TRV, §1A diff (2019 → 2020)

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS You should carefully consider the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this report, including without limitation our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto and "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Critical Accounting Estimates." High levels of catastrophe losses, including as a result of factors such as increased concentrations of insured exposures in catastrophe-prone areas, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, our financial position and/or liquidity, and could adversely impact our ratings, our ability to raise capital and the availability and cost of reinsurance. Our property and casualty insurance operations expose us to claims arising out of catastrophes. Catastrophes can be caused by various natural events, including, among others, hurricanes, tornadoes and other windstorms, earthquakes, hail, wildfires, severe winter weather, floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, solar flares and other naturally-occurring events. Catastrophes can also be man-made, such as terrorist attacks and other intentionally destructive acts including those involving nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological events, cyber events, explosions and destruction of infrastructure. The geographic distribution of our business subjects us to catastrophe exposures in the United States and Canada, which include, but are not limited to: hurricanes from Maine through Texas; severe wind and hail storms, including tornadoes, throughout the Central, Mid-Atlantic, Southcentral and Southeastern regions of the United States; winter storms, particularly in the Northern and Central regions of the United States and in Canada; earthquakes in California, the New Madrid region and the Pacific Northwest region of North America; wildfires, particularly in western states and Canada; and terrorism in major cities in the United States. In addition to our operations in the United States and Canada, our international operations subject us to catastrophe exposures in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland as well as to a variety of worldwide catastrophe exposures through our Lloyd’s operations. The incidence and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that both the frequency and severity of natural and man-made catastrophic events could increase. Severe weather events over the last two decades have underscored the unpredictability of future climate trends, and changing climate conditions could add to the frequency and severity of natural disasters and create additional uncertainty as to future trends and exposures. The insurance industry experienced increased catastrophe losses due to a number of potential causal factors, including, in addition to weather/climate variability, more people living in high-risk areas, population growth in areas with weaker enforcement of building codes, urban expansion and an increase in the average size of a house. For example, hurricane activity has impacted areas further inland than previously experienced by us, and demographic changes have resulted in larger populations in coastal areas which historically have been subject to severe storms and related storm surge, thus expanding our potential for losses from hurricanes. Additionally, both the frequency and severity of tornado and hail storms in the United States have been more volatile during the last decade. The frequency and severity of wildfire losses have been elevated in more recent years, due in part to record droughts in California that some climate studies suggest are likely to increase over time. Demographic changes in areas prone to wildfires have also expanded our potential for losses from wildfires. All of the catastrophe modeling tools that we use, or that we rely on from outside parties, to evaluate certain of our catastrophe exposures are based on assumptions and judgments that are subject to error and mis-estimation. As a result, these models may produce estimates that are materially different than actual results. In addition, compared to models for hurricanes, models for earthquakes are less reliable due to there being a more limited number of significant historical events to analyze, while models for tornadoes and hail storms are newer and may be less reliable due to the highly random geographic nature and size of these events. Accordingly, these models may have greater difficulty predicting risks and estimating losses. Further, changes in climate conditions could cause our underlying modeling data to be less predictive, thus limiting our ability to effectively evaluate and manage catastrophe risk. As compared to natural catastrophes, modeling for man-made catastrophes, such as terrorism and cyber events, is even more difficult and less reliable, and for some events (both natural and man-made), models are either in early stages of development and, therefore, not widely adopted, or are not available. See "We may be adversely affected if our pricing and capital models provide materially different indications than actual results" below as well as "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Catastrophe Modeling" and "-Changing Climate Conditions." The extent of losses from a catastrophe is a function of the total amount of insured exposure affected by the event, the severity of the event and the coverage provided, which can be both property and casualty coverages. Increases in the value and geographic concentration of insured property, the number of policyholders exposed to certain events and the effects of inflation could increase the severity of claims resulting from a catastrophe. For example, the specific geographic location impacted by tornadoes is inherently random and unpredictable and the specific location impacted by a tornado may or may not be highly populated and may or may not have a high concentration of our insured exposures. Similarly, the potential for losses from a cyber event can be magnified to the extent that the event impacts platforms, systems or vulnerabilities shared by a large number of policyholders. States have from time to time passed legislation, and regulators have taken action, that have the effect of limiting the ability of insurers to manage catastrophe risk, such as legislation restricting insurers from reducing exposures or withdrawing from catastrophe-prone areas or mandating that insurers participate in residual markets. Participation in residual market mechanisms has resulted in, and may in the future result in, significant losses or assessments to insurers, including us, and, in certain states, those losses or assessments may not be commensurate with our direct catastrophe exposure in those states. If our competitors leave those states having residual market mechanisms, remaining insurers, including us, may be subject to significant increases in losses or assessments following a catastrophe. In addition, following catastrophes, there are sometimes legislative and administrative initiatives and court decisions that seek to expand insurance coverage for catastrophe claims beyond the original intent of the policies, seek to prevent the application of deductibles included in the policies or seek to limit the exercise of certain rights available to insurers under the policies. Also, our ability to adjust terms, including deductible levels, or to increase pricing to the extent necessary to offset rising costs related to catastrophes, particularly in the Personal Insurance segment, requires approval of regulatory authorities of certain states. Our ability or our willingness to manage our catastrophe exposure by raising prices, modifying underwriting terms or reducing exposure to certain geographies may be limited due to considerations of public policy, the evolving political environment and/or changes in the general economic climate. Furthermore, reduction or elimination of the National Flood Insurance Program could result in an increase in our exposure to flood risk. We also may choose to write business in catastrophe-prone areas that we might not otherwise write for strategic purposes, such as improving our access to other underwriting opportunities. There are also factors that impact the estimation of ultimate costs for catastrophes. For example, the estimation of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves related to hurricanes can be affected by the inability to access portions of the impacted areas, the complexity of factors contributing to the losses, the limited availability of the necessary labor and supplies, the legal and regulatory uncertainties and the nature of the information available to establish the claims and claim adjustment expense reserves. Complex factors include, but are not limited to: determining whether damage was caused by flooding versus wind; evaluating general liability and pollution exposures; estimating additional living expenses; the impact of demand surge; infrastructure disruption; fraud; the effect of mold damage; business interruption costs; late reported claims; litigation; and reinsurance collectability. The timing of a catastrophe’s occurrence, such as at or near the end of a reporting period, can also affect the information available to us in estimating claims and claim adjustment expense reserves for that reporting period. The estimates related to catastrophes are adjusted in subsequent periods as actual claims emerge and additional information becomes available. Exposure to catastrophe losses or actual losses resulting from a catastrophe could adversely affect our financial strength and claims-paying ratings and could impair our ability to raise capital on acceptable terms or at all. Also, as a result of our exposure to catastrophe losses or actual losses following a catastrophe, rating agencies may further increase capital requirements, which may require us to raise capital to maintain our ratings. A ratings downgrade could hurt our ability to compete effectively or attract new business. In addition, catastrophic events could cause us to exhaust our available reinsurance limits and could adversely impact the cost and availability of reinsurance on a going-forward basis. Such events can also impact the credit of our reinsurers. For a discussion of our catastrophe reinsurance coverage, see "Item 1 - Business-Reinsurance-Catastrophe Reinsurance." Catastrophic events could also adversely impact the credit of the issuers of securities, such as states or municipalities, in which we have invested. In addition, coverage in our reinsurance program for terrorism is limited. Although the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program provides benefits in the event of certain acts of terrorism, those benefits are subject to a deductible and other limitations and the program is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2027. Under current provisions of this program, once our losses exceed 20% of our commercial property and casualty insurance premium for the preceding calendar year, the federal government will reimburse us for 80% of our losses attributable to certain acts of terrorism which exceed this deductible up to a total industry program cap of $100 billion. Our estimated deductible under the program is $2.61 billion for 2020. In addition, because the interpretation of this law is untested, there is substantial uncertainty as to how it will be applied to specific circumstances. For example, application of the law to a specific event will depend upon whether the government has designated such event as a covered event. It is also possible that future legislation could change or eliminate the program, which could adversely affect our business by increasing our exposure to terrorism losses, or by lowering our business volume through efforts to avoid that exposure. For a further description of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, see note 5 of notes to the consolidated financial statements. Because of the risks set forth above, catastrophes could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position and/or liquidity. Further, we may not have sufficient resources to respond to claims arising from a high frequency of high-severity natural catastrophes and/or of man-made catastrophic events involving conventional means. In addition, while we seek to manage our exposure to man-made catastrophic events involving conventional means, we may not have sufficient resources to respond to claims arising out of one or more man-made catastrophic events involving “unconventional” means, such as nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological events. If actual claims exceed our claims and claim adjustment expense reserves, or if changes in the estimated level of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves are necessary, including as a result of, among other things, changes in the legal/tort, regulatory and economic environments in which the Company operates, our financial results could be materially and adversely affected. Claims and claim adjustment expense reserves represent management estimates of what the ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost, generally utilizing actuarial expertise and projection techniques, at a given accounting date. The process of estimating claims and claim adjustment expense reserves involves a high degree of judgment and is subject to a number of variables. These variables can be affected by both internal and external events, such as: changes in claims handling procedures; adverse changes in loss cost trends, including inflationary pressures, technology or other changes