Blackstone Group (BX) Risk Factors

Because of our various asset management businesses and our capital markets services business, we will be subject to a number of actual and potentialconflicts of interest and subject to greater regulatory oversight and more legal and contractual restrictions than that to which we would otherwise be subject ifwe had just one line of business. To mitigate these conflicts and address regulatory, legal and contractual requirements across our various businesses, we haveimplemented certain policies and procedures (for example, information walls) that may reduce the positive synergies that we cultivate across these businessesfor purposes of identifying and managing attractive investments. For example, certain regulatory requirements require us to restrict access by certain personnelin our funds to information about certain transactions or investments being considered or made by those funds. In addition, we may come into possession ofconfidential or material non-public information with respect to issuers in which we may be considering making an investment or issuers in which our affiliatesmay hold an interest. As a consequence of such policies and procedures, we may be precluded from providing such information or other ideas to our otherbusinesses even where it might be of benefit to them.

The financial services industry continues to be the subject of heightened regulatory scrutiny in the United States. There has been active debate over theappropriate extent of regulation and oversight of private investment funds and their managers. We may be adversely affected as a result of new or revisedregulations imposed by the SEC or other U.S. governmental regulatory authorities or self-regulatory organizations that supervise the financial markets. We alsomay be adversely affected by changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and regulations by these governmental authorities and self-regulatory organizations. Further, new regulations or interpretations of existing laws may result inenhanced disclosure obligations, including with respect to climate change or ESG matters, which could negatively affect us or our portfolio companies andmaterially increase our regulatory burden. For example, in January 2022 the SEC proposed changes to Form PF, a confidential form relating to reporting byprivate funds and intended to be used by the FSOC for systemic risk oversight purposes. The proposal, which represents an expansion of existing reportingobligations, if adopted, would require private fund managers, including us, to report to the SEC within one business day the occurrence of certain fund-relatedand portfolio company events. Increased regulations and disclosure obligations generally increase our costs, and we could continue to experience higher costs ifnew laws or disclosure obligations require us to spend more time, hire additional personnel, or buy new technology to comply effectively. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), enacted in July 2010, imposed significant changes on almost everyaspect of the U.S. financial services industry, including aspects of our business, which include, without limitation, protection and compensation of whistleblowers,credit risk retention rules for certain sponsors of asset-backed securities, strengthening the oversight and supervision of the OTC derivatives and securitiesmarkets, as well as creating the Financial Stability Oversight Counsel (“FSOC”), an interagency body charged with identifying and monitoring systemic risk tofinancial markets. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information to the SEC can receive compensation and protection.The Dodd-Frank Act established a fund to be used to pay whistleblowers who will be entitled to receive a payment equal to between 10% and 30% of certainmonetary sanctions imposed in a successful government action resulting from the information provided by the whistleblower. According to a recent annualreport to the U.S. Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program, whistleblower claims have increased significantly since the enactment of these provisionsand in 2021 the SEC awarded approximately $564 million to 108 individuals — both the largest dollar amount and the largest number of individuals awarded in asingle year. Addressing such claims could generate significant expenses and take up significant management time for us and our portfolio companies, even if suchclaims are frivolous or without merit. The Dodd-Frank Act also authorized federal regulatory agencies to review and, in certain cases, prohibit compensation arrangements at financial institutionsthat give employees incentives to engage in conduct deemed to encourage inappropriate risk taking by covered financial institutions. In 2016, the SECre-proposed a rule, as part of a joint rulemaking effort with U.S. federal banking regulators that would apply to “covered financial institutions,” includingregistered investment advisers and broker-dealers that have total consolidated assets of at least $1 billion, and would impose substantive and proceduralrequirements on incentive-based compensation arrangements. While this proposed rule was never adopted, the current administration has included re-proposalof this rule on its regulatory agenda. If efforts are revived to finalize the rule under the current administration the application of this rule to us could limit ourability to recruit and retain senior managing directors and investment professionals. Rule 206(4)-5 under the Advisers Act prohibits investment advisers from providing advisory services for compensation to a government plan investor for twoyears, subject to limited exceptions, after the investment adviser, its senior executives or its personnel involved in soliciting investments from governmententities make political contributions to certain candidates and officials in position to influence the hiring of an investment adviser by such government client.Advisers are required to implement compliance policies designed, among other matters, to comply with this rule. Any failure on our part to comply with the rulecould expose us to significant penalties and reputational