates, counterparty risks, availability of credit, inflation rates, economic uncertainty, changes in laws or regulations (including laws relating to the financial markets generally or the taxation or regulation of the insurance industry), trade barriers, commodity prices, currency exchange rates and controls and national and international political circumstances (including governmental instability, wars, terrorist acts or security operations) can have a material impact on the value of our investment portfolio and our subsidiaries’ ability to sell their products. Equity market volatility can negatively affect our revenues and profitability in various ways, particularly as a result of guaranteed minimum withdrawal or surrender benefits in our products. The estimated cost of providing guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits incorporates various assumptions about the overall performance of equity markets over certain time periods. Periods of significant and sustained downturns in equity markets, increased equity volatility or reduced interest rates could result in an increase in the valuation of the future policy benefit or policyholder account balance liabilities associated with such products, resulting in a reduction in our revenues and net income. The rate of amortization of DAC and VOBA costs relating to FIA products and the cost of providing guaranteed minimum withdrawal or surrender benefits could also increase if equity market performance is worse than assumed, which could have a material and adverse effect on our growth, business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


47

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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, liquidity and results of operations.

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. We are also subject to the risk that cash flows resulting from payments on assets that serve as collateral underlying the structured products we own may differ from our expectations in timing or size. In addition, many of our classes of investments, but in particular our alternative investments, may produce investment income that fluctuates from period to period and is more variable than may be the case with other asset classes, such as corporate bonds. 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 and cash flows. If our investment manager, AAM, fails to react appropriately to difficult market, economic and geopolitical conditions, our investment portfolio could incur material losses. Some of our investments are more vulnerable to these risks than others, as described more fully below.

As of December 31, 2017, 81% of our total invested assets were invested 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. As of December 31, 2017, 48% of our total invested assets were invested in non-structured investment grade bonds, 3% in high-yield non-structured securities, and 6% in structured securities (other than CMBS, RMBS and CLOs). Issuers or guarantors of such fixed income securities may default on principal or interest payments they owe us, or the underlying collateral may default on such payments, causing an adverse change in cash flows. An economic downturn affecting the issuers or underlying collateral of these securities, a ratings downgrade 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.

As of December 31, 2017, 7% of our total invested assets were invested in senior and mezzanine tranches issued by CLOs and 0.2% were invested in equity tranches issued by CLOs. As of December 31, 2017, 95% of our investments in CLOs were managed by Apollo and its affiliates other than AAM. CLOs are a form of securitization where payments from multiple large business loans, generally below investment grade, are pooled together and sold to different classes of owners in various tranches. Senior tranches of CLOs have some protection from credit losses by more junior tranches while junior tranches often have higher yields than those of the collateral loans and receive higher coupons to compensate for higher risk. CLOs thus provide investment opportunities with varying risk/return profiles and diversified exposure to multiple borrowers. 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, as subordinated interests, the estimated fair values of CLOs tend to be much more sensitive to adverse economic downturns and underlying borrower defaults than those of more senior securities. For example, as the secondary market pricing of the loans underlying CLOs deteriorated during the fourth quarter of 2008, it is our understanding that many investors were forced to raise cash by selling their interests in performing loans which resulted in a forced deleveraging cycle of price declines, compulsory sales and further price declines. While loan prices have recovered from the low levels experienced during the financial crisis, conditions in the large corporate leveraged loan market may deteriorate again, which may cause pricing levels to decline. 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, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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 AHL shareholders’ equity could be negative for the period of time prior to any potential market recovery. See Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risks.

A decline in fair value below the amortized cost of a security requires management to assess whether an other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) has occurred. The decision on whether to record an OTTI is determined in part by our assessment of the financial condition and prospects of a particular issuer, projections of future cash flows and recoverability of the particular security as well as management’s assertion of whether it is more likely than not that we will sell the particular security before recovery.


48

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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.

As of December 31, 2017, 25% of our invested assets were linked to real estate, including 16% fixed maturity and equity securities, such as CMBS and RMBS, 8% commercial mortgage loans (CML) and RML, and 1% real estate held for investment. 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, the value of our real estate-related assets depends in part on the financial condition of the borrowers, the value of the real properties underlying the mortgages and, for commercial properties, the financial condition of the tenants of the properties underlying those mortgages, as well as general and specific economic trends affecting the overall default rate. 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, 2017, 29% of our holdings in 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 mortgage prepayment behavior can be significant, and could cause a decline in the estimated fair value of certain “interest only” securities or loans.

The CML we hold, and CML underlying the CMBS that we hold, face both default and delinquency risk. For CML that we hold directly, we establish loan specific estimated impairments at each balance sheet date based on the excess carrying value of a loan over the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate, the estimated fair value of the loan’s collateral if the loan is in the process of foreclosure or otherwise collateral dependent, or the loan’s observable market price. We also establish valuation allowances for loan losses when it is probable that a credit event has occurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2017, our CML investments comprised 7% of our total invested assets, of which 0.01% were in the process of foreclosure. 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. Certain markets within those areas experienced significant decreases in home values during the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the years thereafter. 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. While we actively monitor our exposure to these and other risks inherent in this strategy, we cannot assure you that our hedging and risk management strategies will be effective; any failure to manage these risks effectively could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. A rise in home prices, the concern over further introduction of or changes to government policies aimed at altering prepayment behavior, and an increased availability of housing-related credit 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 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 a servicer 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 non-performing 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 in a prudent, commercially reasonable manner or which underlie a RMBS in which we are invested 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. 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 U.S., the South Atlantic states and the Gulf Coast. While loss experience in the event of a catastrophic event is contingent upon many factors, including the insured status of the underlying property and the seniority of our investment, in the case of structured securities, a catastrophic event impacting one or more of the aforementioned regions may cause some portion of the invested assets invested in assets linked to real estate to become impaired, which may have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

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. For example, our investment in RML could result in claims being assessed against us as a mortgage holder or property owner, including assignee liability, responsibility for tax payments, environmental hazards and other liabilities, including liabilities under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. We may continue to be liable under such claims after foreclosing on a property securing a mortgage loan held by us. 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. Any adverse environmental claim or regulatory action against us resulting from our investment in RML could adversely impact our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.


49

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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 to cover policyholder withdrawals or to meet our insurance, reinsurance or other obligations.

We offer certain products that allow policyholders to withdraw their funds under defined circumstances. In order to meet such obligations, we seek to manage our liabilities and configure our investment portfolios to provide and maintain sufficient liquidity to support expected withdrawal demands and contract benefits and maturities. However, in order to provide necessary long-term returns and to achieve our strategic goals, a certain portion of our assets are relatively illiquid. 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.

We record our relatively illiquid types of investments at fair value. If we were forced to sell certain of our assets, there can be no assurance that we would be able to sell them for the prices at which we have recorded them and we might be forced to sell them at significantly lower prices. In many cases, we may be prohibited by contract or applicable securities laws from selling such securities for a period of time. When we hold a security or position, it is vulnerable to price and value fluctuations and may experience losses if we are unable to timely sell, hedge or transfer the position. Thus, it may be impossible or costly for us to liquidate positions rapidly in order to meet unexpected 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.

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

Concentration risk arises from exposure to significant asset defaults of a single issuer, industry or class of securities, based on economic conditions, geography or as a result of adverse regulatory or court decisions. When an investor’s assets are concentrated and that particular asset or class of assets experiences significant defaults, the default of such assets could threaten the investor’s financial condition. Our most significant potential exposures to concentration risk are our investments in MidCap, a provider of revolving and term debt facilities to middle market companies in North America and Europe, and in A-A Mortgage and its indirect investment in AmeriHome, a mortgage lender and mortgage servicer. As of December 31, 2017, our exposure, including loaned amounts, to MidCap was $766 million, which represented 1% of our total invested assets and 8% of total AHL shareholders’ equity. As of December 31, 2017, our exposure to A-A Mortgage was $496 million, which represented less than 1% of our total invested assets and 5% of total AHL shareholders’ equity. To the extent that we suffer a significant loss on our investment in MidCap or A-A Mortgage, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our significant single issuer holdings, including MidCap and AmeriHome, are concentrated largely in the financial services industry and such businesses’ activities largely focus upon providing financing to both individuals and entities. As a result, we have significant exposure to credit risk, which may be adversely impacted by changes in macroeconomic conditions, regulation and other factors. To the extent that such changes occur and cause a deterioration in the creditworthiness of the counterparties of these investees, we may suffer significant losses on our investments in these entities and our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. In addition to the concentration risk arising from our investments in single issuers within the financial services industry, we have significant exposure to this industry as a result of the composition of investments in our broader investment portfolio. As of December 31, 2017, 17% of our total invested assets were invested in issuers within the financial services industry, excluding CLOs. Any 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.

As of December 31, 2017, 25% of our total invested assets were 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 above with respect to our real estate-related investments could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

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

We may invest in securities of issuers organized or based outside the U.S. that may involve heightened risks in comparison to the risks of investing in U.S. 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 and 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.


50

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

As of December 31, 2017, 33% of the carrying value of our AFS fixed maturity securities, including related parties, was comprised of securities of issuers based outside of the U.S. and debt securities of foreign governments. Of our total AFS fixed maturity securities, including related parties as of December 31, 2017, 8% were invested in CLOs of Cayman Islands issuers (where underlying assets are largely loans to U.S. issuers), 6% were invested in securities of non-U.S. issuers by our German Group Companies and 19% were invested in other non-U.S. issuers. While we invest in securities of non-U.S. 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–Consolidated Investment Portfolio for further information on international exposure.

Our growth strategy includes acquiring business through acquisitions of other insurance companies and reinsurance of insurance obligations written by unaffiliated insurance companies, and our ability to consummate these acquisitions 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, 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, if 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.

Occasionally we may acquire or seek to acquire an insurance company or business that writes traditional life insurance business or other businesses that are not core to our business. In the past, except in limited circumstances, we have arranged for the sale or transfer, through reinsurance or otherwise, of such business prior to or following our acquisitions to the extent that we did not want to retain these non-core businesses. As we grow, the ability of our management to transfer or source sufficient reasonably priced reinsurance for traditional life insurance or other non-core businesses that we may acquire and want to dispose of may be limited. As we acquire new businesses and write a larger volume of business, it may be difficult to find buyers or reinsurers willing to assume increased risk, and added reinsurance may increase the associated costs. Ultimately, we may not be able to find buyers or source adequate reinsurance at all. In the event that we were unable to find buyers or purchase adequate reinsurance, we would have to accept an increase in our net risk exposures, revise our pricing to reflect higher reinsurance premiums, or otherwise modify our acquisitions and product offerings, each of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

In furtherance of our strategy of growth through acquisitions, we routinely review and conduct investigations of potential acquisitions or block reinsurance transactions, some of which may be material. When we believe a favorable opportunity exists, we seek to enter into discussions with target companies or sellers regarding the possibility of such transactions. At any given time, we may be in discussions with one or more counterparties. There can be no assurance that any such negotiations will lead to definitive agreements, or if such agreements are reached, that any transactions would be consummated.