that may impact medical, auto and home repair costs (e.g., more costly technology in vehicles resulting in increased severity of claims); economic conditions, including general and wage inflation; legal trends, including adverse changes in the tort environment (e.g., increased and more aggressive attorney involvement in insurance claims, increased litigation, expanded theories of liability, higher jury awards, lawsuit abuse and third-party litigation finance, among others); and legislative changes, among others. The impact of many of these items on ultimate costs for claims and claim adjustment expenses is difficult to estimate and could be material. Claims and claim adjustment expense reserve estimation difficulties also differ significantly by product line due to differences in claim complexity, the volume of claims, the potential severity of individual claims, the determination of occurrence date for a claim and reporting lags (the time between the occurrence of the policyholder event and when it is actually reported to the insurer). See also "The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business are uncertain, and court decisions or legislative changes which take place after we issue our policies can result in unexpected liabilities" below. It is possible that, among other things, past or future steps taken by the federal government and the Federal Reserve to stimulate the U.S. economy, including actions to manage interest rates, tax reform, the imposition of increased or additional tariffs and other changes in international trade regulation, could lead to higher inflation than we had anticipated, which could in turn lead to an increase in our loss costs. The impact of inflation on loss costs could be more pronounced for those lines of business that are considered “long tail,” such as general liability, as they require a relatively long period of time to finalize and settle claims for a given accident year. In addition, a significant portion of claims costs, including those in “long tail” lines of business, consists of medical costs. Changes in healthcare legislation could significantly impact the availability, cost and allocation of payments for medical services, and it is possible that, as a result, inflationary pressures in medical costs may increase or claim frequency and/or severity may otherwise be adversely impacted. The estimation of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves may also be more difficult during times of adverse or uncertain economic conditions due to unexpected changes in behavior of claimants and policyholders, including an increase in fraudulent reporting of exposures and/or losses, reduced maintenance of insured properties, increased frequency of small claims or delays in the reporting of claims. We refine our claims and claim adjustment expense reserve estimates in a regular, ongoing process as historical loss experience develops, additional claims are reported and settled, and the legal, regulatory and economic environment evolves. Business judgment is applied throughout the process, including the application of various individual experiences and expertise to multiple sets of data and analyses. Different experts may choose different assumptions when faced with material uncertainty, based on their individual backgrounds, professional experiences and areas of focus. As a result, such experts may at times produce estimates materially different from each other. This risk may be exacerbated in the context of an acquisition. Experts providing input to the various estimates and underlying assumptions include actuaries, underwriters, claim personnel and lawyers, as well as other members of management. Therefore, management may have to consider varying individual viewpoints as part of its estimation of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves. We attempt to consider all significant facts and circumstances known at the time claims and claim adjustment expense reserves are established or reviewed. Due to the inherent uncertainty underlying claims and claim adjustment expense reserve estimates, the final resolution of the estimated liability for claims and claim adjustment expenses will likely be higher or lower than the related claims and claim adjustment expense reserves at the reporting date. Therefore, actual paid losses in the future may yield a materially different amount than is currently reserved. Because of the uncertainties set forth above, additional liabilities resulting from one insured event, or an accumulation of insured events, may exceed the current related reserves. In addition, our estimate of claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, could vary significantly from period to period, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and/or our financial position. For a discussion of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves by product line, including examples of common factors that can affect required reserves, see "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Critical Accounting Estimates-Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense Reserves." During or following a period of financial market disruption or an economic downturn, our business could be materially and adversely affected. Worldwide financial markets and economic conditions have, from time to time, experienced significant disruption or deterioration and likely will experience periods of disruption or deterioration in the future. If financial markets experience significant disruption or if economic conditions deteriorate, our results of operations, financial position and/or liquidity likely would be adversely impacted. For example, financial market disruptions and economic downturns in the past have resulted in, among other things, reduced business volume, as well as heightened credit risk and reduced valuations for certain of our investments. Financial market disruption or an economic downturn could be exacerbated by actual or potential economic and geopolitical instability in many regions of the world. This can impact our business even if we do not conduct business in the region subject to the instability. For example, due to globalization, instability in one region can spread to other regions where we do business or a pandemic can disrupt the global supply chain. In addition, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union could have a negative impact on economic conditions in the United Kingdom and could result in unintended consequences in other countries as well. In the United States, actions or inactions of the United States government may also impact economic conditions. For example, actions that may be taken with respect to monetary policy, a government shutdown, the debt ceiling, the Federal budget, international trade and tariffs, interest rates, health care legislation, tax laws and regulation generally, among other things, may contribute, positively or negatively, to economic conditions generally and create economic and fiscal uncertainty. Several of the risk factors discussed above and below identify risks that could result from, or be exacerbated by, financial market disruption, an economic slowdown or economic uncertainty. These include risks discussed above related to our estimates of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves, and those discussed below related to our investment portfolio, the competitive environment, emerging claim and coverage issues, reinsurance arrangements, other credit exposures, regulatory developments and the impact of rating agency actions. You should also refer to "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," particularly the "Outlook" section, for additional information about these risks and the potential impact on our business. Our investment portfolio is subject to credit and interest rate risk, and may suffer reduced or low returns or material realized or unrealized losses. Investment returns are an important part of our overall profitability. Fixed maturity and short-term investments comprised approximately 94% of the carrying value of our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2019. Changes in interest rates caused by inflation or other factors (inclusive of credit spreads) affect the carrying value of our fixed maturity investments and returns on our fixed maturity and short-term investments. A decline in interest rates reduces the returns available on short-term investments and new fixed maturity investments (including those purchased to re-invest maturities from the existing portfolio), thereby negatively impacting our net investment income, while rising interest rates reduce the market value of existing fixed maturity investments, thereby negatively impacting our book value. The net pre-tax unrealized gain in our fixed income portfolio was $2.85 billion at December 31, 2019, compared to a net pre-tax unrealized loss of $137 million at December 31, 2018, due to a decline in interest rates during 2019. Any future increases in interest rates (inclusive of credit spreads) would result in a decrease in that unrealized gain position, thereby adversely impacting our book value. Interest rates continue to remain at very low levels relative to historical experience, and it is possible that rates will remain at low levels for a prolonged period. The value of our fixed maturity and short-term investments is also subject to the risk that certain investments may default or become impaired due to a deterioration in the financial condition of one or more issuers of the securities held in our portfolio, or due to a deterioration in the financial condition of an insurer that guarantees an issuer’s payments of such investments. Such defaults and impairments could reduce our net investment income and result in realized investment losses. During an economic downturn, fixed maturity and short-term investments could be subject to a higher risk of default, and our non-fixed income investments could be negatively impacted as well. Rapid changes in commodity prices, such as a significant decline in oil prices, could also subject certain of our investments to a higher risk of default. Our fixed maturity investment portfolio is invested, in substantial part, in obligations of states, municipalities and political subdivisions (collectively referred to as the municipal bond portfolio). Notwithstanding the relatively low historical rates of default on many of these obligations and notwithstanding that we typically seek to invest in high-credit-quality securities (including those with structural protections such as being secured by dedicated or pledged sources of revenue), our municipal bond portfolio could be subject to default or impairment. In particular: • In recent years, many state and local governments have been operating under deficits or projected deficits. The severity and duration of these deficits could have an adverse impact on the collectability and valuation of our municipal bond portfolio. These deficits may be exacerbated by the impact of unfunded pension plan obligations and other postretirement obligations or by declining municipal tax bases and revenues in times of financial stress. The recent tax reform also could lead state and local governments to decrease taxes, which could result in a deterioration of the credit quality of these state and local governments. • Some municipal bond issuers may be unwilling to increase tax rates, or to reduce spending, to fund interest or principal payments on their municipal bonds, or may be unable to access the municipal bond market to fund such payments. The risk of widespread defaults may increase if some issuers voluntarily choose to default, instead of implementing difficult fiscal measures, and the actual or perceived consequences (such as reduced access to capital markets) are less severe than expected. • The risk of widespread defaults may also increase if there are changes in legislation that permit states, municipalities and political subdivisions to file for bankruptcy protection where they were not permitted before. In addition, the collectability and valuation of municipal bonds may be adversely affected if there are judicial interpretations in a bankruptcy or other proceeding that lessen the value of structural protections. For example, debtors may challenge the effectiveness of structural protections thought to be provided by municipal securities backed by a dedicated source of revenue. The collectability and valuation may also be adversely affected if there are judicial interpretations in a bankruptcy or other proceeding that question the payment priority of municipal bonds. Approximately 27% of the fixed maturity portfolio is expected to mature over the next three years (this includes the early redemption of bonds, assuming interest rates (including credit spreads) do not rise significantly by applicable call dates). As a result, even if our investment strategy does not significantly change over the next few years, the overall yield on and composition of our portfolio could be meaningfully impacted by the types of investments available for reinvestment with the proceeds of matured bonds. For example, if yields decrease when we reinvest such proceeds, our future net investment income would be adversely affected. In addition, depending on the specific bonds available for purchase at the time of re-investment, the mix of specific issuers in our fixed-income and municipal bond portfolio will change. Our portfolio has benefited from tax exemptions (such as those related to interest from municipal bonds) and certain other tax laws, including, but not limited to, those governing dividends-received