damage. In addition, there have been similar rules on a state level regarding “pay to play” practices byinvestment advisers. In June 2020, the SEC adopted a package of rulemakings and interpretations that address the standards of conduct and disclosure obligations applicable toinvestment advisers and broker-dealers. Among other things, the SEC published an interpretation of the standard of conduct for investment advisers, andadopted “Regulation Best Interest,” which is designed to enhance the existing standard of conduct for broker-dealers and natural persons who are associated persons of a broker-dealer when recommending to a retail customer any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities.Regulation Best Interest imposes a “best interest” standard of care for broker-dealers and requires them to evaluate available alternatives, including, if available,alternatives that may have lower expenses and/or lower investment risk than our investment funds. The impact of Regulation Best Interest on broker-dealersparticipating in the offering of our investment funds cannot be determined at this time, but it may negatively impact whether broker-dealers and their associatedpersons are willing to recommend investment products, including our investment funds, to retail customers. As such, Regulation Best Interest may reduce theability of our investment funds to raise capital, which would adversely affect our business and results of operations. In addition, several states have taken actionsto impose new conduct standards for investment advisers and broker-dealers operating in these states. These state conduct standards and any other proposedstate laws or regulations may result in additional requirements related to our business. Further, in December 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issueda new final prohibited transaction class exemption (the “Exemption”) for investment advice fiduciaries that is intended to align with Regulation Best Interest.However, under the current administration, the DOL’s Exemption has been frozen, and the DOL, and possibly the SEC, may revisit the Exemption and RegulationBest Interest and may impose additional regulatory burdens. Depending on how Regulation Best Interest and the associated rulemakings are implemented andinterpreted and whether the DOL or the various states impose any additional rules governing the conduct of investment advisers and broker-dealers, any suchrules or regulations could have an adverse effect on the distribution of our products to certain investors. Any changes in the regulatory framework applicable to our business, including the changes described above, may impose additional compliance and othercosts, increase regulatory investigations of the investment activities of our funds, require the attention of our senior management, affect the manner in which weconduct our business and adversely affect our profitability. The full extent of the impact on us of the Dodd-Frank Act or any other new laws, regulations orinitiatives that may be proposed, including by the current administration, is impossible to determine.

Governmental policy and/or legislative changes and regulatory reform could make it more difficult for us to operate our business, including by impedingfundraising, making certain equity or credit investments or investment strategies unattractive or less profitable. In addition, our ability to identify business andother risks associated with new investments depends in part on our ability to anticipate and accurately assess regulatory, legislative and other changes that mayhave a material impact on the businesses in which we choose to invest. We may face particular difficulty anticipating policy changes and reforms during periodsof heightened partisanship at the federal, state and local levels, including due to the divisiveness surrounding populist movements, political disputes andsocioeconomic issues. The failure to accurately anticipate the possible outcome of such changes and/or reforms could have a material adverse effect on thereturns generated from our funds’ investments and our revenues. In addition, the change in administration has led and will continue to lead to leadership changes at a number of U.S. federal regulatory agencies withoversight over the U.S. financial services industry. This poses uncertainty with respect to such agencies’ policy priorities and may lead to increased regulatoryenforcement activity in the financial services industry. Leadership and policy changes could also affect various industries in which our portfolio companiesoperate, including healthcare, energy and consumer finance. Although there is a substantial lack of clarity regarding the likelihood, timing and details of potentialchanges or reforms by the current administration and Democrat controlled U.S. Congress, such changes or reforms may impose additional costs on thecompanies in which we have invested or choose to invest in the future, require the attention of senior management or result in limitations on the manner inwhich the companies in which we have invested or choose to invest in the future conduct business. Such changes or reforms may include, without limitation: • In July 2019, proposed legislation was introduced into the U.S. Congress that contains a number of provisions that, if they were to become law,would adversely impact alternative asset management firms. Among other things, the bill would: potentially expose private funds and certainholders of economic interests therein to the liabilities of portfolio companies, require private funds to offer identical terms and benefits to all limitedpartners, require disclosure of names of each limited partner invested in a private fund, as well as sensitive fund-and portfolio company-levelinformation, impose a limitation on the deductibility of interest expense only applicable to companies owned by private funds, modify settledbankruptcy law to target transactions by private equity funds, increase tax rates on carried interest, and prohibit portfolio companies from payingdividends or repurchasing their shares during the first two years following the acquisition of the portfolio company. If the proposed