If we are unable to attract and retain IMOs and agents, sales of our products may be adversely affected.

We distribute our annuity products through a variable cost distribution network which currently includes approximately 65 IMOs and more than 34,000 independent agents. Insurance companies compete vigorously for productive and profitable agents. We must attract and retain such marketers and agents to sell our products. We compete with other life insurance companies for marketers and agents primarily on the basis of our financial position, support services, compensation and product features. Such marketers and agents 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 and agents 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 small and mid-size banks and regional broker-dealers. If we are unable to attract and retain sufficient marketers and agents to sell our products or 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.


51

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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. The cash proceeds received by us under such repurchase agreements are typically invested in fixed income securities and may not be available to be returned prior to the scheduled repurchase date, and it is possible that we will enter into other repurchase transactions and use cash proceeds from such transactions to pay the repurchase prices on maturing repurchase transactions. Repurchase agreements, however, are generally not committed arrangements, and market and other conditions on the repurchase date or at other times may limit our ability to enter into new repurchase transactions or to enter into transactions on favorable terms. To the extent that we are not able to enter into new transactions or to enter into sufficient new transactions, we may need to find other sources to pay the repurchase prices under these transactions, which may or may not be available to us. Additionally, during difficult market situations, we may not be able to access funds under such repurchase agreements, which may require us to sell securities on unfavorable terms in order to ensure short-term liquidity.

In some cases, the maturity of the securities purchased by us with the cash proceeds received in the repurchase transaction may exceed the term of the related transaction and/or the market value of securities sold in such repurchase transactions may fall below stipulated margin requirements in the applicable repurchase agreement. If we are required to return significant amounts of cash collateral or post cash or securities as margin on short notice and we are forced to sell securities to meet such obligations, we may have difficulty doing so in a timely manner, may be forced to sell securities in a volatile or illiquid market for less than they otherwise would have been able to realize under normal market conditions, or both. In addition, under adverse capital market and economic conditions, liquidity may broadly deteriorate, which would further restrict our ability to sell securities.

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 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 maintaining 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;
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;
significant losses to our investment portfolio; and
changes in NRSROs’ capital adequacy assessment methodologies in a manner that would adversely affect the financial strength ratings of our insurance subsidiaries.

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 and sales agents;
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 improve or maintain current financial strength ratings could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


52

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

We are subject to significant operating and financial restrictions imposed by our credit agreement and we are also subject to certain operating restrictions imposed by the indenture to which we are a party.

The credit agreement dated January 22, 2016, by and among AHL, ALRe and Athene USA, as borrowers, each lender from time to time party thereto and Citibank, N.A., as administrative agent (Credit Facility) contains various restrictive covenants which limit, among other things, AHL’s, ALRe’s and Athene USA’s ability, and in certain instances, some or all of their subsidiaries’ ability, to:

incur additional indebtedness, make guarantees and enter into derivative arrangements;
create liens on our or such subsidiaries’ assets;
make fundamental changes;
engage in certain transactions with affiliates;
make changes in the nature of our business; and
pay dividends and distributions or repurchase our common shares.

These covenants, some of which are financial, may prevent or restrict us from capitalizing on business opportunities, including making additional acquisitions or growing our business. In addition, if AHL undergoes a “change of control” as defined in the Credit Facility, the lenders under the Credit Facility will have the right to terminate the facility and/or accelerate the maturity of all outstanding loans. As of December 31, 2017, AHL was in compliance with all covenants and no borrowings under the Credit Facility were outstanding. As a result of these restrictions and their effects on us, we may be limited in how we conduct our business 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, AHL is also subject to certain limited covenants pursuant to the Indenture, dated January 12, 2018, by and between us and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (Base Indenture), as supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 12, 2018, by and among us and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (together with the Base Indenture, Indenture). The Indenture was entered into in connection with AHL’s issuance of its 4.125% Senior Notes due 2028 and 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. These covenants may prevent or restrict takeovers or business combinations that our shareholders might consider in their best interest.

The terms of any future indebtedness we may incur may contain additional restrictive covenants.

We are subject to the credit risk of our counterparties, including ceding companies who reinsure business to ALRe, reinsurers who assume liabilities from our subsidiaries and derivative counterparties.

Our insurance subsidiaries may cede insurance and transfer related assets and certain liabilities to third-party insurance companies through reinsurance. Under such reinsurance agreements, our insurance subsidiaries will be liable for losses on insurance risks if such reinsurers fail to perform under their respective reinsurance agreements with our subsidiaries.

In connection with the acquisitions of our two largest U.S. insurance subsidiaries, we entered into reinsurance agreements with Protective and Global Atlantic. As part of our acquisition of AADE, we effected a sale of substantially all of AADE’s life insurance business by reinsuring such business to Protective. Similarly, in connection with our acquisition of Aviva USA, we effectuated a sale of substantially all of Aviva USA’s life insurance business by reinsuring such business to Global Atlantic. Because these agreements involve reinsurance of entire business segments, each covers a much larger volume of business than a traditional reinsurance agreement. Additionally, although certain of Protective’s financial obligations under its reinsurance agreement with us are secured by assets placed in a trust for our benefit and Global Atlantic is obligated to maintain assets in custody accounts for our benefit to support substantially all of its financial obligations under its reinsurance agreements with us, as each of Protective and Global Atlantic are the only counterparties under each respective agreement, we face a heightened risk of default with respect to those reinsurers in particular. In addition, we do not have a security interest in the assets in the custody accounts supporting the Global Atlantic reinsurance agreements. Therefore, in the event of an insolvency of the Global Atlantic insurance company acting as reinsurer, our claims would be subordinated to those of such insurance company’s policyholders and the assets in the relevant custody accounts may be available to satisfy the claims of such insurance company’s general creditors in addition to us. As with any other reinsurance agreement, we remain liable to our policyholders even if Protective or Global Atlantic fail to perform. Although each agreement provides that Protective and Global Atlantic, respectively, agree to indemnify us for losses sustained in connection with their respective performances of each agreement, such indemnification may not be adequate to compensate us for losses actually incurred in the event that Protective or Global Atlantic are either unable or unwilling to perform according to the agreements’ terms. In addition to possible losses that could be incurred if our subsidiaries are forced to recapture these blocks, such subsidiaries may also face a substantial shortfall in capital to support the recaptured business, possibly resulting in material declines to the insurer’s RBC ratio and/or creditworthiness and potentially expose the insurer to ratings downgrades, regulatory intervention, increased policyholder withdrawals or other negative effects.


53

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Conversely, ALRe and certain of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries assume liabilities from other insurance companies. Changes in the ratings, creditworthiness or market perception of such ceding companies or in the administration of policies reinsured to us could cause policyholders of contracts reinsured to us to surrender or lapse their policies in unexpected amounts. In addition, to the extent such ceding companies do not perform under their reinsurance agreements with us, we may not achieve the results we intended and could suffer unexpected losses. In either case, we have exposure to our subsidiaries’ reinsurance counterparties which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In particular, should the $19 billion reinsurance transaction with Voya close, we will be subject to risks associated with impairments in Voya’s financial strength and perceived financial strength, an impairment to either of which may result in the surrender of policies earlier and in quantities greater than expected at the time the transaction was priced. In addition, Venerable, directly or through VIAC, will administer the fixed annuity block being reinsured. To the extent that Venerable fails to perform under our reinsurance agreement and associated arrangements, we may not achieve the return targets expected at the time the transaction was priced and our financial position and results of operations may thereby or otherwise be adversely affected.

Finally, we are exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by our counterparties on derivative agreements. We seek to further reduce the risk associated with such agreements by entering into such agreements with large, well-established financial institutions. In addition, rules recently adopted by the CFTC and the prudential regulators will require us and our swap dealer counterparties to collect and post initial and variation margin with respect to non-cleared swaps. Any initial margin required to be posted to our swap dealer counterparties under these rules will be segregated with a third-party custodian. However, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer losses in the event a counterparty or custodian fails to perform or is subject to a bankruptcy or similar proceeding.

We rely significantly on third parties for investment services and certain other services related to our policies, and we may be held responsible for obligations that arise from the acts or omissions of third parties under their respective agreements with us if they are deemed to have acted on our behalf.

We rely significantly on various third parties to provide investment services to us as well as to sell, distribute and provide administrative services for our subsidiaries’ policies. As such, our results may be affected by the performance of those parties. Additionally, our operations are dependent on various service providers and on various technologies, some of which are provided or maintained by certain key outsourcing partners and other 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 our personnel or 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 TPAs to administer a portion of our annuity contracts, as well as our legacy life insurance business. We currently rely on these TPAs to administer a number of our policies. Some of our reinsurers also use TPAs to administer business reinsured to them by us. To the extent any of these TPAs do not administer such business appropriately, we have and may in the future experience customer complaints, regulatory intervention and other adverse impacts, which could affect our future growth and profitability. 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, which could adversely affect our reputation and business prospects, as well as lead to potential regulatory actions or litigation against us.

Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries have experienced increased service and administration complaints related to the conversion and administration of the block of life insurance business acquired in connection with our acquisition of Aviva USA and reinsured to affiliates of Global Atlantic by the TPA retained by such Global Atlantic affiliates to provide services on such policies, as well as on certain annuity policies that were on Aviva USA’s legacy policy administration systems that were also converted to and are being administered by the same TPA. On April 5, 2017, we received notification from the NYSDFS that it planned to undertake a market conduct examination of ALICNY for the period of January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2017 (NYSDFS Market Conduct Examination), and on May 31, 2017, we received notification from the Texas Department of Insurance that it intended to undertake an enforcement proceeding, in each case, relating to the treatment of policyholders subject to our reinsurance agreements with affiliates of Global Atlantic and the conversion of such annuity policies, including the administration of such blocks by such TPA. On November 15, 2017, we received notification from the NYSDFS that its examination of ALICNY had resulted in the identification of a significant number of asserted violations of New York insurance law associated with the life block reinsured to affiliates of Global Atlantic, who have also been overseeing policyholder administration and the TPA servicing the policies in the block, with a significant number of such violations not subject to dispute by the relevant affiliates of Global Atlantic or by us. On January 30, 2018, we received a draft report regarding the NYSDFS Market Conduct Examination from the NYSDFS, which identified in more detail the violations asserted in the November 15, 2017 letter as well as certain other violations. We and Global Atlantic are currently in discussions with the NYSDFS to resolve this matter, but there is no assurance that we will be able to resolve this matter in a manner favorable to us. In addition to the foregoing, we have received inquiries, and expect to continue to receive inquiries, from other regulatory authorities regarding the conversion matter. It is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar formal examinations, inquiries or enforcement proceedings and that any examinations, inquiries and/or enforcement proceedings may result in fines, administrative penalties and payments to policyholders. We are not currently able to estimate the amount of any such fines, penalties or payments arising from these matters with reasonable certainty, but it is possible that such amounts may be material.