deductions and tax credits. Changes in these laws could adversely impact the value of our investment portfolio. See “Changes in U.S. tax laws or in the tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate could adversely impact us” below. Our investment portfolio includes: residential mortgage-backed securities; collateralized mortgage obligations; pass-through securities and asset-backed securities collateralized by sub-prime mortgages; commercial mortgage-backed securities; and wholly-owned real estate and real estate partnerships, all of which could be adversely impacted by declines in real estate valuations and/or financial market disruption. We also invest a portion of our assets in equity securities, private equity limited partnerships, hedge funds and real estate partnerships. From time to time, we may also invest in other types of non-fixed maturity investments, including investments with exposure to commodity price risk, such as oil. All of these asset classes are subject to greater volatility in their investment returns than fixed maturity investments. General economic conditions, changes in applicable tax laws and many other factors beyond our control can adversely affect the value of our non-fixed maturity investments and the realization of net investment income, and/or result in realized investment losses. As a result of these factors, we may realize reduced returns on these investments, incur losses on sales of these investments and be required to write down the value of these investments, which could reduce our net investment income and result in realized investment losses. From time to time, the Company enters into short positions in U.S. Treasury futures contracts to manage the duration of its fixed maturity portfolio, which can result in realized investment losses. Our investment portfolio is also subject to increased valuation uncertainties when investment markets are illiquid. The valuation of investments is more subjective when markets are illiquid, thereby increasing the risk that the estimated fair value (i.e., the carrying amount) of the portion of the investment portfolio that is carried at fair value as reflected in our financial statements is not reflective of prices at which actual transactions could occur. We may, depending on circumstances in the future, including as a result of changes in economic and market conditions, make changes to the mix of investments in our investment portfolio as part of our ongoing efforts to seek appropriate risk-adjusted returns. These changes may impact the duration, volatility and risk of our investment portfolio. For example, the percentage of our investment portfolio consisting of tax-exempt municipal bonds has decreased from 42% at December 31, 2017 to 38% at December 31, 2019 due, in part, to the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on the municipal bond market. Because of the risks set forth above, the value of our investment portfolio could decrease, we could experience reduced net investment income and we could experience realized and/or unrealized investment losses, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position and/or liquidity. The intense competition that we face, and the impact of innovation, technological change and changing customer preferences on the insurance industry and the markets in which we operate, could harm our ability to maintain or increase our business volumes and our profitability. The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive, and we believe that it will remain highly competitive for the foreseeable future. We compete with both domestic and foreign insurers, including an increasing number of start-ups, which may offer products at prices and on terms that are not consistent with our economic standards in an effort to maintain or increase their business. The competitive environment in which we operate could also be impacted by current general economic conditions, which could reduce the volume of business available to us as well as to our competitors. In recent years, pension and hedge funds and other entities with substantial available capital and potentially lower return objectives have increasingly sought to participate in the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance businesses. Well-capitalized new entrants to the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance industries and existing competitors that receive substantial infusions of capital may conduct business in ways that adversely impact our business volumes and profitability. Further, an expanded supply of reinsurance capital may lower costs for insurers that rely significantly on reinsurance and, as a consequence, those insurers may be able to price their products more competitively. In addition, the competitive environment could be impacted by changes in customer preferences, including customer demand for direct distribution channels and/or greater choice, not only in personal lines (where we currently and may increasingly compete against direct writers), but also in commercial lines (where direct writers may become a more significant source of competition in the future, particularly in the small commercial market). Similarly, customer behavior could evolve in the future towards buying insurance in point-of-sale or other non-traditional distribution channels where we do not currently have a meaningful presence or which are designed to sell products that we currently do not provide. Consolidation within the insurance industry also could alter the competitive environment in which we operate, which may impact our business volumes and/or the rates or terms of our products. In Personal Insurance, the use of comparative rating technologies has impacted, and may continue to impact, our business as well as the industry as a whole. A substantial amount of the Company’s Personal Insurance new business is written after an agent compares quotes using comparative rating technologies, a cost-efficient means of obtaining quotes from multiple companies. Because the use of this technology, whether by agents or directly by customers, facilitates the process of generating multiple quotes, the technology has increased price comparison on new business and, increasingly, on renewal business. It also has resulted in an increase in the level of quote activity and a lower percentage of quotes that result in new business from customers, and these trends may continue or accelerate. If we are not able to operate with a competitive cost structure or accurately estimate and price for claims and claim adjustment expenses, our business volume and underwriting margins could be adversely affected over time. Additionally, similar technology is starting to be used to access comparative rates for small commercial business and that trend is likely to continue and may accelerate. In recent years, there have been new entrants into the small commercial insurance business and this trend may continue. Technology companies or other third parties have created, and may in the future create, digitally-enabled business models, platforms or alternate distribution channels for personal or commercial business that may adversely impact our competitive position. These technology companies or other third parties may compete with us directly by providing, or arranging to provide, insurance coverage themselves. See also “Disruptions to our relationships with our independent agents and brokers could adversely affect us” below. Other technological changes also present competitive risks. For example, our competitive position could be impacted if we are unable to deploy, in a cost effective and competitive manner, technology such as artificial intelligence and machine learning that collects and analyzes a wide variety of data points (so-called “big data” analysis) to make underwriting or other decisions, or if our competitors collect and use data which we do not have the ability to access or use. In addition, innovations, such as telematics and other usage-based methods of determining premiums, can impact product design and pricing and may become an increasingly important competitive factor. See also “Our business success and profitability depend, in part, on effective information technology systems and on continuing to develop and implement improvements in technology, particularly as our business processes become more digital” below. Competitive dynamics may impact the success of efforts to improve our underwriting margins on our insurance products. These efforts could include seeking improved rates, as well as improved terms and conditions, and could also include other initiatives, such as reducing operating expenses and acquisition costs. These efforts may not be successful and/or may result in lower retention and new business levels and therefore lower business volumes. In addition, if our underwriting is not effective, further efforts to increase rates could also lead to “adverse selection”, whereby accounts retained have higher losses, and are less profitable, than accounts lost. For more detail, see "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Outlook." Similar to other industries, the insurance industry is undergoing rapid and significant technological and other change. Traditional insurance industry participants, technology companies, “InsurTech” start-up companies, the number of which has increased significantly in recent years and some of which are supported by traditional insurance industry participants, and others are focused on using technology and innovation to simplify and improve the customer experience, increase efficiencies, redesign products, alter business models and effect other potentially disruptive changes in the insurance industry. If we do not anticipate, keep pace with and adapt to technological and other changes impacting the insurance industry, it will harm our ability to compete, decrease the value of our products to customers, and materially and adversely affect our business. Furthermore, innovation, technological change and changing customer preferences in the markets in which we operate also pose risks to our business. For example, technologies such as driverless vehicles, assisted-driving or accident prevention technologies, technologies that facilitate ride or home sharing, smart homes or automation could reduce the number of vehicles in use and/or the demand for, or profitability of, certain of our products, create coverage issues or impact the frequency or severity of losses, and we may not be able to respond effectively. While there is substantial uncertainty as to the timing of any impact, in the case of driverless vehicles in particular, new legal frameworks or business practices could be adopted that reduce the size of the auto insurance market. Overall, our competitive position in our various businesses is based on many factors, including but not limited to our: • ability to profitably price our business, retain existing customers and obtain new business; • premiums charged, contract terms and conditions, products and services offered (including the ability to design customized programs); • agent, broker and policyholder relationships; • ability to keep pace relative to our competitors with changes in technology, information systems, data and analytics; • effectiveness of our claims process, including the speed of payment; • ability to avoid and mitigate fraudulent claims; • ability to provide our products and services in a cost effective manner; • ability to provide new products and services to meet changing customer needs; • ability to adapt to changes in business models, technology, customer preferences or regulation impacting the markets in which we operate; • ability to provide access to the distribution channels preferred by customers and prospective customers; • perceived overall financial strength and corresponding ratings assigned by independent rating agencies; • reputation, experience and qualifications of employees; • geographic scope of business; and • local presence. We may have difficulty in continuing to compete successfully on any of these bases in the future. If competition or technological or other changes to the markets in which we operate limit our ability to retain existing business or write new business at adequate rates or on appropriate terms, our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. See "Competition" sections of the discussion on business segments in "Item 1 - Business." Our business could be harmed because of our potential exposure to asbestos and environmental claims and related litigation. With regard to asbestos claims, we have received and continue to receive a significant number of asbestos claims. Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants, such as manufacturers of talcum powder, who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. This trend of prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, has contributed to the claims and claim adjustment expense payments we experienced. We also continue to be involved in coverage litigation concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder’s favor and our other defenses are not successful, our coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders. Although we have seen a moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. Further, in addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including us, by individuals challenging insurers’ conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including us, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. With regard to environmental claims, we have received and continue to receive claims from policyholders who allege that they are liable for injury or damage arising out of their alleged disposition of toxic substances. Mostly, these claims arise under various legislative as well as regulatory efforts aimed at environmental remediation. For instance, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), enacted in 1980 and later modified, enables private parties as well as federal and state governments to take action with respect to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances. This federal statute permits the recovery of response costs from some liable parties and may require liable parties to undertake their own remedial action. Liability under CERCLA and similar state laws may be imposed on certain parties even if they did not cause the release or threatened release of hazardous substances and may be joint and several with other responsible parties. The Company has been, and continues to be, involved in litigation involving insurance coverage issues pertaining to asbestos and environmental claims. The Company believes that some court decisions have interpreted the insurance coverage to be broader than the original intent of the insurers and policyholders. These decisions continue to be inconsistent and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Uncertainties surrounding the final resolution of these asbestos and environmental claims continue, and it is difficult to estimate our ultimate liability for such claims and related litigation. As a result, these reserves are subject to revision as new information becomes available and as claims develop. The continuing uncertainties include, without limitation: • the risks and lack of predictability inherent in complex litigation; • a further increase in the cost to resolve, and/or the number of, asbestos and environmental claims beyond that which is anticipated; • the emergence of a greater number of asbestos claims than anticipated as a result of extended life expectancies resulting from medical advances and lifestyle improvements; • the role of any umbrella or excess policies we have issued; • the resolution or adjudication of disputes concerning coverage for asbestos and environmental claims in a manner inconsistent with our previous assessment of these disputes; • the number and outcome of direct actions against us; • future developments pertaining to our ability to recover reinsurance for asbestos and environmental claims; • any impact on asbestos defendants we insure due to the bankruptcy of other asbestos defendants; • the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers; and • uncertainties arising from the insolvency or bankruptcy of policyholders. It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal, regulatory and legislative environment and their impact on the future development of asbestos and environmental claims. This environment could be affected by changes in applicable legislation and future court and regulatory decisions and interpretations, including the outcome of legal challenges to legislative and/or judicial reforms establishing medical criteria for the pursuit of asbestos claims. It is also difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of complex coverage disputes until settlement negotiations near completion and significant legal questions are resolved or, failing settlement, until the dispute is adjudicated. This is particularly the case with policyholders in bankruptcy where negotiations often involve a large number of claimants and other parties and require court approval to be effective. While the ongoing evaluation of asbestos and environmental claims and associated liabilities considers the inconsistencies of court decisions as to coverage, plaintiffs’ expanded theories of liability and the risks inherent in complex litigation and other uncertainties, it is possible that the outcome of the continued uncertainties regarding these claims could result in liability in future periods that differs from current reserves by an amount that could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. See the "Asbestos Claims and Litigation" and "Environmental Claims and Litigation" sections of "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations." Also see "Item 3 - Legal Proceedings." Disruptions to our relationships with our independent agents and brokers or our inability to manage effectively a changing distribution landscape could adversely affect us. We market our insurance products primarily through independent agents and brokers. An important part of our business is written through less than a dozen such intermediaries, as well as agency affiliates of other insurance carriers, such as GEICO, with whom we have had a distribution arrangement for homeowners' business since 1995. Further, there has been a trend of increased consolidation by agents and brokers, which could impact our relationships with, and fees paid to, some agents and brokers, and/or otherwise negatively impact the pricing or distribution of our products. Agents and brokers may increasingly compete with us to the extent that markets increasingly provide them with direct access to providers of capital seeking exposure to insurance risk or if they become affiliated with carriers that compete with us. See also “The intense competition that we face could harm our ability to maintain or increase our business volumes and our profitability.” In all of the foregoing situations, loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided through such agents and brokers could materially and adversely affect our future business volume and results of operations. We may also seek to develop new products or distribution channels, which could disrupt our relationships with our agents and brokers. In addition, agents and brokers may create alternate distribution channels for commercial business that may adversely impact product differentiation and pricing. Access to greater levels of data and increased utilization of technology by agents and brokers may also impact our relationship with them and our competitive position. Our efforts or their efforts with respect to new products or alternate distribution channels, as well as changes in the way agents and brokers utilize data and technology, including in ways that may be in direct competition with us, could adversely impact our business relationship with independent agents and brokers who currently market our products, resulting in a lower volume and/or profitability of business generated from these sources. In certain markets, brokers increasingly have been packaging portfolios of risks together and offering them to fewer carriers as well as, in some cases, requesting a commitment to participate in such portfolios in advance. In these and other situations, agents and brokers have an increased influence over policy language and compensation structure which, if we participate on that basis, could adversely impact our ability to profitably manage underwriting risk. It could also lead to commoditization of products, which could increase the focus on price and cost management and decrease our ability to differentiate our products in the marketplace with customers based on other factors. We rely on internet applications for the marketing and sale of certain of our products, and we may increasingly rely on internet applications and toll-free numbers for distribution. In some instances, our agents and brokers are required to access separate business platforms to execute the sale of our personal insurance or commercial insurance products. Should internet disruptions occur, or frustration with our business platforms or distribution initiatives develop among our independent agents and brokers, any resulting loss of business could materially and adversely affect our future business volume and results of operations. See “If we experience difficulties with technology, data and network security (including as a result of cyber attacks), outsourcing relationships or cloud-based technology, our ability to conduct our business could be negatively impacted” below. Customers in the past have brought claims against us for the actions of our agents. Even with proper controls in place, actual or alleged errors or inaccuracies by our agents could result in our involvement in disputes, litigation or regulatory actions related to actions taken or not taken by our agents. We are exposed to, and may face adverse developments involving, mass tort claims such as those relating to exposure to potentially harmful products or substances. In addition to asbestos and environmental claims, we face potential exposure to other types of mass tort claims, including claims related to exposure to potentially harmful products or substances, such as lead paint, silica, talc and opioids. Establishing claims and claim adjustment expense reserves for mass tort claims is subject to uncertainties because of many factors, including adverse changes to the tort environment (e.g., increased and more aggressive attorney involvement in insurance claims, increased litigation, expanded theories of liability, higher jury awards, lawsuit abuse and third-party litigation finance, among others), disputes concerning medical causation with respect to certain diseases, geographical concentration of the lawsuits asserting the claims and the potential for a large rise in the total number of claims without underlying epidemiological developments suggesting an increase in disease rates. Moreover, evolving judicial interpretations regarding the application of various tort theories and defenses, including application of various theories of joint and several liabilities, as well as the application of insurance coverage to these claims, make it difficult to estimate our ultimate liability for such claims. Because of the uncertainties set forth above, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the current related reserves. In addition, our estimate of claims and claim adjustment expenses may change, and such change could be material. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business are uncertain, and court decisions or legislative changes that take place after we issue our policies can result in an unexpected increase in the number of claims and have a material adverse impact on our results of operations. As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claim and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely affect our business, including by extending coverage beyond our underwriting intent, by increasing the number, size or types of claims or by mandating changes to our underwriting practices. Examples of such claims and coverage issues include, but are not limited to: •judicial expansion of policy coverage and the impact of new or expanded theories of liability; • plaintiffs targeting property and casualty insurers, including us, in purported class action litigation relating to claims handling and other practices; • claims relating to construction defects, which often present complex coverage and damage valuation questions; • claims under directors’ & officers’ and/or errors and omissions insurance policies relating to losses from involvement in financial market activities; failed financial institutions; fraud; improper sales practices; anti-trust allegations; possible accounting irregularities; and corporate governance issues; • claims related to data and network security breaches, information system failures or cyber events, including cases where coverage was not intended to be provided; • the assertion of “public nuisance” or similar theories of liability, pursuant to which plaintiffs, including governmental entities, seek to recover monies spent to administer public health care programs, abate hazards to public health and safety and/or recover damages purportedly attributable to a “public nuisance,” such as litigation against lead paint manufacturers or manufacturers or distributors of opioids; • claims related to liability or workers’ compensation arising out of the spread of infectious disease or pandemic; • claims relating to abuse by an employee or a volunteer of an insured; • claims that link health issues to particular causes (for example, cumulative traumatic head injury from sports or other causes), resulting in liability or workers’ compensation claims; • claims alleging that one or more of our underwriting criteria have a disparate impact on persons belonging to a protected class in violation of the law, including the Fair Housing Act; • claims arising out of modern techniques and practices used in connection with the extraction of natural resources, such as hydraulic fracturing or wastewater injection; • claims arising out of the use of personal cars, homes or other property in commercial transactions, such as ride or home sharing; • claims relating to unanticipated consequences of current or new technologies or business models or processes, including as a result of related behavioral changes; and • claims relating to changing climate conditions, including claims alleging that our policyholders cause or contribute to changing climate conditions. In some instances, these emerging issues may not become apparent for some time after we have issued the affected insurance policies. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance policies may not be known for many years after the policies are issued. In addition, the passage of new legislation designed to expand the right to sue, to remove limitations on recovery, to deem by statute the existence of a covered occurrence, to extend or eliminate the statutes of limitations or otherwise to repeal or weaken tort reforms could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. For example, a number of states have enacted legislation allowing victims of sexual molestation to file or proceed with claims that otherwise would have been time-barred and additional states are considering similar legislative changes. The effects of these and other unforeseen emerging claim and coverage issues are extremely hard to predict and could harm our business and materially and adversely affect our results of operations. We may not be able to collect all amounts due to us from reinsurers, reinsurance coverage may not be available to us in the future at commercially reasonable rates or at all and we are exposed to credit risk related to our structured settlements. Although the reinsurer is liable to us to the extent of the ceded reinsurance, we remain liable as the direct insurer on all risks reinsured. As a result, ceded reinsurance arrangements do not eliminate our obligation to pay claims. Accordingly, we are subject to credit risk with respect to our ability to recover amounts due from reinsurers. In the past, certain reinsurers have ceased writing business and entered into runoff. Some of our reinsurance claims may be disputed by the reinsurers, and we may ultimately receive partial or no payment. This is a particular risk in the case of claims that relate to insurance policies written many years ago, including those relating to asbestos and environmental claims. In addition, in a number of jurisdictions, particularly the European Union and the United Kingdom as well as a small number of U.S. states, a reinsurer is permitted to transfer a reinsurance arrangement to another reinsurer, which may be less creditworthy, without a counterparty’s consent, provided that the transfer has been approved by the applicable regulatory and/or court authority. Included in reinsurance recoverables are amounts related to certain structured settlements. Structured settlements are annuities purchased from various life insurance companies to settle certain personal physical injury claims, of which workers’ compensation claims comprise a significant portion. In cases where we did not receive a release from the claimant, the structured settlement is included in reinsurance recoverables and the related claim cost is included in the liability for claims and claim adjustment expense reserves, as we retain the contingent liability to the claimant. Some of the life insurance companies from which we have purchased structured settlements have been downgraded to below investment grade credit ratings subsequent to the time of the purchase. If it is expected that the life insurance company is not able to pay, we would recognize an impairment of the related reinsurance recoverable if, and to the extent, the purchased annuities are not covered by state guaranty associations. In the event that the life insurance company fails to make the required annuity payments, we would be required to make such payments. For a discussion of our top reinsurance groups by reinsurance recoverable and the top five groups by amount of structured settlements provided, see "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Reinsurance Recoverables." The availability and cost of reinsurance are subject to prevailing market conditions, both in terms of price and available capacity. The availability of reinsurance capacity can be impacted by general economic conditions and conditions in the reinsurance market, such as the occurrence of significant reinsured events or unexpected adverse trends. The availability and cost of reinsurance could affect our business volume and profitability. In addition, the Covered Agreements between the U.S. and each of the EU and U.K. eliminate the requirement for European and U.K. reinsurers operating in the U.S. to provide collateral in connection with reinsurance agreements, which could make it more difficult for U.S. companies, including us, to obtain sufficient collateral, if any, in such reinsurance arrangements. Because of the risks set forth above, we may not be able to collect all amounts due to us from reinsurers, and reinsurance coverage may not be available to us in the future at commercially reasonable rates or at all, and/or life insurance companies may fail to make required annuity payments, and thus our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. We are exposed to credit risk in certain of our insurance operations and with respect to certain guarantee or indemnification arrangements that we have with third parties. In addition to exposure to credit risk related to our investment portfolio and reinsurance recoverables (discussed above), we are exposed to credit risk in several other areas of our business operations, including credit risk relating to policyholders, independent agents and brokers. We are exposed to credit risk in our surety insurance operations, where we guarantee to a third party that our customer will satisfy certain performance obligations (e.g., a construction contract) or certain financial obligations, including exposure to large customers who may have obligations to multiple third parties. If our customer defaults, we may suffer losses and not be reimbursed by that customer, even though we are entitled to indemnification from such customer. In addition, it is customary practice in the surety business for multiple insurers to participate as co-sureties on large surety bonds. Under these arrangements, the co-surety obligations are typically joint and several, in which case we are also exposed to credit risk with respect to our co-sureties. In addition, a portion of our business is written with large deductible insurance policies. Under casualty insurance contracts with deductible features, we are obligated to pay the claimant the full amount of the settled claim. We are subsequently reimbursed by the contractholder for the deductible amount, and, as a result, we are exposed to credit risk to the policyholder. Moreover, certain policyholders purchase retrospectively rated workers’ compensation and/or general liability policies (i.e., policies in which premiums are adjusted after the policy period based on the actual loss experience of the policyholder during the policy period). Retrospectively rated policies expose us to additional credit risk to the extent that the adjusted premium is greater than the original premium. Our efforts to mitigate the credit risk that we have to our insureds may not be successful. To reduce such credit risk, we require certain insureds to post collateral for some or all of these obligations, often in the form of pledged securities such as money market funds or letters of credit provided by banks, surety bonds or cash. In cases where we receive pledged securities and the insureds are unable to honor their obligations, we may be exposed to credit risk on the securities pledged and/or the risk that our access to that collateral may be stayed during an insured’s bankruptcy. In cases where we receive letters of credit from banks and the insureds are unable to honor their obligations, we are exposed to the credit risk of the banks that issued the letters of credit. In accordance with industry practice, when policyholders purchase insurance policies from us through independent agents and brokers, the premiums relating to those policies are often paid to the agents and brokers for payment to us. In most jurisdictions, the premiums will be deemed to have been paid to us whether or not they are actually received by us. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with amounts due from independent agents and brokers. To a large degree, the credit risk we face is a function of the economy; accordingly, we face an increased credit risk in an economic downturn. While we attempt to manage the risks discussed above through underwriting guidelines, collateral requirements and other oversight mechanisms, our efforts may not be successful. For example, collateral obtained may subsequently have little or no value. Further, the amount of collateral protection we have been able to obtain on the business we write in certain markets has decreased, and may continue to decrease, as a result of competition. We are also exposed to credit risk related to certain guarantee or indemnification arrangements that we have with third parties. See note 16 of notes to the consolidated financial statements. As a result, our exposure to the above credit risks could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. Within the United States, our businesses are heavily regulated by the states in which we conduct business, including licensing, market conduct and financial supervision, and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth. These regulatory systems are generally designed to protect the interests of policyholders, and not necessarily the interests of insurers, their shareholders and other investors. For example, to protect policyholders whose insurance company becomes financially insolvent, guaranty funds have been established in all 50 states to pay the covered claims of policyholders in the event of an insolvency of an insurer, subject to applicable state limits. The funding of guaranty funds is provided through assessments levied against remaining insurers in the marketplace. As a result, the insolvency of one or more insurance companies or an increase in amounts paid by guaranty funds could result in additional assessments levied against us. These regulatory systems also address authorization for lines of business, statutory capital and surplus requirements, limitations on the types and amounts of certain investments, underwriting limitations, transactions with affiliates, dividend limitations, changes in control, premium rates and a variety of other financial and non-financial components of an insurer’s business including, recently, cyber-security. In addition, many states restrict the timing and/or the ability of an insurer to discontinue writing a line of business or to cancel or non-renew certain policies. The state insurance regulatory framework has been under continuing scrutiny, and some state legislatures have considered or enacted laws that may alter or increase state authority to regulate insurance companies and insurance holding companies. Further, the NAIC and state insurance regulators continually re-examine existing laws and regulations, specifically focusing on modifications to holding company regulations, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws and regulations. As part of these changes, insurance holding company regulations were amended to require insurers who are part of a holding company system to file an enterprise risk report to provide the lead insurance regulator with a summary of the company’s Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework, including the material risks within the insurance holding company system that could pose risk to the insurance entities within the holding company system. Insurers having premium volume above certain thresholds, including the Company, are also required to perform at least annually a self-assessment of their current and future risks, including their likely future solvency position (known as an own risk and solvency assessment or ORSA) and file a confidential report with the insurer’s lead insurance regulator. The requirement for an insurer to conduct an ORSA is intended to foster an effective level of ERM for all insurers within a holding company system, and to provide a group-wide perspective on risk and capital as a supplement to the legal entity view. ORSA is now included in the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) standards and is in various stages of implementation in the United States, Europe, Canada, and other jurisdictions. It is possible that, as a result of ORSA and the manner in which it may be used by insurance regulators, our states of domicile or other regulatory bodies may require changes in our ERM process (e.g., prescribe the use of specific models or the application of certain assumptions or scenarios in the Company’s models) that have the effect of limiting our ability to write certain risks, limit our risk appetite to write additional business or reduce our capital management flexibility. See “Item 1 - Business-Enterprise Risk Management” for further discussion of the Company’s ERM. The NAIC and state insurance regulators, as well as the Federal Reserve and Federal Insurance Office, are currently working with the IAIS to complete a global common framework (ComFrame) for the supervision of internationally active insurance groups (IAIGs). If adopted in the jurisdictions in which the Company conducts business, ComFrame would require the designation of a group-wide supervisor (regulator) for each IAIG and would impose a group capital requirement that would be applied to an IAIG in addition to the current legal entity capital requirements imposed by state insurance laws and regulations. In response to ComFrame, the NAIC developed a model law that allows state insurance regulators in the U.S. to be designated as group-wide supervisors for U.S.-based IAIGs. Additionally, the NAIC is developing a group capital analytical tool that would be applied to U.S.