bill, or othersimilar legislation, were to become law under the current administration and Democrat controlled U.S. Congress, it would adversely affect us, ourportfolio companies and our investors. • There has been recurring consideration amongst regulators and intergovernmental institutions regarding the role of nonbank institutions inproviding credit and, particularly, so-called “shadow banking,” a term generally taken to refer to credit intermediation involving entities andactivities outside the regulated banking system. Federal regulators, such as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal ReserveBoard”), and international organizations, such as the Financial Stability Board, are studying risks associated with nonbank lending. At this time, it istoo early to assess whether any rules or regulations will be proposed or to what extent any finalized rules or regulations will have on the nonbanklending market. If nonbank lending became subject to similar regulations or oversight as traditional banks, our nonbank lending business would beadversely affected and the regulatory burden would be materially greater, which could adversely impact the implementation of our investmentstrategy and our returns. • In the United States, the FSOC has the authority to designate nonbank financial companies as systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”).Currently, there are no nonbank financial companies with a SIFI designation. The FSOC has, however, designated certain nonbank financialcompanies as SIFIs in the past, and additional nonbank financial companies, which may include large asset management companies such as us, maybe designated as SIFIs in the future. The FSOC’s most recent statements and actions generally indicate that it is focused on products and activities,rather than designation of entities, in its review of nonbank financial companies for potential SIFI designation, and has reviewed the assetmanagement industry in particular. In December 2019, the FSOC issued final guidance regarding procedures for designating nonbank financialcompanies as SIFIs, which included shifting from an “entity-based” approach to an “activities-based” approach whereby the FSOC will primarily focuson regulating activities that pose systemic risk to the financial stability of the United States, rather than designations of individual firms. Futurereviews by the FSOC of nonbank financial companies for designation as SIFIs may focus on other types of products and activities, such as nonbanklending activities conducted by certain of our businesses. • If we were designated as a SIFI, including as a result of our asset management or nonbank lending activities, we could become subject to directsupervision by the Federal Reserve Board, and could become subject to enhanced prudential, capital, supervisory and other requirements, such asrisk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, resolution plan and credit exposure report requirements, concentrationlimits, a contingent capital requirement, enhanced public disclosures, short-term debt limits and overall risk management requirements.Requirements such as these, which were designed to regulate banking institutions, would likely need to be modified to be applicable to an assetmanager, although no proposals have been made indicating how such measures would be adapted for asset managers. • 2020 and 2021 saw a marked increase in the use of SPAC offerings and transactions, including by certain of our funds to create exit opportunities forour portfolio companies in lieu of a traditional IPO. SPAC transactions are currently exempt from rules adopted by the SEC to protect investors fromblank check companies, such as Rule 419 under the Securities Act. Additionally, the safe harbor for forward-looking statements under the Private SecuritiesLitigation Reform Act that generally applies to statements made by SEC registrants expressly does not apply to statements “made in connection withinitial public offering[s],” but the same constraints do not currently apply to de-SPAC transactions. However, the current administration has includedincreased regulation of SPACs on its regulatory agenda, and it is expected that the SEC may modify existing regulations or adopt new rules relating toSPAC transactions, which could impact our ability to use SPAC transactions as a means to exit investments.

In June 2020, U.S. federal regulatory agencies adopted revisions to the Volcker Rule to allow for certain exemptions from the Volcker Rule’s restrictions onthe ability of banking entities to sponsor and invest in certain covered funds (the “Covered Fund Amendments”). The Covered Fund Amendments also loosencertain other restrictions on extraterritorial fund activities and direct parallel or co-investments made alongside covered funds. The Covered Fund Amendmentsshould therefore expand the ability of banking entities to invest in and sponsor private funds. These and similar regulatory developments may have the effect ofincreasing competition for our businesses. For example, increased competition from banks and other financial institutions in the credit markets could have theeffect of reducing credit spreads, which may adversely affect the revenues of our credit and other businesses whose strategies include the provision of credit toborrowers. To date, the current administration has not expressed an intent to implement measures focused on deregulation of the U.S. financial services industry, andhas taken actions seeking to halt or reverse certain deregulation measures adopted by the prior administration. However, whether the current administration orregulatory agencies will enact, adopt or modify any particular financial regulations remains unclear. Any changes in the regulatory framework applicable to ourbusiness or the businesses of the portfolio companies of our funds, including the changes described above, may create uncertainty, require the attention of oursenior management or result in limitations on the manner in which business is conducted, or may ultimately have an adverse impact on the competitiveness ofcertain nonbank financial service providers vis-à-vis traditional banking organizations.