54

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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. In addition, annuity sales to seniors have been the subject of increased scrutiny by FINRA and state insurance regulators, and have been the source of industry litigation in situations where annuity sales have allegedly been unsuitable for the financial needs of seniors.

Our distribution partners are subject to the interim requirements of the fiduciary rule. See Item 1. Business–Regulation–United States–ERISA for further discussion regarding the fiduciary rule. We are assisting our distribution partners with such requirements.

The fiduciary rule’s obligations for distributors of products to retirement accounts may result in additional compliance costs to us, regulatory scrutiny and litigation, as well as reduced product sales. Since the fiduciary rule is in the process of being implemented, we are not able to assess the actual impact that such regulations may have on us and our associates. If the fiduciary rule is fully implemented in its current form, our results of operations and financial condition may be negatively impacted as we implement the fiduciary rule’s numerous requirements.

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 U.S. dollar or are issued by entities which primarily conduct their business outside of the U.S. 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.

Our business in Bermuda could be adversely affected by Bermuda employment restrictions.

As of December 31, 2017, we employed 24 non-Bermudians in our Bermuda office (other than spouses of Bermudians, holders of permanent residents’ certificates, and holders of working residents’ certificates). We may hire additional non-Bermudians as our business grows. Under Bermuda law, non-Bermudians (other than spouses of Bermudians, holders of permanent residents’ certificates, and holders of working residents’ certificates) generally may not engage in any gainful occupation in Bermuda without a valid government work permit (with certain exceptions). A work permit is generally granted or renewed upon showing that, after proper public advertisement, no Bermudian, spouse of a Bermudian, or holder of a permanent resident’s or working resident’s certificate who meets the minimum standards reasonably required by the employer has applied for the job. Work permit terms that are available for request range from three months to five years. We may not be able to use the services of one or more of our non-Bermudian employees if we are not able to obtain work permits for them, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Interruption or other operational failures in telecommunications, information technology and other operational 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, 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, anyone who is able to circumvent our security measures and penetrate our information technology systems could access, view, misappropriate, alter or delete information in the systems, including personally identifiable customer information and proprietary business information. Information security risks also exist with respect to the use of portable electronic devices, such as laptops, which are particularly vulnerable to loss and theft.

We believe that we have established and implemented appropriate security measures, controls and procedures to safeguard our information technology systems and to prevent unauthorized access to such systems and any data processed or stored in such systems, and we periodically evaluate and test the adequacy of such systems, controls and procedures. In addition, we have established a business continuity plan which is designed to ensure that we are able to maintain all aspects of our key business processes functioning in the midst of certain disruptive events, including any disruptions to or breaches of our information technology systems. Despite the implementation of security and back-up measures, our information technology systems may be vulnerable to physical or electronic intrusions, viruses or other attacks, programming errors and similar disruptions. We may also be subject to disruptions of any of these systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (for example, natural disasters, acts of terrorism, epidemics, computer viruses and electrical or telecommunications outages). All of these risks are also applicable where we rely on outside vendors to provide services to us and/or our customers. The failure of any one of these systems for any reason, or errors made by our employees or agents, could in each case cause significant interruptions to our operations, which could harm our reputation, adversely affect our internal control over financial reporting or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.


55

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

We retain confidential information in our information technology systems and those of our business partners, and we rely on industry standard commercial technologies to maintain the security of those systems. Despite our implementation of network security measures, our servers could be subject to physical and electronic intrusions, and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering with our computer systems. While we perform penetration tests and have adopted a number of measures to protect the security of customer and company data, and to our knowledge have not experienced a successful cyber attack that has resulted in any material compromise in the security of our information technology systems, there is no guarantee that such an attack will not occur or be successful in the future.

In addition, an increasing number of jurisdictions require that customers be notified if a security breach results in the disclosure of personally identifiable customer information. Any compromise of the security of our information technology systems that results in inappropriate disclosure or use of personally identifiable customer information could damage 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.

Even in the absence of a compromise in the security of our information technology systems, inappropriate disclosure or use of personally identifiable customer information may occur in the event of a compromise in the security of the information technology systems of our third-party advisors or business partners with whom we share such data. Any such inappropriate disclosure or use could likewise 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.

We may be the target or subject of, and may be required to defend against or respond to, litigation (including class action litigation), enforcement investigations or regulatory scrutiny.

We, like other financial services companies, are involved in litigation and arbitration in the ordinary course of business. More generally, we operate in an industry in which various practices are subject to regulatory scrutiny and potential litigation, including class actions and enforcement investigations. Plaintiffs may seek large or indeterminate amounts of damages, including compensatory, liquidated, treble and/or punitive damages. In addition, we sell our products through third parties, including IMOs, whose activities may be difficult to monitor. Civil jury verdicts have been returned against insurers and other financial services companies involving sales, underwriting practices, product design, product disclosure, administration, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees, recommending unsuitable products to customers, breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, refund or claims practices, alleged agent misconduct, failure to properly supervise representatives, relationships with agents or other persons with whom the insurer does business, payment of sales or other contingent commissions and other matters. Such lawsuits can result in substantial judgments that are disproportionate to actual damages, including material amounts of punitive or non-economic compensatory damages. In some states, juries, judges and arbitrators have substantial discretion in awarding punitive, or non-economic, compensatory damages, which creates the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments or awards in any given lawsuit or arbitration. Arbitration awards are subject to very limited appellate review. In addition, in some class action and other lawsuits, financial services companies have made material settlement payments. Given the large or indeterminate amounts sometimes sought, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is also possible that in certain cases an ultimate unfavorable resolution of one or more pending litigation matters could have a material and adverse effect on our financial condition. See Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Certain of our investments in RMBS securities may experience a decline in value if trustees are permitted to withhold funds to meet expenses and/or claims incurred in connection with litigation against such trustees

In June 2017, Wells Fargo, National Association (Wells Fargo), as trustee of certain pre-crisis residential mortgage-backed securities (Legacy RMBS) transactions, notified certificateholders that it withheld a portion of the funds received during related clean-up calls to meet litigation expenses (both incurred and anticipated) and/or claims in connection with Blackrock, et al. v. Wells Fargo (Blackrock Litigation). The Blackrock Litigation is one of a series of cases various parties have brought against trustees of Legacy RMBS transactions for the alleged failure of such trustees to perform their respective duties and obligations under the related transaction documents.

In July 2017, various funds managed by Pacific Investment Management Company, LLC (collectively, PIMCO) brought a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court of New York against Wells Fargo seeking to prevent Wells Fargo from paying any portion of the defense costs of the Blackrock Litigation from the trusts at issue in the litigation, and claiming that Wells Fargo, as trustee, breached certain duties to investors. In September 2017, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought by PIMCO and in November 2017, the motion was granted in its entirety. In January 2018, PIMCO filed its notice to appeal that decision.

Following the PIMCO action, Royal Park Investments SA/NV (Royal Park) similarly brought purported class actions in the Southern District of New York seeking damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) and U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), as trustees of certain Legacy RMBS transactions. Royal Park asserted that Deutsche Bank and U.S. Bank were not entitled to pay any portion of the defense costs from trusts at issue in Royal Park’s underlying litigations against these trustees for alleged breaches of certain duties to investors. Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss Royal Park’s most recent action is fully briefed, but the court has not ruled on a request for oral argument or on the merits of the motion to dismiss. Royal Park’s most recent action against U.S. Bank has been consolidated with the underlying litigation, and U.S. Bank has indicated it intends to seek dismissal of Royal Park’s complaint or, alternatively, a stay of the complaint until the resolution of the underlying litigation.

We hold a substantial Legacy RMBS portfolio, the ratings, yield and value of which could be adversely affected if any of these or other Legacy RMBS trustees are able to set aside or use trust funds for indemnification and defense costs related to the underlying trustee litigations.

56

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors


Uncertainty relating to the LIBOR calculation process and potential phasing out of LIBOR after 2021 may adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and may further affect our ability to issue funding agreements bearing a floating rate of interest.
 
Regulators and law enforcement agencies in the UK and elsewhere are conducting civil and criminal investigations into whether the banks that contribute to the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) in connection with the calculation of daily LIBOR may have been under-reporting or otherwise manipulating or attempting to manipulate LIBOR. A number of BBA member banks have entered into settlements with their regulators and law enforcement agencies with respect to this alleged manipulation of LIBOR.

Actions by the BBA, regulators or law enforcement agencies may result in changes to the manner in which LIBOR is determined or the establishment of alternative reference rates. For example, on July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced that it intends to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit LIBOR rates after 2021. At this time, it is not possible to predict the effect of any such changes, any establishment of alternative reference rates or any other reforms to LIBOR that may be enacted in the UK or elsewhere. Uncertainty as to the nature of such potential changes, alternative reference rates or other reforms may adversely affect the trading market for LIBOR-based securities, including those held in our investment portfolio and may further adversely affect our ability to issue funding agreements bearing a floating rate of interest. As of December 31, 2017, 28% of our invested assets were floating rate investments, some of which were referenced to LIBOR.


Risks Relating to Our Investment Manager

We rely on our investment management agreements with AAM for the management of our investment portfolio. AAM may terminate these arrangements at any time, and there are limitations on our ability to terminate such arrangements, which may adversely affect our investment results.

We rely on AAM to provide us with investment management services pursuant to various investment management agreements (IMAs). AAM 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 AAM’s senior management could delay or prevent AAM from fully implementing our investment strategy.