-based insurance groups in addition to the risk-based capital (RBC) requirement that is applied on a legal entity basis. These regulatory developments could increase the amount of capital that the Company is required to have and could result in the Company being subject to increased regulatory requirements. See “Regulatory changes outside of the United States, including in Canada, the U.K., the Republic of Ireland and the European Union, could adversely impact our results of operations and limit our growth” for further discussion of these changes and how these changes could be impacted by the Covered Agreements between the U.S. and the EU and the U.K. States may choose to adopt more restrictive insurance laws and regulations that could, among other things, restrict the ability of insurance subsidiaries to distribute funds to their parent companies or they could reject rate increases due to the economic environment. The state insurance regulators may also increase the statutory capital and surplus requirements for our insurance subsidiaries. In addition, state tax laws that specifically impact the insurance industry, such as premium taxes or other taxes, could be enacted or changed by states to raise revenues. Other state legislative actions could impact our business as well. For example, changes to state law regarding workers' compensation insurance could impact the demand for our products, and the legalization of cannabis in certain states could potentially increase loss costs. State laws or regulations that are adopted or amended may be more restrictive than current laws or regulations and may result in lower revenues and/or higher costs of compliance and, as a result, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. A downgrade in our claims-paying and financial strength ratings could adversely impact our business volumes, adversely impact our ability to access the capital markets and increase our borrowing costs. Claims-paying and financial strength ratings are important to an insurer’s competitive position. Rating agencies periodically review insurers’ ratings and change their ratings criteria; therefore, our current ratings may not be maintained in the future. A downgrade in one or more of our ratings could negatively impact our business volumes because demand for certain of our products may be reduced, particularly because many customers may require that we maintain minimum ratings to enter into, maintain or renew business with us. Additionally, we may find it more difficult to access the capital markets and we may incur higher borrowing costs. If significant losses, including, but not limited to, those resulting from one or more major catastrophes, or significant reserve additions or significant investment losses were to cause our capital position to deteriorate significantly, or if one or more rating agencies substantially increase their capital requirements, we may need to raise equity capital in the future (which we may not be able to do at a reasonable cost or at all, especially at a time of financial market disruption) in order to maintain our ratings or limit the extent of a downgrade. A continued trend of more frequent and severe weather-related or other catastrophes or a prolonged financial market disruption or economic downturn may lead rating agencies to substantially increase their capital requirements. See also "During or following a period of financial market disruption or economic downturn, our business could be materially and adversely affected." For further discussion about our ratings, see "Item 1 - Business-Ratings." The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to our holding company in sufficient amounts would harm our ability to meet our obligations, pay future shareholder dividends and/or make future share repurchases. Our holding company relies on dividends from our U.S. insurance subsidiaries to meet our obligations for payment of interest and principal on outstanding debt, to pay dividends to shareholders, to make contributions to our qualified domestic pension plan, to pay other corporate expenses and to make share repurchases. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to our holding company in the future will depend on their statutory capital and surplus, earnings and regulatory restrictions. We are subject to state insurance regulation as an insurance holding company system. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to various regulatory restrictions that limit the maximum amount of dividends available to be paid to their parent without prior approval of insurance regulatory authorities. In a time of prolonged economic downturn or otherwise, insurance regulators may choose to further restrict the ability of insurance subsidiaries to make payments to their parent companies. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to our holding company is also restricted by regulations that set standards of solvency that must be met and maintained. The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to our holding company in an amount sufficient to meet our debt service obligations and other cash requirements could harm our ability to meet our obligations, to pay future shareholder dividends and to make share repurchases. Our efforts to develop new products, expand in targeted markets or improve business processes and workflows may not be successful and may create enhanced risks. From time to time, to protect and grow market share and/or improve our efficiency, we invest in strategic initiatives to: • Improve business processes and workflow to increase efficiencies and productivity and to enhance the experience of our customers and distributors; • Change our underwriting processes; • Develop products that insure risks we have not previously insured, contain new coverages or change coverage terms; • Expand distribution channels; • Change commission terms; and • Enter geographic markets within or outside of the United States where we have had relatively little or no market share. We may not be successful in these efforts, and even if we are successful, they may create the following risks, among others: • Changes to our business processes or workflow, including the use of new technologies, may give rise to execution risk; • Models underlying automated underwriting and pricing decisions may not be effective; • Demand for new products or expansion into new markets may not meet our expectations; • New products and expansion into new markets may change our risk exposures, and the data and models we use to manage such exposures may not be as effective as those we use in existing markets or with existing products; • Efforts to develop new products or markets and to change commission terms may create or increase distribution channel conflict, such as described above under “-Disruptions to our relationships with our independent agents and brokers could adversely affect us;” and • In connection with the conversion of existing policyholders to a new product, some policyholders’ pricing may increase while the pricing for other policyholders may decrease, the net impact of which could negatively impact retention and profit margins. These efforts may require us to make substantial expenditures, which may negatively impact results in the near term, and if not successful, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. We may be adversely affected if our pricing and capital models provide materially different indications than actual results. The profitability of our property and casualty business substantially depends on the extent to which our actual claims experience is consistent with the assumptions we use in pricing our policies. We utilize proprietary and third party models to help us price business in a manner that is intended to be consistent, over time, with actual results and return objectives. We incorporate the Company’s historical loss experience, external industry and other data, and economic indices into our modeling processes, and we use various methods, including predictive modeling, forecasting and sophisticated simulation modeling techniques, to analyze loss trends and the risks associated with our assets and liabilities. We also use these modeling processes, analyses and methods in making underwriting, pricing and reinsurance decisions as part of managing our exposure to catastrophes and other extreme adverse events. These modeling processes incorporate numerous assumptions and forecasts about the future level and variability of the frequency and severity of losses, inflation, interest rates and capital requirements, among others, that are difficult to make and may differ materially from actual results. Whether we use a proprietary or third-party model, future experience may be materially different from past and current experience incorporated in a model’s forecasts or simulations. This includes the likelihood of events occurring or continuing or the correlation among events. Third-party models may provide substantially different indications than what our proprietary modeling processes provide. As a result, third-party model estimates of losses can be, and often have been, materially different for similar events in comparison to our proprietary estimates. The differences between third-party model estimates and our proprietary estimates are driven by the use of different data sets as well as different assumptions and forecasts regarding the frequency and severity of events and claims arising from the events. In addition, as the number of third-party models increases, it becomes more difficult to validate and manage such models as they evolve over time, and the risk associated with assimilating the output from such models into our decisions increases. If we fail to appropriately price the risks we insure or fail to change our pricing models to appropriately reflect our experience, or if our claims experience is more frequent or severe than our underlying risk assumptions, for example due to changing climate conditions, regulatory changes or changes in behavior such as distracted driving or a more aggressive tort environment, our profit margins may be negatively affected. If we underestimate the frequency and/or severity of extreme adverse events occurring, our financial condition may be adversely affected. If we overestimate the risks we are exposed to, we may overprice our products, and new business growth and retention of our existing business may be adversely affected. See "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Catastrophe Modeling." Our business success and profitability depend, in part, on effective information technology systems and on continuing to develop and implement improvements in technology, particularly as our business processes become more digital. We depend in large part on our technology systems for conducting business and processing claims, as well as for providing the data and analytics we utilize to manage our business. As a result, our business success is dependent on maintaining the effectiveness of existing technology systems and on continuing to develop and enhance technology systems that support our business processes and strategic initiatives in a cost and resource efficient manner, particularly as our business processes become more digital. Some system development projects are long-term in nature, may negatively impact our expense ratios as we invest in the projects and may cost more than we expect to complete. In addition, system development projects may not deliver the benefits or perform as expected, or may be replaced or become obsolete more quickly than expected, which could result in operational difficulties, additional costs or accelerated recognition of expenses. If we do not effectively and efficiently manage and upgrade our technology portfolio, or if the costs of doing so are higher than we expect, our ability to provide competitive services to, and conduct business with, new and existing customers in a cost effective manner and our ability to implement our strategic initiatives could be adversely impacted. If we experience difficulties with technology, data and network security (including as a result of cyber attacks), outsourcing relationships or cloud-based technology, our ability to conduct our business could be negatively impacted. While technology can streamline many business processes and ultimately reduce the cost of operations, technology initiatives present significant risks. Our business is highly dependent upon our employees’ ability to perform, in an efficient and uninterrupted fashion, necessary business functions. A shut-down of, or inability to access, one or more of our facilities (including our primary data processing facility); a power outage; or a failure of one or more of our information technology, telecommunications or other systems could significantly impair our ability to perform such functions on a timely basis, particularly if such an interruption lasts for an extended period of time. In the event of a computer virus or disaster such as a natural catastrophe, terrorist or other attack or industrial accident, our systems could be inaccessible for an extended period of time. In addition, because our information technology and telecommunications systems increasingly interface with and depend on third-party systems, including cloud-based, we could experience service denials or failures of controls if demand for our service exceeds capacity or a third-party system fails or experiences an interruption. Business interruptions and failures of controls could also result if our internal systems do not interface with each other as intended or if changes to such systems or our other business processes, such as new payment technologies, are not effectively implemented. Business continuity can also be disrupted by an event, such as a pandemic, that renders large numbers of a workforce unable to work as needed, particularly at critical locations; for example, our largest location employs about 19% of our employees. If our business continuity plans did not sufficiently address a business interruption, system failure or service denial, this could result in a