We regularly rely on exemptions from various requirements of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), the Exchange Act, the 1940Act, the Commodity Exchange Act and the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, in conducting our asset management activities.These exemptions are sometimes highly complex and may in certain circumstances depend on compliance by third parties whom we do not control. If for anyreason these exemptions were to become unavailable to us, we could become subject to regulatory action or third party claims and our business could bematerially and adversely affected. For example, the “bad actor” disqualification provisions of Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act ban an issuer fromoffering or selling securities pursuant to the safe harbor rule in Rule 506 if the issuer or any other “covered person” is the subject of a criminal, regulatory orcourt order or other “disqualifying event” under the rule which has not been waived. The definition of “covered person” includes an issuer’s directors, general partners, managing members and executiveofficers; affiliates who are also issuing securities in the offering; beneficial owners of 20% or more of the issuer’s outstanding equity securities; and promotersand persons compensated for soliciting investors in the offering. Accordingly, our ability to rely on Rule 506 to offer or sell securities would be impaired if we orany “covered person” is the subject of a disqualifying event under the rule and we are unable to obtain a waiver. The requirements imposed by our regulators aredesigned primarily to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and to protect investors in our investment funds and are not designed to protect our commonstockholders. Consequently, these regulations often serve to limit our activities and impose burdensome compliance requirements.

Similar to the United States, the jurisdictions outside the United States in which we operate, in particular Europe, have become subject to further regulation.Governmental regulators and other authorities in Europe have proposed or implemented a number of initiatives and additional rules and regulations that couldadversely affect our business, including by imposing additional compliance and administrative burden and increasing the costs of doing business in suchjurisdictions. Increasingly, the rules and regulations in the financial sector in Europe are becoming more prescriptive. Rules and regulations in other jurisdictionsare often informed by key features of U.S. and European rules and regulations and, as a result, our businesses outside of these jurisdictions, including across Asia,may become subject to increased regulation in the future. In Europe, the EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”) was implemented in 2013 and established a regulatory regime for alternativeinvestment fund managers, including private equity and hedge fund managers. AIFMD is applicable to our AIFMs in Luxembourg and Ireland and in certain otherrespects to affiliated non-EEA AIFMs in other jurisdictions to the extent that they market interests in alternative investment funds to EEA investors. We have hadto comply with these and other requirements of the AIFMD in order to market certain of our investment funds to professional investors in the EEA. The U.K. has“on-shored” AIFMD and therefore similar requirements continue to apply to funds marketed to U.K. investors notwithstanding Brexit. In November 2021, a legislative proposal (commonly referred to as “AIFMD II”) was made that may increase the cost and complexity of raising capital andrestrict our ability to structure or market certain types of funds to EEA investors, which consequently may slow the pace of fundraising. In addition, on August 2, 2021, certain regulations (the “CBDF Regulation”) came into effect, which in part amended AIFMD. The CBDF Regulation introducesnew standardized requirements for cross-border fund distribution in the EU, including as related to transparency and principles for calculating supervisory fees,new procedures for the de-notification of marketing (including restrictions on pre-marking successor funds), new content requirements for marketingcommunications and additional regulations with respect to investors who approach our funds seeking to invest on their own initiative. As the CBDF Regulation isimplemented across various EU jurisdictions, our ability to raise capital from EEA investors may become more complex and costly. The EU Securitization Regulation (the “Securitization Regulation”), which became effective on January 1, 2019, imposes due diligence and risk retentionrequirements on “institutional investors” (which includes managers of alternative investment funds assets) which must be satisfied prior to holding asecuritization position. These requirements may apply to AIFs managed by not only EEA AIFMs but also non-EEA AIFMs where those AIFs have been registered formarketing in the EU under national private placement regimes. Similar requirements continue to apply in the U.K. notwithstanding Brexit. The SecuritizationRegulation may impact or limit our funds’ ability to make certain investments that constitute “securitizations” under the regulation. The