IMA Termination Rights

Our bye-laws currently provide that we may not, and will cause our subsidiaries not to, terminate any IMA among us or any of our subsidiaries, on the one hand, and AAM, on the other hand, before October 31, 2018 (or any anniversary thereafter) (each such date, an IMA Termination Election Date) and any termination on an IMA Termination Election Date requires (i) the approval of two-thirds of our Independent Directors (as defined below) and (ii) written notice to AAM of such termination at least 30 days’ prior to an IMA Termination Election Date. If our Independent Directors make any such election to terminate and notice of such termination is delivered, the termination will be effective on the second anniversary of the applicable IMA Termination Election Date (IMA Termination Effective Date). Notwithstanding the foregoing, (A) our Independent Directors may only elect to terminate an IMA on an IMA Termination Election Date if two-thirds of our Independent Directors determine, in their sole discretion and acting in good faith, that either (i) there has been unsatisfactory long-term performance materially detrimental to us by AAM, or (ii) the fees being charged by AAM are unfair and excessive compared to a comparable asset manager (provided, that in either case such Independent Directors must deliver notice of any such determination to AAM and AAM will have until the applicable IMA Termination Effective Date to address such concerns, and provided, further, that in the case of such a determination that the fees being charged by AAM are unfair and excessive, AAM has the right to lower its fees to match the fees of such comparable asset manager) and (B) upon the determination by two-thirds of our Independent Directors, we or our subsidiaries may also terminate an IMA with AAM as a result of either (i) a material violation of law relating to AAM’s investment management business, or (ii) AAM’s gross negligence, willful misconduct or reckless disregard of AAM’s obligations under the relevant agreement, and in either case the delivery of written notice at least 30 days’ prior to such termination and such termination will be effective at the end of such 30-day period (the events described in the foregoing clauses (A) and (B) are referred to in more detail in our bye-laws as “AHL Cause”). For purposes of these provisions of the bye-laws, an “Independent Director” cannot be (x) an officer or employee of ours or any of our subsidiaries or (y) an officer or employee of (1) any member of the Apollo Group described in clauses (i) through (iv) of the definition of “Apollo Group” as set forth in our bye-laws or (2) AGM or any of its subsidiaries (excluding any subsidiary that constitutes any portfolio company (or investment) of (A) an investment fund or other investment vehicle whose general partner, managing member or similar governing person is owned, directly or indirectly, by AGM or by one or more of its subsidiaries or (B) a managed account agreement (or similar arrangement) whereby AGM or one or more of its subsidiaries serves as general partner, managing member or in a similar governing position).

Our organizational documents give 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 IMA with AAM, and therefore our Independent Directors are under no obligation to make, and therefore may exercise their discretion never to make, such a determination.

The boards of directors of AHL’s subsidiaries may terminate an IMA with AAM 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 our bye-laws, which could subject us to regulatory scrutiny, expose us to shareholder lawsuits and could have a negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.


57

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Investment Management Fees

Further, except in limited circumstances, we currently pay AAM 0.40% per year on assets managed up to $65.8 billion and 0.30% per year on assets managed in excess of such amount. We pay additional fees to Apollo and its affiliates for providing sub-advisory services and acting as manager of investment funds in which we invest. Any such fees may be higher than what other investment managers may be willing to charge us currently for investment services. Because of the services and the unique acquisition opportunities provided by AAM and Apollo that we are able to access that many other companies cannot access, we do not currently expect our board of directors or our Independent Directors would elect to terminate any IMA. These limitations on our ability to terminate the IMAs with AAM could have a negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Termination by AAM

Conversely, we may be adversely affected if AAM elects to terminate an IMA at a time when such agreement remains advantageous to us. We depend upon AAM to implement our investment strategy. However, AAM does not face the restrictions described above with regards to its ability to terminate any of its agreements with us and may terminate such agreements at any time. If AAM 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 AAM and Apollo would be offered by a suitable replacement, and therefore our results of operations and financial condition 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 AAM or a failure to maintain the security, integrity, confidentiality or privacy of sensitive data residing on AAM’s systems, including as a result of human error, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are highly dependent on AAM, 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. AAM 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 AAM’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 AAM is not within our control. Should AAM’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 AAM 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 performance of AAM should not be considered as indicative of the future results of our investment portfolio, our future results or any returns expected on our common shares.

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 AAM will be able to avail itself of profitable investment opportunities in the future. Furthermore, the historical returns of our investments managed by AAM are not directly linked to returns on our common shares, which are affected by various factors, one of which is the value of our investment portfolio. In addition, AAM is compensated based solely on our assets it manages, rather than by investment return targets. Accordingly, there can be no guarantee AAM will be able to achieve any particular return for our investment portfolio in the future.

Increased regulation or scrutiny of alternative investment advisers and certain trading methods may affect AAM’s ability to manage our investment portfolio or affect our business reputation.

The regulatory environment for investment managers is evolving, and changes in the regulation of investment managers may adversely affect the ability of AAM to effect transactions that use leverage or to pursue their strategies in managing our investment portfolio. In addition, the securities and futures markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations and margin requirements. The SEC, other regulators and self-regulatory organizations and exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of market emergencies. Due to our reliance on AAM to manage our investment portfolio, any regulatory action or enforcement against AAM could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. Additionally, the regulation of derivatives transactions is an evolving area of law and is subject to modification by government and judicial action. Any future regulatory change could have a significant negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations.


58

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Risks Relating to Insurance and Other Regulatory Matters

Our industry is highly regulated and we are subject to significant legal restrictions, regulations and regulatory oversight in connection with the operations of our business, including the discretion of various governmental entities in applying such restrictions and regulations. These restrictions may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

U.S. Laws and Regulations

Our U.S. subsidiaries’ insurance, annuity, retirement and investment products are subject to a complex and extensive array of laws and regulations that are administered and enforced by state insurance regulators, state securities administrators, state banking authorities, the SEC, FINRA, the DOL, the IRS and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. See Item 1. Business–Regulation–United States for a summary of certain of the U.S. state and federal 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, interruption of our operations or an adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations.

We may be subject to regulation by the DOL when providing a variety of products and services to employee benefit plans governed by ERISA. Severe penalties are imposed for breach of duties under ERISA. In addition, we will be subject to regulation by the DOL with respect to recommendations involving an IRA.

In addition to the foregoing risks, the financial services industry is the focus of increased regulatory scrutiny as various state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations conduct inquiries and investigations into the products and practices of the financial services industries. The 2008 economic crisis has changed the way the financial services industry is regulated. Governmental authorities in the United States and worldwide have become increasingly interested in potential risks posed by the insurance industry as a whole, and to commercial and financial systems in general. Among the proposals that are presently being considered is the possible introduction of global regulatory standards for the amount of capital that insurance groups must maintain across the group. 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.

Bermuda Laws and Regulations

Because we are a Bermuda company, we are subject to changes in Bermuda law and regulation that may have an adverse impact on our operations, including through the imposition of tax liability or increased regulatory supervision. As a holding company, AHL is not subject to the laws of Bermuda governing insurance companies; however, ALRe is registered in Bermuda under the Bermuda Insurance Act as a Class E insurer and is subject to the Bermuda Insurance Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. See Item 1. Business–Regulation–Bermuda for a summary of certain of the Bermuda laws and regulations applicable to our business. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us to monetary penalties imposed by the BMA, unanticipated costs associated with remedying such failure or other claims, harm to our reputation, interruption of our operations or an adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations.

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

U.S. state regulators retain the authority to license insurers in their states and an insurer generally may not operate in a state in which it is not licensed. We have U.S. domiciled insurance subsidiaries that are currently licensed to do business in all 50 states 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 licensing 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 and changes to the RBC formulas and the interpretation of the NAIC’s instructions with respect to RBC calculation methodologies, are out of our control. If these factors adversely affect us 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 or be subject to seizure of assets. A loss or suspension of any of our subsidiaries’ licenses 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.


59

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

ALRe, as a Bermuda domiciled insurer, is also required to maintain licenses. ALRe is licensed as a reinsurer only in Bermuda. Bermuda insurance statutes and regulations and policies of the BMA require that ALRe, among other things, maintain a minimum level of capital and surplus, satisfy solvency standards, restrict dividends and distributions, obtain prior approval or provide notification to the BMA, as the case may be, of ownership, transfer and disposition of Shareholder Controller shares, maintain a head office, and have certain officers and a director 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 conditions. A failure to meet these conditions may result in the suspension or revocation of ALRe’s license to do business as a reinsurance company in Bermuda, which would mean that ALRe would not be able to enter into any new reinsurance contracts until the suspension ended or it became licensed in another jurisdiction. For any or a number of reasons, the BMA could revoke or suspend ALRe’s license. Any such suspension or revocation of ALRe’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.

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. The modification of the conduct of our business resulting from our and our subsidiaries becoming licensed in certain jurisdictions could significantly and negatively affect our business. In addition, our inability to comply with insurance statutes and regulations could significantly 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, including the DOL fiduciary rule, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations 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, liquidity, results of operations and prospects. Certain of the risks associated with changes in these laws and regulations are discussed in greater detail below.

The 2008 economic crisis has resulted in numerous changes to regulation and oversight of the financial industry, the full impact of which has yet to be realized. The Dodd-Frank Act makes sweeping changes to the regulation of financial services entities, products and markets. Historically, the federal government has not regulated the insurance business, however, the Dodd-Frank Act generally provides for enhanced federal supervision of financial institutions, including insurance companies in certain circumstances, and financial activities that represent a systemic risk to financial stability or the economy. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are or may become applicable to us, our competitors or those entities with which we do business, including, but not limited to: the establishment of a comprehensive federal regulatory regime with respect to derivatives; the establishment of consolidated federal regulation and resolution authority over SIFIs; 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 shareholders; the imposition of additional regulation over credit rating agencies; the imposition of concentration limits on financial institutions that restrict the amount of credit that may be extended to a single person or entity; and mandatory on-facility execution and clearing of certain derivative contracts.

Numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act require the adoption or implementation of rules or regulations. The process of adopting such implementing rules and/or regulations have in some instances been delayed beyond the time frames imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act. Further, changes in general political, economic or market conditions, including as a result of the most recent U.S. presidential and congressional elections, could affect the scope, timing and final implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act. Until the various final regulations are promulgated, the full impact of the regulations on the Company will remain unclear. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated multiple studies, which could result in additional legislation or regulation applicable to the insurance industry, us, our competitors or those entities with which we do business. 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 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 conduct as a result of the DOL fiduciary rule, any rules proposed by SEC or 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 U.S. and non-U.S. 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.


60

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Although our businesses are subject to regulation in each state in which they 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, operations and financial conditions. We and they 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 Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax may significantly increase our tax liability.