deterioration of our ability to write and process new and renewal business, provide customer service, pay claims in a timely manner or perform other necessary business functions. Our operations rely on the reliable and secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. Computer viruses, hackers (including individuals, organizations or rogue states) and employee or vendor misconduct, and other external hazards, could expose our data systems to security breaches, cyber-attacks or other disruptions. Increased use of data supplied by third parties in our business increases our exposure to this risk. In addition, we routinely transmit and receive personal, confidential and proprietary information by e-mail and other electronic means. While we attempt to develop secure transmission capabilities with third-party vendors and others with whom we do business, we may be unable to put in place secure capabilities with all of such vendors and third parties and, in addition, these third parties may not have appropriate controls in place to protect the confidentiality of the information. Like other global companies, our computer systems are regularly subject to and will continue to be the target of computer viruses, malware or other malicious codes (including ransomware), unauthorized access, cyber-attacks or other computer-related penetrations. While we have experienced threats to our data and systems, to date, we are not aware that we have experienced a material cyber-security breach. However, over time, the sophistication of these threats continues to increase. Our administrative and technical controls as well as other preventative actions we take to reduce the risk of cyber incidents and protect our information may be insufficient to detect or prevent unauthorized access, other physical and electronic break-ins, cyber-attacks or other security breaches to our computer systems or those of third parties with whom we do business. In addition, new technology that could result in greater operational efficiency may further expose our computer systems to the risk of cyber-attacks. Our increased use of open source software, cloud technology and software as a service can make it more difficult to identify and remedy such situations due to the disparate location of code utilized in our operations. We have outsourced certain technology and business process functions to third parties and may increasingly do so in the future. If we do not effectively develop, implement and monitor our outsourcing relationships, if third party providers do not perform as anticipated, if we experience technological or other problems with a transition, or if outsourcing relationships relevant to our business process functions are terminated, we may not realize expected productivity improvements or cost efficiencies and may experience operational difficulties, increased costs and a loss of business. Our outsourcing of certain technology and business process functions to third parties may expose us to increased risk related to data security, service disruptions or the effectiveness of our control system, which could result in monetary and reputational damages or harm to our competitive position. These risks could increase as vendors increasingly offer cloud-based software services rather than software services which can be run within our data centers or as we choose to move additional functions to the cloud. See also “We could be adversely affected if our controls designed to ensure compliance with guidelines, policies and legal and regulatory standards are not effective.” In addition to risks caused by third party providers, our ability to receive services from third-party providers outside of the United States might be impacted by cultural differences, political instability, unanticipated regulatory requirements or public policy inside or outside of the United States. The increased risks identified above could expose us to data loss or manipulation, disruption of service, monetary and reputational damages, competitive disadvantage and significant increases in compliance costs and costs to improve the security and resiliency of our computer systems. The compromise of personal, confidential or proprietary information could also subject us to legal liability or regulatory action under evolving cyber-security, data protection and privacy laws and regulations enacted by the U.S. federal and state governments, Canada, the European Union or other jurisdictions or by various regulatory organizations or exchanges. As an example, the European General Data Protection Regulation became applicable in all European Union member states beginning May 25, 2018. This regulation adds a broad array of requirements for handling personal data and could impose a fine of up to 4% of global annual revenue for violations. It and similar regulations, including the California Consumer Privacy Act which became effective on January 1, 2020, could result in increased compliance costs and potential fines for non-compliance being imposed on us or our insureds. As a result, our ability to conduct our business and our results of operations might be materially and adversely affected. We are also subject to a number of additional risks associated with our business outside the United States. We conduct business outside the United States primarily in Canada, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In addition, we conduct business in Brazil, primarily through a joint venture, and we have an indirect interest in a joint venture in Colombia. We may also explore opportunities in other countries. In conducting business outside of the United States, we are also subject to a number of additional risks, particularly in emerging economies. These risks include restrictions such as price controls, capital controls, currency exchange limits, ownership limits and other restrictive or anti-competitive governmental actions or requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our business and our reputation. A portion of our premiums from outside of the United States is generated in Canada, a substantial portion of which consists of automobile premiums from the province of Ontario, which is a highly regulated market that can result in rate inadequacy. Our business activities outside the United States may also subject us to currency risk and, in some markets, it may be difficult to effectively hedge that risk, or we may choose not to hedge that risk. In addition, in some markets, we may invest as part of a joint venture with a local counterparty. Because our governance rights may be limited, we may not have control over the ability of the joint venture to make certain decisions and/or mitigate risks it faces, and significant disagreements with a joint venture counterparty may adversely impact our investment and/or reputation. Our business activities outside the United States could subject us to increased volatility in earnings resulting from the need to recognize and subsequently revise a valuation allowance associated with income taxes if we became unable to fully utilize any deferred tax assets, including loss carry-forwards from those foreign operations. Also, political instability, particularly in emerging economies, and changing market conditions around the globe, could result in financial market disruption or an economic downturn in such regions. The U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union, for example, could have economic impacts such as inflation and decreased GDP in the U.K. and in regions that trade with the U.K. For certain specialty business, we give managing general agents binding authority, which exposes us to additional risks. Our business activities outside the United States also subject us to additional domestic and foreign laws and regulations, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws in other countries that prohibit the making of improper payments to foreign officials. Although we have policies and controls in place that are designed to ensure compliance with these laws, if those controls are ineffective and/or an employee or intermediary fails to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we could suffer civil and criminal penalties and our business and our reputation could be adversely affected. Some countries, particularly emerging economies, have laws and regulations that lack clarity and, even with local expertise and effective controls, it can be difficult to determine the exact requirements of, and potential liability under, the local laws. In some jurisdictions, including Brazil, parties to a joint venture may, in some circumstances, have liability for some obligations of the venture, and that liability may extend beyond the capital invested. Failure to comply with local laws in a particular market may result in substantial liability and could have a significant and negative effect not only on our business in that market but also on our reputation generally. In addition, competition for skilled employees in developing markets and other non-U.S. locations may be intense. If we are not able to hire, integrate, motivate and retain a sufficient number of employees with the knowledge and background necessary for our global businesses, those businesses and our results of operations may be adversely affected. Regulatory changes outside of the United States, including in Canada, the U.K., the Republic of Ireland and the European Union, could adversely impact our results of operations and limit our growth. Insurance laws or regulations that are adopted or amended in jurisdictions outside the U.S. may be more restrictive than current laws or regulations and may result in lower revenues and/or higher costs of compliance and thus could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and limit our growth. In particular, the European Union’s executive body, the European Commission, implemented new capital adequacy and risk management regulations called Solvency II on January 1, 2016 that apply to the Company’s businesses across the European Union. Under Solvency II, it is possible that the U.S. parent of a European Union subsidiary could be subject to certain Solvency II requirements if the regulator determines that the subsidiary’s capital position is dependent on the parent company and the U.S. parent is not already subject to regulations deemed “equivalent” to Solvency II. In addition, regulators in countries where the Company has operations are working with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) (and with the NAIC, the Federal Reserve and FIO in the U.S.) to consider changes to insurance company supervision, including group supervision and group capital requirements. The IAIS has developed a methodology for identifying “global systemically important insurers” (G-SIIs) and high level policy measures that will apply to the G-SIIs. The methodology and measures were endorsed by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) created by the G-20. Using the IAIS methodology, the FSB, working with national authorities and the IAIS, identified nine insurers in November 2016 that they designated as G-SIIs. The IAIS is working on the policy measures which include higher capital requirements and enhanced supervision. The Company has not been designated as a G-SII by the FSB; however, it is possible that the methodologies could be amended or interpreted differently in the future and the Company could be named as a G-SII. The IAIS is also in the process of completing the Common Framework for the Supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups (ComFrame). As the current draft of ComFrame is completed, it likely will lead to similar policy measures as those being developed for G-SIIs being made applicable to internationally active insurance groups (or “IAIGs”), including group supervision, group capital requirements, and resolution planning, i.e., a written plan developed by a financial group detailing how it would be wound down in the event of an insolvency. While the Company would not be considered an Internationally Active Insurance Group under the current Consultation Draft, it is possible that the Consultation Draft could be changed. If the Company is designated as an IAIG or the NAIC and individual states adopt the proposed or similar provisions for large insurers, the Company could be subject to enhanced supervision and higher capital standards. The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative have signed covered agreements (the Covered Agreements) regarding prudential (solvency) insurance and reinsurance measures with each of the EU and the U.K. The Covered Agreements include three areas of prudential insurance supervision: reinsurance contracts, group supervision, and the exchange of information between U.S. and U.K. regulators and between U.S. and EU regulators on insurers and reinsurers that operate in the U.S., U.K. and EU markets. The Covered Agreement with the EU went into effect in April 2018, while the Covered Agreement with the U.K. took full effect upon the U.K.'s exit from the EU on January 31, 2020. The Covered Agreements are intended to promote cooperation between U.S. insurance regulators and EU and U.K. insurance regulators and to limit the ability of the EU and the U.K. to apply solvency and group capital requirements to the worldwide operations of any U.S. insurer operating in the EU or U.K. It is possible that individual members of the EU could differ in how they adopt or implement the Covered Agreement, resulting in greater regulation and higher capital standards as well as inconsistent regulatory requirements among the jurisdictions that the Company does business. While