Securitization Regulationmay also constrain certain of our funds’ ability to invest in securitization positions that do not comply with, among other things, the risk retention requirements.Failure to comply with these requirements could result in various penalties. The EU regulation (“EMIR”) on over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories requires mandatory clearingof certain OTC derivatives through central counterparties, creates additional risk mitigation requirements and imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirementsin respect of most derivative transactions. Similar rules apply in the U.K., and compliance with relevant EU and U.K. requirements imposes additional operationalburden and cost on our engagement in such transactions. Additional regulation, commonly referred to as “MiFID II” requires us to comply with disclosure, transparency, reporting and record keeping obligations andenhanced obligations in relation to the receipt of investment research, best execution, product governance and marketing communications. Compliance withMiFID II has resulted in greater overall complexity, higher compliance and administration and operational costs and less overall flexibility for us. Certain aspects ofMiFID II are subject to review and change in both the EU and the U.K. Associated changes to the prudential regulation of EEA and U.K. MiFID investment firmshave increased the regulatory capital and liquidity adequacy requirements for certain of our entities licensed under MiFID. This makes it less capital efficient torun the relevant businesses. Those changes have also required us to make changes to the way in which we remunerate certain senior staff, which may make itharder for us to attract and retain talent, compared to competitors not subject to the same rules. Enhanced internal governance, disclosure and reportingrequirements increase the costs of compliance. As with any other organization that holds personal data of EU data subjects, we are required to comply with the GDPR because, among other things, weprocess European individuals’ personal data in the U.S. via our global technology systems. The U.K. has on-shored GDPR and similar requirements thereforecontinue to apply in the U.K. notwithstanding Brexit, although transfers of personal data between the EU and U.K. are subject to less safeguards then transfers tothird countries. Financial regulators and data protection authorities have significantly increased audit and investigatory powers under GDPR to probe howpersonal data is being used and processed. Serious breaches of include antitrust-like fines on companies of up to the greater of €20 million / £17.5 million or 4%of global group turnover in the preceding year, regulatory action and reputational risk. See “— Rapidly developing and changing global privacy laws andregulations could increase compliance costs and subject us to enforcement risks and reputational damage.” European regulators are increasing their attention on “greenwashing” and rapidly developing and implementing regimes focused on ESG and sustainabilitywithin the financial services sector. These may impose substantial ESG data collection and disclosure obligations on us, which in turn may impose increasedcompliance burdens and costs for our funds’ operations. It is not yet possible to fully assess how our business will be affected, as much of the detail surroundingthese initiatives is yet to be revealed. In the EU, the key regimes include the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (“SFDR”) which currently imposes disclosure requirements on MiFIDfirms and AIFMs and will affect our EEA operations (including where non-EEA products are marketed to EEA investors). The EU regulation on the establishment ofa framework to facilitate sustainable investment (“Taxonomy Regulation”) supplements SFDR’s disclosure requirements for certain entities and sets out aframework for classifying economic activities as “environmentally sustainable.” There is considerable legal uncertainty about how to comply with these regimes.In particular, as a result of this uncertainty, there is a risk of inadvertent mischaracterization of certain of our products, which could lead to claims by investors formis-selling and/or regulatory enforcement action, which could result in fines or other regulatory sanctions and damage to our reputation. In addition, certainrequirements (such as making public disclosures on our website concerning the ESG features of private funds) might conflict with our other regulatoryobligations. As a consequence, we may be unable to, or make a reasoned decision not to, fully comply with the requirements of these new regimes. This toocould lead to regulatory enforcement action with similar consequences. The U.K. is not implementing SFDR but is in the process of introducing mandatorydisclosure requirements aligned with the TCFD. In addition, a second layer of U.K. regulation has been proposed, which will implement additional disclosurerequirements (known as “SDR”) and a new “U.K. Green Taxonomy,” which gives rise to similar risks to those described above in relation to SFDR and theTaxonomy Regulation, and exacerbates the risks arising from mismatch between the EEA and U.K. initiatives.