The Tax Act introduced a new tax called the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT). The BEAT operates as a minimum tax and is generally calculated as a percentage (5% in 2018, 10% in 2019-2025, and 12.5% in 2026 and 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 U.S. subsidiaries to pay or accrue substantial amounts to ALRe that would be characterized as “base erosion payments” with respect to which there are “base erosion tax benefits.” Accordingly, the BEAT could significantly increase the tax liability of our U.S. subsidiaries and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Moreover, ALRe pays or accrues substantial amounts to our U.S. subsidiaries under our reinsurance agreements for increases in policy reserves and to reimburse our U.S. subsidiaries for payments of benefits to our policyholders. It is not clear whether such amounts should be netted against the amounts our U.S. subsidiaries pay or accrue to ALRe under our reinsurance agreements for purposes of calculating their “base erosion payments” and “base erosion tax benefits.” No assurance can be given that any such amounts will be netted. If the amounts cannot be netted and we do not take our planned or other actions to mitigate or eliminate the BEAT, the tax liability of our U.S. subsidiaries will increase and our results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

The application of the BEAT to our reinsurance arrangements could be affected by further legislative action (including possibly a “technical corrections” bill), administrative guidance or court decisions. Any such legislative action, administrative guidance or court decisions are not likely to be available at the time that we are required to determine the amount of federal income tax incurred by our U.S. subsidiaries for the first quarter of 2018, and they could have retroactive effect. Tax authorities may later disagree with our BEAT calculations, or the interpretations on which those calculations are based, and assess additional taxes, interest and penalties, and the uncertainty regarding the correct interpretation of the BEAT may make such disagreements more likely. We will determine the appropriateness of our tax provision in accordance with GAAP. However, there can be no assurance that this provision will accurately reflect the amount of federal income tax that our U.S. subsidiaries ultimately pay, as that amount could differ materially from our estimate.

Our efforts to mitigate the cost of the BEAT may be unnecessary, ineffective or counterproductive.

In light of the possibility of material additional tax cost to our U.S. subsidiaries and the lack of clear guidance regarding the appropriate method by which to compute the BEAT, we are undertaking certain actions and exploring various alternatives intended to mitigate the potential effect of the BEAT on our results of operations in the event it is determined that none of the amounts paid or accrued by ALRe to our U.S. subsidiaries are taken into account in the calculation of “base erosion payments” or “base erosion tax benefit.” Such actions may have adverse consequences to our business, such as subjecting profit from our affiliate reinsurance to a layer of withholding tax of up to 30%, which would not be payable under our current structure. There can be no assurances that our efforts to eliminate or mitigate the BEAT will be successful, and our consideration of actions may be expensive and time consuming. Further, there can be no assurances that we will be able to complete these actions as they are conditioned upon factors beyond our control, such as regulatory approval. In addition, it is likely that we will be required to take action before the uncertainty regarding the BEAT is resolved, and accordingly any action we take may, in hindsight, prove to have been unnecessary, ineffective or counterproductive.


61

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

AHL or ALRe may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation.

AHL and ALRe are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda and currently intend to operate in a manner that will not cause either to be treated as being engaged in a trade or business within the U.S. or subject to current U.S. federal income taxation on their net income. However, because there is considerable uncertainty as to when a foreign corporation is engaged in a trade or business within the United States, as the law is unclear and the determination is highly factual and must be made annually, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not successfully contend that AHL or ALRe is engaged in a trade or business in the U.S. In addition, although AHL and ALRe currently intend to operate in a manner that would not cause them to be treated as engaged in a trade or business within the U.S., the recent enactment of the BEAT, the reduction of the federal income tax rate applicable to corporations included in the Tax Act, and other factors may cause AHL or ALRe to conduct their business differently. If AHL or ALRe were considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the U.S., it could be subject to U.S. federal income taxation on a net basis on its income that is effectively connected with such U.S. trade or business (including branch profits tax on the portion of its earnings and profits that is attributable to such income). Any such U.S. federal income taxation could result in substantial tax liabilities and consequently could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of future operations.

U.S. persons who own our Class A common shares may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation at ordinary income rates on our undistributed earnings and profits.

AHL’s bye-laws generally limit the voting power of our Class A common shares (and certain other of our voting securities) such that no person owns (or is treated as owning) more than 9.9% of the total voting power of our common shares (with certain exceptions). AHL’s bye-laws also currently reduce the voting power of Class B common shares held by certain holders if (A) one or more U.S. persons that own (or are treated as owning) more than 9.9% of the total voting power of our common shares own (or are treated as owning) individually or in the aggregate more than 24.9% of the voting power or the value of our common shares or (B) a U.S. person that is classified as an individual, an estate or a trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes owns (or is treated as owning) more than 9.9% of the total voting power of our common shares. Additionally, AHL’s bye-laws require the board of AHL to refer certain decisions with respect to our non-U.S. subsidiaries to our shareholders, and to vote our shares in those subsidiaries accordingly. These provisions were intended to reduce the likelihood that AHL or ALRe will be treated as a controlled foreign corporation (CFC), other than for purposes of taking into account related person insurance income (RPII). However, the relevant attribution rules are complex and there is no definitive legal authority on whether the voting provisions included in AHL’s organizational documents are effective for purposes of the CFC provisions.

Moreover, the Tax Act eliminated the prohibition on “downward attribution” from non-U.S. persons to U.S. persons under Section 958(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code for purposes of determining constructive stock ownership under the CFC rules. As a result, our U.S. subsidiaries are deemed to own all of the ALRe stock held by AHL for CFC purposes. Accordingly, ALRe is currently treated as a CFC, without regard to whether the provisions of our bye-laws described above are effective for purposes of the CFC provisions. The legislative history under the Tax Act indicates that this change was not intended to cause ALRe to be treated as a CFC with respect to a 10% U.S. Shareholder (as defined below) that is not related to our U.S. subsidiaries. However, it is not clear whether the IRS or a court would interpret the change made by the Tax Act in a manner consistent with such indicated intent.

For any taxable year in which AHL or ALRe is treated as a CFC, each U.S. person treated as a “10% U.S. Shareholder” with respect to AHL or ALRe that held our common shares directly or indirectly through non-U.S. entities as of the last day in such taxable year that AHL or ALRe was a CFC would generally be required to include in gross income as ordinary income its pro rata share of AHL’s or ALRe’s insurance and reinsurance income and certain other investment income, regardless of whether that income was actually distributed to such U.S. person (with certain adjustments). For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, a “10% U.S. Shareholder” of a non-U.S. corporation includes any U.S. person that owns (or is treated as owning) stock of the non-U.S. corporation possessing 10% or more of the total voting power or total value of such non-U.S. corporation’s stock. Any U.S. person that owns (or is treated as owning) 10% or more of the value of AHL should consult with their tax advisor regarding their investment in AHL.

In general, a non-U.S. corporation is a CFC if 10% U.S. Shareholders, in the aggregate, own (or are treated as owning) stock of the non-U.S. corporation possessing more than 50% of the voting power or value of such corporation’s stock. However, this threshold is lowered to more than 25% for purposes of taking into account the insurance income of a non-U.S. corporation. Special rules apply for purposes of taking into account any RPII of a non-U.S. corporation, as described below.

In addition, if a U.S. person disposes of shares in a non-U.S. corporation and the U.S. person was a 10% U.S. Shareholder at any time when the corporation was a CFC during the five-year period ending on the date of disposition, any gain from the disposition will generally be treated as a dividend to the extent of the U.S. person’s share of the corporation’s undistributed earnings and profits that were accumulated during the period or periods that the U.S. person owned the shares while the corporation was a CFC (with certain adjustments). Also, a U.S. person may be required to comply with specified reporting requirements, regardless of the number of shares owned.

Because of the limitations in AHL’s bye-laws referred to above, among other factors, we believe it is unlikely that any U.S. person that is treated as owning less than 10% of the total value of AHL would be a 10% U.S. Shareholder of AHL or ALRe. However, because the relevant attribution rules are complex and there is no definitive legal authority on whether the voting provisions included in AHL’s organizational documents are effective for purposes of the CFC provisions, there can be no assurance that this will be the case. Further, our ability to obtain information that would permit us to enforce the limitation described above may be limited. We will take reasonable steps to obtain such information, but there can be no assurance that such steps will be adequate or that we will be successful in this regard. Accordingly, we may not be able to fully enforce the limitation described above.

62

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors


U.S. persons who own our Class A common shares may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation at ordinary income rates on a disproportionate share of our undistributed earnings and profits attributable to RPII.

If ALRe is treated as recognizing RPII in a taxable year and ALRe is treated as a CFC for such taxable year, each U.S. person that owns our Class A common shares directly or indirectly through non-U.S. entities as of the last day in such taxable year must generally include in gross income its pro rata share of the RPII, determined as if the RPII were distributed proportionately only to all such U.S. persons, regardless of whether that income is distributed (with certain adjustments). For this purpose, ALRe generally will be treated as a CFC if U.S. persons in the aggregate are treated as owning 25% or more of the total voting power or value of ALRe’s stock at any time during the taxable year. We believe that ALRe will be treated as a CFC for this purpose based on the current and expected ownership of our shares.

RPII generally is any income of a non-U.S. corporation attributable to insuring or reinsuring risks of a U.S. person that owns (or is treated as owning) stock of such non-U.S. corporation, or risks of a person that is “related” to such a U.S. person. For this purpose, (1) a person is “related” to another person if such person “controls,” or is “controlled” by, such other person, or if both are “controlled” by the same persons, and (2) “control” of a corporation means ownership (or deemed ownership) of stock possessing more than 50% of the total voting power or value of such corporation’s stock and “control” of a partnership, trust or estate for U.S. federal income tax purposes means ownership (or deemed ownership) of more than 50% by value of the beneficial interests in such partnership, trust or estate.

Athene and Apollo have considerable overlap in ownership. If it is determined that the same persons “control” both us and Apollo through owning (or being treated as owning) more than 50% of the vote or value of Athene and Apollo, substantially all of ALRe’s income might constitute RPII. This would trigger the adverse RPII consequences described above to all U.S. persons that hold our Class A common shares directly or indirectly through non-U.S. entities and would have a material adverse effect on the value of their investment in our Class A common shares.