it is not yet known how or if these actions will impact us, such regulation could result in increased costs of compliance, increased disclosure and less flexibility in our capital management, and could adversely impact our results of operations and limit our growth. Loss of or significant restrictions on the use of particular types of underwriting criteria, such as credit scoring, or other data or methodologies, in the pricing and underwriting of our products could reduce our future profitability. Our underwriting profitability depends in large part on our ability to competitively price our products at a level that will adequately compensate us for the risks assumed. As a result, risk selection and pricing through the application of actuarially sound and segmented underwriting criteria is critical. However, laws or regulations, or judicial or administrative findings, could significantly curtail the use of particular types of underwriting criteria. For example, we may use credit scoring as a factor in pricing decisions where allowed by state law. Some consumer groups and/or regulators have alleged that the use of credit scoring violates the law by discriminating against persons belonging to a protected class and are calling for the prohibition or restrictions on the use of credit scoring in underwriting and pricing. A variety of other underwriting criteria and other data or methodologies used in personal and commercial insurance have been and continue to be criticized by regulators, government agencies, consumer groups or individuals on similar or other grounds, such as the impact of external data sources, algorithms and predictive models on protected classes of customers. Resulting regulatory actions or litigation could result in negative publicity and/or generate adverse rules or findings, such as curtailing the use of important underwriting criteria, or other data or methodologies, each of which could adversely affect our future profitability. Acquisitions and integration of acquired businesses may result in operating difficulties and other unintended consequences. From time to time we may pursue acquisition opportunities if we believe that such opportunities are consistent with our long-term objectives and that the potential rewards of an acquisition justify the risks. The process of integrating an acquired company or business can be complex and costly, however, and may create unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures. For example, acquisitions may present significant risks, including: • the potential disruption of our ongoing business; • the ineffective integration of, or other difficulties with, underwriting, risk management, claims handling, information technology and actuarial practices; • uncertainties related to an acquiree’s reserve estimates and its design and operation of internal controls over financial reporting; • the diversion of management time and resources to acquisition integration challenges; • the loss of key employees; • unforeseen liabilities; • difficulties in achieving the strategic objectives of an acquisition, including the business, financial, technological or distribution objectives; • the cultural challenges associated with integrating employees; and • the impact on our financial position and/or credit ratings. The expected benefits of acquired businesses may not be realized, any cost savings and other synergies anticipated from the acquisition may not be achieved and costs associated with the integration may be greater than anticipated. Acquired businesses may not be successfully integrated, resulting in substantial costs or delays and adversely affecting our ability to compete. Accordingly, our results of operations might be materially and adversely affected. We could be adversely affected if our controls designed to ensure compliance with guidelines, policies and legal and regulatory standards are not effective. Our business is highly dependent on our ability to engage on a daily basis in a large number of insurance underwriting, claim processing and investment activities, many of which are highly complex. These activities often are subject to internal guidelines and policies, as well as legal and regulatory standards. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. If our controls are not effective, it could lead to financial loss, unanticipated risk exposure (including underwriting, credit and investment risk), errors in financial reporting or damage to our reputation. See also “If we experience difficulties with technology, data and network security (including as a result of cyber attacks), outsourcing relationships, or cloud-based technology, our ability to conduct our business could be negatively impacted.” In addition, ineffective controls, including with respect to any joint ventures or recently acquired businesses, could lead to litigation or regulatory action. The volume of claims and amount of damages and penalties claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against various types of financial institutions have increased over time. Substantial legal liability or significant regulatory action against us could have a material adverse financial impact. See note 16 of notes to our consolidated financial statements for a discussion of certain legal proceedings in which we are involved. Our businesses may be adversely affected if we are unable to hire and retain qualified employees. There is significant competition from within the property and casualty insurance industry and from businesses outside the industry for qualified employees, especially those in key positions and those possessing highly specialized knowledge in areas such as underwriting, data and analytics, technology and e-commerce. Our performance is largely dependent on the talents, efforts and proper conduct of highly skilled individuals, including our senior executives (many of whom have decades of experience in the insurance industry), and the Board of Directors regularly engages in succession discussions. See “Item 10 - Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance” for more information relating to our executive officers, including our senior leaders. For many of our senior positions, we compete for talent not just with insurance or financial service companies, but with other large companies and other businesses. Our continued ability to compete effectively in our businesses and to expand into new business areas depends on our ability to attract new employees and to retain and motivate our existing employees. If we are not able to successfully attract, retain and motivate our employees, our business, financial results and reputation could be materially and adversely affected. Intellectual property is important to our business, and we may be unable to protect and enforce our own intellectual property or we may be subject to claims for infringing the intellectual property of others. Our success depends in part upon our ability to protect our proprietary trademarks, technology and other intellectual property. See "Item 1 - Business-Other Information-Intellectual Property." We may not, however, be able to protect our intellectual property from unauthorized use and disclosure by others. Further, the intellectual property laws may not prevent our competitors from independently developing trademarks, products and services that are similar to ours. Moreover, the agreements we execute to protect our intellectual property rights may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies in response. Our attempts to patent or register our intellectual property rights in the U.S. and worldwide may not succeed initially or may later be challenged by third parties. Further, the laws of certain countries outside the United States may not adequately protect our intellectual property rights. We may incur significant costs in our efforts to protect and enforce our intellectual property, including the initiation of expensive and protracted litigation, and we may not prevail. Any inability to enforce our intellectual property rights could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to compete. We may be subject to claims by third parties from time to time that our products, services and technologies infringe on their intellectual property rights. In recent years, certain entities have acquired patents in order to allege claims of infringement against companies, including in some cases, us. Any intellectual property infringement claims brought against us could cause us to spend significant time and money to defend ourselves, regardless of the merits of the claims. If we are found to infringe any third-party intellectual property rights, it could result in reputational harm, payment of significant monetary damages, payment of license fees (if licenses are even available to us, on reasonable terms or otherwise) and/or substantial time and expense to redesign our products, services or technologies to avoid the infringement. In addition, we use third party software in some of our products, services and technologies. If any of our software vendors or licensors are faced with infringement claims, we may lose our ability to use such software until the dispute is resolved. If we cannot successfully redesign an infringing product, service or technology (or procure a substitute version), this could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to compete. Changes in federal regulation could impose significant burdens on us, and otherwise adversely impact our results. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act) established a Federal Insurance Office (FIO) within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The FIO has limited regulatory authority and is empowered to gather data and information regarding the insurance industry and insurers, but it has in the past recommended an expanded federal role in some circumstances. The Dodd-Frank Act also gives the Federal Reserve supervisory authority over a number of non-bank financial services holding companies, including insurance companies, if they are designated by a two-thirds vote of a Financial Stability Oversight Council (the FSOC) as “systemically important financial institutions” (SIFI) or own a bank or thrift. The Company, based upon the FSOC’s rules and interpretive guidance, has not been designated as a SIFI and is not subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. Nonetheless, it is possible that FSOC may change its rules or interpretations in the future and conclude that we are a SIFI. If we were designated as a SIFI, the Federal Reserve’s supervisory authority could include the ability to impose heightened financial regulation and could impact requirements regarding our capital, liquidity and leverage as well as our business and investment conduct. The Dodd-Frank Act also authorizes assessments to pay for the resolution of SIFIs that have become insolvent. We (as a financial company with more than $50 billion in assets) could be assessed, and although any such assessment is required to be risk weighted (i.e., riskier firms pay more), such costs could be material to us and are not currently estimable. As a result of the foregoing, the Dodd-Frank Act, including any changes thereto as a result of its current re-evaluation or otherwise, or other additional federal regulation that is adopted in the future, could impose additional burdens on us, including impacting the ways in which we conduct our business, increasing compliance costs and duplicating state regulation, and could result in a competitive disadvantage, particularly relative to other competitors that may not be subject to the same level of regulation. Other potential changes in U.S. federal legislation, regulation and/or administrative policies, including the potential repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (which exempts insurance from most federal regulation) or a change to the health care system that eliminates or reduces the need for the medical coverage component of workers' compensation insurance, could also significantly harm the insurance industry, including us. Changes in U.S. tax laws or in the tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate could adversely impact us. Tax laws may change in ways that adversely impact us, including increasing the statutory U.S. federal corporate income tax rate. Additional uncertainties exist with respect to potential technical corrections, final regulations and other clarifications to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Our investment portfolio has benefited from certain tax exemptions and certain other tax laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, those governing dividends-received deductions and tax credits. Federal and/or state tax legislation could be enacted in connection with deficit reduction or various types of fundamental tax reform that would lessen or eliminate some or all of the tax advantages currently benefiting us and therefore could materially and adversely impact our results of operations. In addition, such legislation could adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio, particularly changes to the taxation of interest from municipal bonds (which comprise 38% of our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2019), which could materially and adversely impact the value of those bonds. Other tax law changes could materially and adversely impact our results of operations. For example, budget constraints faced by many states and localities increase the likelihood that state and local governments will raise revenue by enacting legislation increasing the taxes paid by individuals and corporations. Item 1B.