A number of jurisdictions, including the U.S., have restrictions on foreign direct investment pursuant to which their respective heads of state and/orregulatory bodies have the authority to block or impose conditions with respect to certain transactions, such as investments, acquisitions and divestitures, if suchtransaction threatens to impair national security. In addition, many jurisdictions restrict foreign investment in assets important to national security by takingsteps including, but not limited to, placing limitations on foreign equity investment, implementing investment screening or approval mechanisms, and restrictingthe employment of foreigners as key personnel. These U.S. and foreign laws could limit our funds’ ability to invest in certain businesses or entities or imposeburdensome notification requirements, operational restrictions or delays in pursuing and consummating transactions. For example, the Committee on ForeignInvestment in the United States (“CFIUS”) has the authority to review transactions that could result in potential control of, or certain types of non-controllinginvestments in, a U.S. business by a foreign person. In recent years, legislation has expanded the scope of CFIUS’ jurisdiction to cover more types of transactionsand empower CFIUS to scrutinize more closely investments in certain transactions. CFIUS may recommend that the President block or impose conditions or termson such transactions, certain of which may adversely affect the ability of the fund to execute on its investment strategy with respect to such transaction. Additionally, CFIUS or any non-U.S.equivalents thereof may seek to impose limitations on one or more such investments that may prevent us from maintaining or pursuing investment opportunitiesthat we otherwise would have maintained or pursued, which could make it more difficult for us to deploy capital in certain of our funds. Our investments outside of the United States may also face delays, limitations, or restrictions as a result of notifications made under and/or compliance withthese legal regimes and rapidly-changing agency practices. Other countries continue to establish and/or strengthen their own national security investmentclearance regimes, which could have a corresponding effect of limiting our ability to make investments in such countries. Heightened scrutiny of foreign directinvestment worldwide may also make it more difficult for us to identify suitable buyers for investments upon exit and may constrain the universe of exitopportunities for an investment in a portfolio company. As a result of such regimes, we may incur significant delays and costs, be altogether prohibited frommaking a particular investment or impede or restrict syndication or sale of certain assets to certain buyers, all of which could adversely affect the performance ofour funds and in turn, materially reduce our revenues and cash flow.

The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (“ITRA”) expanded the scope of U.S. sanctions against Iran. Additionally, Section 219 of theITRA amended the Exchange Act to require companies subject to SEC reporting obligations under Section 13 of the Exchange Act to disclose in their periodicreports specified dealings or transactions involving Iran or other individuals and entities targeted by certain OFAC sanctions engaged in by the reporting company or any of its affiliates during the period covered by the relevant periodic report. In some cases, ITRA requires companies to disclose thesetypes of transactions even if they were permissible under U.S. law. Companies that currently may be or may have been at the time considered our affiliates havefrom time to time publicly filed and/or provided to us the disclosures reproduced on Exhibit 99.1 of our Quarterly Reports. We do not independently verify orparticipate in the preparation of these disclosures. We are required to separately file with the SEC a notice when such activities have been disclosed in thisreport, and the SEC is required to post such notice of disclosure on its website and send the report to the President and certain U.S. Congressional committees.The President thereafter is required to initiate an investigation and, within 180 days of initiating such an investigation, determine whether sanctions should beimposed. Disclosure of such activity, even if such activity is not subject to sanctions under applicable law, and any sanctions actually imposed on us or ouraffiliates as a result of these activities, could harm our reputation and have a negative impact on our business, and any failure to disclose any such activities asrequired could additionally result in fines or penalties.

We and our portfolio companies are subject to various risks and costs associated with the collection, processing, storage and transmission of personallyidentifiable information (“PII”) and other sensitive and confidential information. This data is wide ranging and relates to our investors, employees, contractorsand other counterparties and third parties. Our compliance obligations include those relating to U.S. laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the CCPA,which provides for enhanced consumer protections for California residents, a private right of action for data breaches and statutory fines and damages for databreaches or other CCPA violations, as well as a requirement of “reasonable” cybersecurity. Our compliance obligations also include those relating to foreign datacollection and privacy laws, including, for example, the GDPR and U.K. Data Protection Act, as well as laws in many other jurisdictions globally, includingSwitzerland, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Australia and Brazil. Global laws in this area are rapidly increasing in the scale and depth of their requirements,and are also often extra-territorial in nature. In addition, a wide range of regulators and private actors are seeking to enforce these laws across regions andborders. Furthermore, we frequently have privacy compliance requirements as a result of our contractual obligations with counterparties. These legal, regulatoryand contractual obligations heighten our privacy obligations in the ordinary course of conducting our business in the U.S. and internationally.While we have taken various measures and made significant efforts and investment to ensure that our policies, processes and systems are both robust andcompliant with these obligations, our potential liability remains, particularly given the continued and rapid development of privacy laws and regulations aroundthe world, and increased criminal and civil enforcement actions and private litigation. Any inability, or perceived inability, by us or our portfolio companies toadequately address privacy concerns, or comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, industry standards and guidance, contractual obligations, or otherlegal obligations, even if unfounded, could result in significant regulatory and third party liability, increased costs, disruption of our and our portfolio companies’business and operations, and a loss of client (including investor) confidence and other reputational damage. Furthermore, as new privacy-related laws andregulations are implemented, the time and resources needed for us and our portfolio companies to comply with such laws and regulations continues to increaseand become a significant compliance workstream.