Existing voting restrictions set forth in AHL’s bye-laws are generally intended to prevent a person who owns (or is treated as owning) shares in Apollo from owning (or being treated as owning) any of the voting power of our Class A common shares, thus preventing persons who own (or are treated as owning) both AHL and Apollo from owning (or being treated as owning) more than 50% of the voting power of our stock. However, these restrictions do not prevent members of the Apollo Group from retaining the right to vote on newly acquired Class A common shares, should they choose to do so, nor do they prevent persons who own (or are treated as owning) both AHL and Apollo from owning (or being treated as owning) more than 50% of the value of our stock. AHL’s bye-laws also generally provide that no person (nor certain direct or indirect beneficial owners or related persons to such person) who owns our common shares, other than a member of the Apollo Group, may acquire any shares of Apollo or otherwise make any investment that would cause such person, or any other person that is a U.S. person, to own (or be treated as owning) more than 50% of the vote or value of AHL’s stock. Any holder of our common shares that violates this provision may be required, at the board’s discretion, to sell its common shares or take any other reasonable action that the board deems necessary.

Because of the restrictions described above, among other factors, we believe it is likely that one or more exceptions under the RPII rules will apply such that U.S. persons will not be required to include any RPII in their gross income with respect to ALRe. However, there can be no assurance that this will be the case. Further, our ability to obtain information that would permit us to enforce the restrictions described above may be limited. We will take reasonable steps to obtain such information, but there can be no assurance that such steps will be adequate or that we will be successful in this regard. Accordingly, we may not be able to fully enforce these restrictions.

U.S. persons who dispose of our Class A common shares may be required to treat any gain as ordinary income for U.S. federal income tax purposes and comply with other specified reporting requirements.

If a U.S. person disposes of shares in a non-U.S. corporation that is an insurance company that had RPII and the 25% threshold described above is met at any time when the U.S. person owned any shares in the corporation during the five-year period ending on the date of disposition, any gain from the disposition will generally be treated as a dividend to the extent of the U.S. person’s share of the corporation’s undistributed earnings and profits that were accumulated during the period that the U.S. person owned the shares (possibly whether or not those earnings and profits are attributable to RPII). In addition, the shareholder will be required to comply with specified reporting requirements, regardless of the amount of shares owned. We believe that these rules should not apply to a disposition of our Class A common shares because AHL is not itself directly engaged in the insurance business. We cannot assure you, however, that the IRS will not successfully assert that these rules apply to a disposition of our Class A common shares.

U.S. tax-exempt organizations that own our Class A common shares may recognize unrelated business taxable income.

A U.S. tax-exempt organization that directly or indirectly owns our Class A common shares generally will recognize unrelated business taxable income and be subject to additional U.S. tax filing obligations to the extent such tax-exempt organization is required to take into account any of our insurance income or RPII pursuant to the CFC and RPII rules described above. U.S. tax-exempt organizations should consult their own tax advisors regarding the risk of recognizing unrelated business taxable income as a result of the ownership of our Class A common shares.


63

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

U.S. persons who own our Class A common shares may be subject to adverse tax consequences if AHL is considered a passive foreign investment company for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

If AHL is considered a passive foreign investment company (PFIC) for U.S. federal income tax purposes, a U.S. person who directly or, in certain cases, indirectly owns our Class A common shares could be subject to adverse tax consequences, including a greater tax liability than might otherwise apply, an interest charge on certain taxes that are deemed deferred as a result of AHL’s non-U.S. status and additional U.S. tax filing obligations, regardless of the number of shares owned.

We currently do not expect that AHL will be a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes in the current taxable year or the foreseeable future because AHL, through its insurance subsidiaries, intends to qualify for the “active insurance” exception to PFIC treatment. The “active insurance” exception was recently amended by the Tax Act, and we believe that AHL will qualify for the exception as amended. However, there is significant uncertainty regarding how the Tax Act will be interpreted and guidance may not be forthcoming. Therefore, we cannot assure you that AHL will not be treated as a PFIC. If AHL is treated as a PFIC, the adverse tax consequences described above generally would also apply with respect to a U.S. person’s indirect ownership interest in any PFICs in which AHL directly or, in certain cases, indirectly, owns an interest.

Changes in U.S. tax law might adversely affect us or our shareholders.

The tax treatment of non-U.S. companies and their U.S. and non-U.S. insurance subsidiaries has been significantly altered by the enactment of the Tax Act. See Item 1. Business–Regulation–United States–Tax Reform. In particular, the Tax Act:

Imposes the BEAT (as described above);
Amends the calculation of tax reserves for U.S. life insurance companies and requires affected companies to include the resulting change in income over an 8-year period beginning in 2018;
Amends the treatment of “specified policy acquisition expenses” incurred by U.S. life insurance companies under Section 848 of the Internal Revenue Code;
Restricts the “active insurance” exception to PFIC treatment to “qualifying insurance corporations;”
Eliminates the prohibition on “downward attribution” from non-U.S. persons to U.S. persons under Section 958(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code for purposes of determining constructive stock ownership under the CFC rules (as described above); and
Amends the definition of “U.S. Shareholder” to include U.S. persons that own (or are treated as owning) 10% or more of the value of a foreign corporation.

There is significant uncertainty regarding how these and other provisions of the Tax Act will be interpreted, and guidance may not be forthcoming. In addition, it is possible that a “technical corrections” bill may be passed during 2018 that could alter or clarify the Tax Act, likely with retroactive effect. Any changes to, clarifications of, or guidance under the Tax Act could add significant expense and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Finally, the tax treatment of non-U.S. companies and their U.S. and non-U.S. insurance subsidiaries may be the subject of further tax legislation. No prediction can be made as to 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 U.S. tax payable by us or by an investor in our Class A common shares or reduce the attractiveness of our products. If any such developments occur, our business, financial condition and results of operation could be materially and adversely affected and such developments could have a material and adverse effect on your investment in our common shares.

Changes in U.S. 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 U.S. 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. The changes in U.S. federal tax law made by the Tax Act, or future changes in U.S. 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.

There is U.S. income tax risk associated with reinsurance between U.S. 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 and results of operations could be adversely affected and the price of our Class A common shares could be adversely affected.


64

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

We may not be able to use our deferred tax asset attributes or admit them into statutory capital as a result of the Tax Act.

Under the Tax Act, net operating losses generated in 2018 and thereafter may be carried forward indefinitely but may not be carried back to offset taxable income in prior tax periods. Historically, a portion of our admitted deferred tax asset has reflected our ability to carry net operating losses back to prior tax periods. In the future, the amount of deferred tax asset we are able to admit may be reduced due to the elimination of the carry back period. Because the ability to admit deferred tax assets into statutory capital is dependent in part on our ability to carry losses back to prior tax periods, we may not be able to admit into statutory capital a portion of deferred tax assets that are generated in future tax periods.

We may have fewer investable assets and earn less investment income as a result of the Tax Act.

Certain of the changes made by the Tax Act are expected to increase the amount of our current tax expense. Although the increase in current tax expense from these changes may be largely offset by an increase in the amount of our deferred tax assets, we may have fewer investable assets and thus may earn less investment income.

We may become subject to U.S. withholding tax under certain U.S. tax provisions commonly known as FATCA.

Certain U.S. tax provisions commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) impose a 30% withholding tax on certain payments of U.S. source income and the proceeds from the disposition after December 31, 2018, of property of a type that can produce U.S. source interest or dividends, in each case, to certain “foreign financial institutions” and “non-financial foreign entities.” The withholding tax also applies to certain “foreign passthru payments” made by foreign financial institutions after December 31, 2018. The U.S. government has signed an intergovernmental agreement to facilitate the implementation of FATCA with the government of Bermuda (Bermuda IGA). AHL and its foreign subsidiaries intend to comply with the obligations imposed on them under FATCA and the Bermuda IGA, as applicable, to avoid being subject to withholding under FATCA on payments made to them or penalties. However, no assurance can be provided in this regard. We may become subject to withholding tax or penalties if we are unable to comply with FATCA.

If AHL is treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business in any taxable year, all or a portion of the dividends on our Class A common shares may be treated as U.S. source income and may be subject to withholding and information reporting under FATCA unless a shareholder (and any intermediaries through which the shareholder holds its shares) establishes an exemption from such withholding and information reporting. In addition, any gross proceeds from the sale or other disposition of our Class A common shares after December 31, 2018, might also be subject to withholding and information reporting under FATCA in such circumstances, absent an exemption. As discussed above, we currently intend to limit our U.S. activities so that AHL is not considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business, although no assurances can be provided in this regard.

We are subject to the risk that Bermuda tax laws may change and that we may become subject to new Bermuda taxes following the expiration of a current exemption after 2035.

The Bermuda Minister of Finance, under the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966 of Bermuda, as amended, has given us an assurance 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 us or any of our 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 by us in respect of real property owned or leased by us in Bermuda. Given the limited duration of the Bermuda Minister of Finance’s assurance, we cannot assure you that we will not be subject to any Bermuda tax after March 31, 2035.

The impact of the OECD’s recommendations on base erosion and profit shifting is uncertain and could impose adverse tax consequences on us.

In 2015, the OECD published final recommendations on base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). These BEPS recommendations propose the development of rules directed at counteracting the effects of tax havens and preferential tax regimes in countries around the world. Beginning with 2017, some countries in which we do business, including Bermuda and the U.S., require certain multinational enterprises, including ours, to report detailed information regarding allocation of revenue, profit, and other information, on a country-by-country basis, which could increase scrutiny by foreign tax authorities.

The BEPS recommendations also include revisions to the definition of a “permanent establishment” and the rules for attributing profit to a permanent establishment. Other recommended actions relate to the goal of ensuring that transfer pricing outcomes are in line with value creation, noting that the current rules may facilitate the transfer of risks or capital away from countries where the economic activity takes place. We expect many countries to change their tax laws in response to this project, and several countries (including the U.S.) have already changed or proposed changes to their tax laws. Changes to tax laws could increase their complexity and the burden and costs of compliance. Additionally, such changes could also result in significant modifications to the existing transfer pricing rules and could potentially have an impact on our taxable profits in various jurisdictions.


65

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Risks Relating to Investment in Our Class A Common Shares

There may be sales of a substantial amount of our common shares by our current shareholders as certain restrictions on sale expire, and these sales could cause the price of our common shares to fall.