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly evolved around the globe, with many countries, at various times, taking meaningful measures to limit thespread of the virus by instituting quarantines or lockdowns, imposing travel restrictions and vaccination mandates for certain workers or activities and limitingoperations of certain non-essential businesses. In 2021, the global economy began reopening and robust economic activity supported a continued recovery.However, the emergence of COVID-19 variants and related surges in COVID-19 cases have contributed to certain setbacks to reopening and could trigger thereinstatement of restrictions, including mandatory business shut-downs, travel restrictions, reduced business operations and social distancing requirements.Many medical and public health experts believe that COVID-19 could perpetually reoccur for years, such as seasonally in winter, and even if generally ceasing tobe fatal for most people, such reoccurrence could increase the possibility of periods of increased restrictions on business operations. The longer the pandemicimpacts activity levels in the locations and sectors in which we and our portfolio companies operate, the more likely it is to have a sustained, material impact onthe economy and on us. These and other factors may delay a return to pre-pandemic, ordinary course economic activity, or cause the U.S. economy or othermajor global economies to experience contraction or slower growth. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause labor shortages and disrupt globalsupply chains, particularly given China’s strict recurrent COVID restrictions, which has contributed to prolonged disruptions. The COVID-19 pandemic is alsocontributing to growing inflationary pressures, particularly in the U.S., where inflation continues to show signs of acceleration. All of the above may adverselyimpact our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and prospects materially and would also exacerbate many of the other risks discussed in this “Risk Factors” section. Even though the COVID-19 pandemic has been gradually subsiding, the market turmoil and other changes associated with the pandemic may have lastingeffects on our business and operations. The proliferation of remote working may result in long-term changed market and consumer and workplace practices thatcould negatively impact us and our business. Increased adoption of and familiarity with remote work practices could result in continued decreased demand forbusiness and leisure travel, hotel stays, conference facilities, select U.S. urban residential and office assets, diesel fuel and gasoline. In addition, consumerpractices and demands may permanently, or for an extended period, change from what they were prior to the onset of COVID-19, including avoiding activitieswhere people are in close proximity to each other, which could adversely affect certain of our investments. Failure of our investment strategies to adapt to theseand other changes could adversely impact the returns on our investments. Adverse impacts on our business as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic have included, and may in the future include, but are not limited to:• Performance Revenues. During parts of 2020 and 2021, our ability to realize value from our investments was adversely impacted by decreasedportfolio company revenues and earnings, lack of potential buyers with financial resources to pursue an acquisition, and limited access to the equitycapital markets. Although the continuing market recovery has contributed to meaningful capital deployment and realizations, a potential marketdownturn, a slower economic recovery, inflationary pressures, and associated declines in the value of investments as well as limited capitaldeployment and realization opportunities could reduce our performance revenues. • Management Fees. While continuing market recovery has contributed to meaningful capital deployment, realization and fundraising activity,another potential market downturn may cause us to experience a decline in the pace of our investments or in the pace of our fundraising for new orsuccessor funds or in the value of funds charging management fees based on net asset value. In such a situation, our fee revenues could experiencedeclining growth or decrease. • Investment Performance. Many of our investments are in industries that were materially impacted by COVID-19. For example, in 2020, certaininvestments in our real estate portfolio, such as those in the hospitality, location-based entertainment and retail sectors and, in certain geographies,in the office and residential sectors as well as in our private equity portfolio, such as those in the travel, leisure and events sectors, experiencedmaterial reductions in value. We have also seen an increasing focus toward rent regulation as a means to address residential affordability caused byundersupply of housing in certain markets in the U.S. and Europe. Such conditions (which may be across industries, sectors or geographies) maycontribute to adverse operating performance, including by moderating rent growth in certain geographies and markets in our residential portfolio.While nearly all portfolio companies that completely or partially suspended operations during the pandemic have fully reopened, we cannot predictif any such companies will have to completely or partially suspend operations again in the future. If we experience another meaningful disruption inactivity like the one caused by COVID-19, the businesses of impacted portfolio companies could suffer materially, which would decrease the value ofour funds’ investments. Furthermore, such negative market conditions could potentially result in a portfolio company entering bankruptcyproceedings, thereby potentially resulting