Our directors, executive officers and shareholders holding 100% of our common shares outstanding prior to our initial public offering (IPO) agreed that they would not sell any shares prior to the expiration of certain time periods after the date upon which the SEC declared the registration statement for our IPO effective (effective date). The remaining lock-up expiration period applicable to existing holders ends on March 3, 2018, provided that certain of our shareholders and directors representing approximately 8.9% of our common shares, as of December 31, 2017, have agreed not to sell any shares until December 8, 2018. Approximately 48,977,760 and 16,134,546 of our common shares will be eligible for future sale on March 3, 2018 and December 8, 2018, respectively. These restrictions are subject to waiver by our board of directors, including in the event that we permit holders to sell their shares in follow-on registered offerings. As these lock-up periods end, the market price of our common shares could decline if the holders of those shares sell them or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them. Additionally, existing holders of our common shares have registration rights under the Third Amended and Restated Registration Rights Agreement (Registration Rights Agreement), subject to certain conditions, which require us to file registration statements covering the sale of their shares or to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other shareholders in the future.

The interest of the Apollo Group, which controls and is expected to continue to control 45% of the total voting power of AHL and holds a number of the seats on our board of directors, may conflict with those of other shareholders and could make it more difficult for you and other shareholders to influence significant corporate decisions.

The Apollo Group controls and is expected to continue to control 45% of the total voting power of AHL. As a result, the Apollo Group could exercise significant influence over all matters requiring shareholder approval for the foreseeable future, including approval of significant corporate transactions, appointment of members of our management, election of directors, approval of the termination of our IMAs and determination of our corporate policies, which may reduce the market price of our common shares. Even if the Apollo Group reduces its beneficial ownership below its current holdings or we raise additional equity from investors other than members of the Apollo Group, because of its control over 45% of our aggregate voting power, for so long as any member of the Apollo Group owns at least one Class B common share, such member will still be able to assert significant influence over our board of directors and certain corporate actions.

The interests of our existing shareholders, particularly members of the Apollo Group, may conflict with the interests of our other shareholders. Actions that members of the Apollo Group take as shareholders may not be favorable to our other shareholders. For example, the concentration of voting power held by the Apollo Group, the significant representation on our board of directors by the Apollo Group, or the limitations on our ability to terminate any IMA with AAM could delay, defer or prevent a change of control of us or impede a merger, takeover or other business combination which another shareholder may otherwise view favorably. Members of the Apollo Group may, in their role as shareholders, vote in favor of a merger, takeover or other business combination transaction which our other shareholders might not consider in their best interests. In addition, as long as a business combination transaction were deemed to be in the best interests of the Company, our charter and bye-laws would not prevent us from entering into a business combination transaction that provided for the payment of differential consideration to holders of the Class B common shares, which are held by the Apollo Group or its affiliates, and the Class A common shares.

Our conflicts committee and our disinterested directors with respect to a transaction analyze certain of 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 bye-laws 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. In addition, our conflicts committee may exclusively rely on information provided by AAM, including with respect to fees charged by AAM or 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. However, these conflicts provisions will not, by themselves, prohibit transactions with Apollo or its affiliates.

Additionally, our investment manager, AAM, is an indirect subsidiary of Apollo and charges us management fees based on our assets. Under our IMAs with AAM, substantially all of our invested assets are managed by AAM. Our investment policies permit AAM to invest in securities of issuers affiliated with Apollo, including funds managed by Apollo, and to retain on our behalf and at our cost sub-advisors, including Apollo. AAM may make such investments or retain such sub-advisors at its discretion, subject only to the approval of our conflicts committee in certain cases and/or certain regulatory approvals. Accordingly, AAM may have a conflict of interest in managing our investments, including by retaining its affiliate, Apollo, to act as its sub-advisor, which would increase amounts payable by us for investment advisory services or could cause us to receive less return on our investments than if our investment portfolio was managed by another party. In addition, asset management fees are paid based on the amount of our AUM regardless of the results of our operations. Therefore, Apollo could be incentivized to exercise its influence to cause us to increase our AUM, which may have an adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations.


66

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Certain of our investments are managed by other Apollo affiliates retained as sub-advisors by AAM to manage such investments. Currently, substantially all of the assets subject to sub-advisory arrangements are managed by Apollo affiliates. In addition, 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 charge us a sub-advisory fee, or charge such vehicles management fees, that independently, or when taken together with the fees charged by AAM, may not be the lowest fee available for similar sub-advisory or investment management services offered by unrelated managers. In addition, it is possible that such unrelated managers may perform better than the Apollo affiliates retained by AAM as sub-advisors or which manage such collective investment funds. Apollo is not obligated to devote any specific amount of time to the affairs of our company, or to the funds in which we are invested and we have limited rights to terminate any IMA or sub-advisory arrangement. 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 investment teams for AAM and Apollo 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 advisory 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. In addition, where AAM has retained an Apollo affiliate as our sub-advisor, it is possible that due to the fees charged by such sub-advisor in addition to the AAM fees that we pay, we may either experience a reduced return on an investment or may forego purchasing an investment that we would have purchased if such investment opportunity were sourced directly by AAM.

From time to time, AAM or 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 AAM or 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. AAM and Apollo have adopted procedures that are designed to enable AAM and Apollo to address such conflicts and to ensure that clients are treated fairly and equitably in these situations. However, given AAM’s or Apollo’s fiduciary obligations to the other client, AAM and 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 less return on such investment than if another AAM or 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 bye-laws provide 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, AAM and Apollo become restricted from trading 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 AAM or 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 AAM or Apollo would have acquired, or incurring losses on investments that AAM or Apollo would have sold, on our behalf, had such restrictions not been in place.

Certain of AAM’s executives and employees have incentive compensation tied to our financial performance. This compensation arrangement may incentivize such executives and employees to invest in riskier assets in an attempt to achieve higher returns. James R. Belardi, our Chief Executive Officer, also serves as Chief Executive Officer of AAM, owns a profits interest in the equity of AAM and receives compensation from AAM for services he provides to AAM. Accordingly, his involvement as a member of our board of directors and management team and as an officer and director of AAM may lead to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, certain members of our board of directors also serve on the board of directors of AAM 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.

Our bye-laws contain provisions that cause a holder of Class A common shares to lose the right to vote the shares if the holder owns an equity interest in Apollo, AP Alternative Assets, L.P. (AAA) or certain other entities.

Our bye-laws contain provisions that impose restrictions on certain Class A common shares in order to reduce the likelihood that U.S. persons that directly or indirectly own our common shares will experience adverse tax consequences attributable to RPII. These provisions could cause a holder to lose the right to vote its Class A common shares if the holder or one of its affiliates owns (or is treated as owning) any equity interests (or instruments treated as equity interests) in Apollo or AAA, if the holder or one of its affiliates owns (or is treated as owning) any of our Class B common shares or if the holder or one of its affiliates is a member of the Apollo Group. These restrictions do not affect the transferability of Class A common shares and do not apply unless the holder or one of its affiliates meets one of these conditions.


67

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Investors may experience dilution in the future.

We have issued restricted Class M common shares and stock options to certain of our employees and to employees of AAM which enable them, upon meeting certain vesting criteria, to acquire Class A common shares at prices below the NYSE trading price of our Class A common shares. To the extent the outstanding restricted Class M common shares and stock options are ultimately exercised and/or to the extent we issue additional equity in the future, there may be dilution to investors.

Our bye-laws contain provisions that could discourage takeovers and business combinations that our shareholders might consider in their best interests, including provisions that prevent a holder of Class A common shares from having a significant stake in Athene.

Our bye-laws include certain provisions that could have the effect of delaying, deferring, preventing or rendering more difficult a change of control that holders of our Class A common shares might consider in their best interests. For example, our bye-laws prohibit holders of our Class A common shares and certain other classes of our common shares (other than those owned by the Apollo Group) from having more than 9.9% of the total voting power of our common shares. Subject to certain exceptions determined by our board on the basis set forth in our bye-laws, the votes attributable to a holder of Class A common shares above 9.9% of the total voting power of our common shares are redistributed to other holders of Class A common shares pro rata based on the then current voting power of each holder. Such adjustments are likely to result in a shareholder having voting rights in excess of its pro rata share of the voting power of our Class A common shares. Therefore, a shareholder’s voting rights may increase above 5% of the aggregate voting power of the outstanding common shares, thereby possibly resulting in the shareholder becoming a reporting person subject to Schedule 13D or 13G filing requirements under the Exchange Act. These requirements could discourage any potential investment in our Class A common shares. In addition, our board is classified into three classes of directors, with directors of each class serving staggered three-year terms. Any change in the number of directors is required by our bye-laws to be apportioned among the classes so as to maintain the number of directors in each class as nearly equal as possible, and any additional director of any class elected to fill a vacancy resulting from an increase in such class or from the removal of a director will hold such directorship for a term that coincides with the remaining term of that class. Moreover, our bye-laws require specific advance notice procedures and other protocols for holders of common shares to make shareholder proposals and nominate directors. Among other requirements, a shareholder must meet the minimum requirements for eligible shareholders to submit shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act, and submit specific information and make specific undertakings in relation to the shareholder proposal or director nomination.

Any or all of these provisions could prevent holders of our Class A common shares from receiving the benefit from any premium to the market price of our Class A common shares offered by a bidder in a takeover context. Even in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of any of these provisions could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our Class A common shares if they were viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.

AHL is a holding company with limited operations of its own. As a consequence, AHL’s ability to pay dividends on its common shares 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 its assets and conduct substantially all of its 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 to it 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–Holding Company Liquidity.

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. In particular, as a condition to the New York State Department of Financial Services’ (NYSDFS) approval of our acquisition of ALICNY in connection with the broader Aviva USA acquisition, we agreed not to cause ALICNY to declare, distribute or pay any dividend for five years from the date of acquisition of control of ALICNY without the prior written consent of the NYSDFS, which period expires on October 2, 2018. Similarly, as a condition to the approval of the IID of our acquisition of Aviva USA’s Iowa-domiciled subsidiaries, we agreed not to cause AAIA to pay any dividend or other distribution to shareholders for five years, which period expires on August 15, 2018, without the prior approval of the IID. Further, any dividends paid to AHL by its U.S. subsidiaries would be subject to a 30% withholding tax under the Internal Revenue Code, which creates a significant disincentive for AHL’s subsidiaries to pay such dividends and could have the effect of significantly reducing dividends or other amounts payable to AHL by its U.S. subsidiaries. These limitations on AHL’s U.S. subsidiaries’ abilities to pay dividends to it as a shareholder may negatively impact AHL’s financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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–United States–Insurance Holding Company Regulation.


68

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

AHL may in the future incur indebtedness in order to pay dividends to shareholders. If AHL did determine to incur additional indebtedness in order to pay dividends, such dividends would be subject to the terms of AHL’s existing indebtedness as well as any credit agreement that AHL may enter into in the future. AHL does not currently anticipate paying any regular cash dividends on its common shares. Any decision to declare and pay dividends in the future will be made at the discretion of AHL’s board of directors and will depend on, among other things, AHL’s results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, excess capital position, alternative uses of capital, contractual restrictions and other factors that AHL’s board of directors may deem relevant. Therefore, any return on investment in AHL’s common stock may be solely dependent upon the appreciation of the price of AHL’s common stock on the open market, which may not occur.

Holders of our shares may have difficulty effecting service of process on us or enforcing judgments against us in the United States.

AHL is incorporated pursuant to the laws of Bermuda and is domiciled in Bermuda. In addition, certain of our directors and officers reside outside the United States, and a substantial portion of our assets are located in jurisdictions outside the United States. As such, we have been advised that there is doubt as to whether:
a holder of our shares would be able to enforce, in the courts of Bermuda, judgments of U.S. courts against us or against persons who reside in Bermuda based upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws; or
a holder of our shares would be able to bring an original action in the Bermuda courts to enforce liabilities against us or our directors and officers who reside outside the United States based solely upon U.S. federal securities laws.

Further, we have been advised that there is no treaty in effect between the United States and Bermuda providing for the enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts, and there are grounds upon which Bermuda courts may not enforce judgments of U.S. courts. Because judgments of U.S. courts are not automatically enforceable in Bermuda, it may be difficult for you to recover against us based upon such judgments. Additionally, we have been advised that the United States and Bermuda do not currently have a treaty providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. A Bermuda court may, however, impose civil liability on us or our directors or officers in a suit brought in the Supreme Court of Bermuda provided that the facts alleged constitute or give rise to a cause of action under Bermuda law. Certain remedies available under the laws of U.S. jurisdictions, including certain remedies under the U.S. federal securities laws, would not be allowed in Bermuda courts to the extent that they are contrary to public policy.

Our choice of forum provisions in our bye-laws may limit your ability to bring suits against us or our directors and officers.

Our bye-laws currently provide that if any dispute arises concerning the Companies Act or out of or in connection with our bye-laws, including any question regarding the existence and scope of any bye-law and/or whether there has been a breach of the Companies Act or our bye-laws by an officer or director (whether or not such a claim is brought in the name of a shareholder or in the name of the Company), any such dispute shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Bermuda. This choice of forum provision may limit a shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that the shareholder believes is favorable for disputes with us or our directors or officers, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors and officers. Alternatively, if a court were to find this provision of our bye-laws inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

U.S. persons who own our shares may have more difficulty in protecting their interests than U.S. persons who are shareholders of a U.S. corporation.

The Companies Act, which applies to AHL, differs in certain material respects from laws generally applicable to U.S. corporations and their shareholders. Set forth below is a summary of certain significant provisions of the Companies Act and our bye-laws which differ in certain respects from provisions of Delaware corporate law. Because the following statements are summaries, they do not discuss all aspects of Bermuda law that may be relevant to us and our shareholders.

Interested Directors

Bermuda law provides that we cannot void any transaction we enter into in which a director has an interest, nor can such director be liable to us for any profit realized pursuant to such transaction, provided the nature of the interest is disclosed at the first opportunity at a meeting of directors, or in writing, to the directors. Under Delaware law such transaction would not be voidable if:
the material facts as to such interested director’s relationship or interests were disclosed or were known to the board of directors and the board of directors had in good faith authorized the transaction by the affirmative vote of a majority of the disinterested directors;
such material facts were disclosed or were known to the shareholders entitled to vote on such transaction and the transaction was specifically approved in good faith by vote of the majority of shares entitled to vote thereon; or
the transaction was fair to the corporation as of the time it was authorized, approved or ratified.

Under Delaware law, the interested director could be held liable for a transaction in which the director derived an improper personal benefit.


69

Table of Contents

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

Shareholders’ Suits

The rights of shareholders under Bermuda law are not as extensive as the rights of shareholders in many U.S. jurisdictions. Class actions and derivative actions are generally not available to shareholders under the laws of Bermuda. However, the Bermuda courts ordinarily would be expected to follow English case law precedent, which would permit a shareholder to commence an action in the name of the company to remedy a wrong done to the company where an act is alleged to be beyond the corporate power of the company, is illegal or would result in the violation of our memorandum of association or bye-laws. Furthermore, a court would consider acts that are alleged to constitute a fraud against the minority shareholders or acts requiring the approval of a greater percentage of our shareholders than actually approved it. The winning party in such an action generally would be able to recover a portion of attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such action. Class actions and derivative actions generally are available to shareholders under Delaware law for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and actions not taken in accordance with applicable law. In such actions, the court has discretion to permit the winning party to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such action.

Indemnification of Directors

We have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and officers which provide that we will indemnify our directors and officers or any person appointed to any committee by the board of directors acting in their capacity as such for any loss arising or liability attaching to them by virtue of any rule of law in respect of any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust of which such person may be guilty in relation to Athene other than in respect of his own fraud or dishonesty. We are also required to indemnify our directors and officers in any proceeding in which they are successful. The indemnification agreements are limited to those payments that are lawful under Bermuda law.

Furthermore, pursuant to our bye-laws, our shareholders have agreed to waive any claim or right of action such shareholder may have, whether individually or by or in right of AHL, against any director or officer of AHL on account of any action taken by such director or officer, or the failure of such director or officer to take any action in the performance of his or her duties with or for AHL or any subsidiary of AHL; provided that such waiver does not extend to any matter in respect of any fraud or dishonesty which may attach to such director or officer.




70

Table of Contents

Item 1B.    Unresolved Staff Comments

None.


Item 2.    Properties

We own our headquarters for U.S. operations, which is located in West Des Moines, IA and we lease our head office for Bermuda operations, which is located in Pembroke, Bermuda. Our Retirement Services segment includes our Iowa and Bermuda offices. We believe that for the foreseeable future our West Des Moines and Bermuda properties will be sufficient for us to conduct our current operations.


Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

We are subject to litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business, including litigation principally relating to our FIA 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 the government in audits or investigations. We and each of our U.S. 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.

For a description of certain legal proceedings affecting us, see Note 18 – Commitments and ContingenciesLitigations, Claims and Assessments to the consolidated financial statements.


Item 4.    Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.


71

Table of Contents


PART II

Item 5.    Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Our Class A common shares began trading on the NYSE under the symbol “ATH” on December 9, 2016.

The following table summarizes high and low closing prices for our Class A common shares on the NYSE for the periods indicated:
 
2017
 
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
High
$
53.72

$
54.30

$
54.34

$
55.02

Low
$
45.90

$
48.79

$
48.85

$
46.69

 
2016
 
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
High
$

$

$

$
47.99

Low
$

$

$

$
44.05


Shareholders

As of January 31, 2018, there were 142,449,265 Class A common shares outstanding and held of record by 495 shareholders, 47,421,940 Class B common shares outstanding and held of record by 13 shareholders, 3,388,890 Class M-1 common shares outstanding and held of record by 4 shareholders, 851,103 Class M-2 common shares outstanding and held of record by 2 shareholders, 1,088,000 Class M-3 common shares are outstanding and held of record by 3 shareholders, and 4,701,866 Class M-4 common shares outstanding and held of record by 120 shareholders.

Dividends

We do not currently pay dividends on any of our common shares and we currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business. We may, however, pay cash dividends on our common shares, including our Class A common shares, in the future. Any future determination to pay dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon many factors, including our financial condition, earnings, legal and regulatory requirements, restrictions in our debt agreements and other factors our board of directors deems relevant. While we do not currently have any preference shares, if we issue such shares in the future, our board of directors may declare and pay a dividend on one or more classes of shares to the extent one or more classes of shares ranks senior to or has a priority over another class of shares. Our ability to pay dividends on our Class A common shares is limited by the terms of our existing indebtedness and may be restricted by the terms of any future credit agreement or any future debt or preferred securities of ours or of our subsidiaries. See Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Liquidity and Capital Resources and Note 10 – Debt to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion.

Furthermore, AHL is a holding company and has no direct operations. All of AHL’s business operations are conducted through its subsidiaries. Any dividends AHL pays will depend upon its funds legally available for distribution, including dividends from its subsidiaries. AHL’s U.S. insurance subsidiaries are highly regulated and are required to comply with various conditions before they are able to pay dividends or make distributions to AHL. See Item 1. Business–Regulation and Note 16 – Statutory Requirements to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion. In addition, any dividends payable to AHL by its U.S. insurance subsidiaries, if permitted, would be subject to a withholding tax of up to 30%.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

See Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters–Share Incentive Plan Information for information regarding our equity compensation plans.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

72

Table of Contents



Issuer Purchases of Securities

Purchases of common stock made by or on behalf of us or our affiliates during the three months ended December 31, 2017 are set forth below:
Period
(a) Total number of shares purchased1
(b) Average price paid per share1
(c) Total number of shares purchased as part of publicly announced programs2
(d) Maximum number (or approximate dollar value) of shares that may yet be purchased under the plans or programs2
October 1 – October 31, 2017
215

$
53.84


$

November 1 – November 30, 2017
18

$
48.92


$

December 1 – December 31, 2017
2,019

$
51.50


$

 
 
 
 
 
1 Purchases relate to shares withheld (under the terms of employee stock-based compensation plans) to offset tax withholding obligations that occur upon the delivery of outstanding shares underlying equity awards or upon the exercise of stock options.
2 As of December 31, 2017, our Board of Directors had not authorized any purchases of common stock in connection with a publicly announced plan or program.



73

Table of Contents

Item 6.    Selected Financial Data

The following tables set forth our selected historical consolidated financial data, which should be read in conjunction with Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. The information has been derived from our historical consolidated financial statements. In addition, the summary historical consolidated financial data presented below for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 gives effect to the correction of certain immaterial errors. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of future results.
 
Years ended December 31,
(In millions, except percentages, share, and per share data)
20171
 
20161
 
20151,2
 
2014
 
20132
Consolidated Statements of Income Data
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total revenues
$
8,727

 
$
4,105

 
$
2,618

 
$
4,101

 
$
1,748

Total benefits and expenses
7,192

 
3,389

 
2,028

 
3,577

 
762

Income before income taxes
1,535

 
716

 
590

 
524

 
986

Net income available to AHL shareholders
1,448

 
768

 
562

 
456

 
913

Adjusted operating income (a non-GAAP measure)
1,109

 
728

 
738

 
785

 
775

ROE
18.0
%
 
12.6
%
 
11.4
%
 
12.5
%
 
39.5
%
ROE excluding AOCI (a non-GAAP measure)
20.3
%
 
12.7
%
 
11.9