in a complete loss of the fund’s investment in such portfolio company and a significant negative impact tothe investment fund’s performance and consequently to our operating results and cash flow, as well as to our reputation. • Liquidity. In 2020, our portfolio companies faced, and may face in the future, increased credit and liquidity risk due to volatility in financial markets,reduced revenue streams, and limited access or higher cost of financing, which may result in potential impairment of our or our funds’ investments.Changes in the debt financing markets impacted, and may in the future impact, the ability of our portfolio companies to meet their respectivefinancial obligations. For example, the initial outbreak of the pandemic created additional pressure for certain of our portfolio companies’ and investments’ liquidity needs, including by adversely impacting rent collection and operational performance in certain sectors and geographies. Although we have multiple sources of liquidityto meet our capital needs, changes in the debt financing markets may also in the future impact our ability to refinance our debt obligations. Inaddition, borrowers of loans, notes and other credit instruments in our credit funds’ portfolios may be unable to meet their principal or interestpayment obligations or satisfy financial covenants, and tenants leasing real estate properties owned by our funds may not be able to pay rents in atimely manner or at all, resulting in a decrease in value of our funds’ credit and real estate investments and lower than expected return. Anotherperiod of significant dislocation in the credit markets like the one we experienced in the first quarter of 2020, during which the liquidity of certainassets traded in the credit markets was limited, could impact the value of certain assets held by our real estate debt, credit and Hedge FundSolutions funds, such funds’ ability to sell assets at attractive prices or in a timely manner in order to avoid losses and the likelihood of margin callsfrom credit providers. In addition, a sudden contraction of liquidity in the credit markets, including as a result of overwhelming desire for liquidity onthe part of market participants, is likely to exacerbate the likelihood of forced sales of assets and margins calls, which would result in further declinesin the value of assets. For example, in our Hedge Funds Solutions segment, such a contraction could cause investors to seek liquidity in the form ofredemptions from our funds, adversely impacting management fees. • Operational Risks. The emergence of COVID-19 variants and rising case counts in certain geographies have contributed to periods of increasedremote work, including for our employees. While our technology infrastructure has supported remote work, such working environments may be lesssecure and more susceptible to hacking attacks, including phishing and social engineering attempts that seek to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic. Inaddition, third party service providers on whom we have become increasingly reliant for certain aspects of our business, including for certaintechnology platforms (including cloud-based services) and the administration of certain funds, could be impacted by an inability to perform due toCOVID-19 restrictions or by failures of, or attacks on, their technology platforms. • Employee-Related Risks. COVID-19 continues to present a threat to our employees’ and their families’ well-being. Our employees or executiveofficers may become sick or otherwise unable to perform their duties for an extended period of time, and extended public health restrictions andremote working arrangements may impact employee morale. In addition to any potential impact of such extended illness on our operations, we maybe exposed to the risk of litigation by our employees against us for, among other things, failure to take adequate steps to protect their well-being,particularly in the event they become sick after a return to the office. A prolonged period of remote work may also make it more difficult to integratenew employees and maintain our culture. Conversely, requiring our employees to return to the office full or part time, particularly if othercompanies decide to offer extended flexibility to work remotely, may make it more difficult to recruit and retain talent. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and prospects materially will dependon future developments, including the duration, spread and intensity of the pandemic, the emergence of new variants of the virus, the distribution andacceptance of vaccines, the duration of government measures to mitigate the pandemic and how quickly and to what extent normal economic and operatingconditions resume, all of which are uncertain and difficult to predict.

Our business is materially affected by financial market and economic conditions and events throughout the world that are outside our control. We may notbe able to or may choose not to manage our exposure to these conditions and/or events. Such conditions and/or events can adversely affect our business inmany ways, including by reducing the ability of our funds to raise or deploy capital, reducing the value or performance of the investments made by our funds and making it more difficult to fund opportunities for our funds to exist and realize value from existing investment. This could inturn materially reduce our revenue, earnings and cash flow and adversely affect our financial prospects and condition. In addition, in the face of a difficult marketor economic environment, we may need to reduce our fixed costs and other expenses in order to maintain profitability, including by cutting back or eliminatingthe use of certain services or service providers, or terminating the employment of a significant number of our personnel that, in each case, could be important toour business and without which our operating results could be adversely affected. A failure to manage or reduce our costs and other expenses within a timeframe sufficient to match any decrease in profitability would adversely affect our operating performance. Turmoil in the global financial markets can provoke significant volatility of equity and debt securities prices. This can have a material and rapid impact on ourmark-to-market valuations, particularly with respect to our public holdings and credit investments. Geopolitical concerns and other global events, including,without limitation, trade conflict, civil unrest, national and international political circumstances (including outbreak of war, terrorist acts or security operations)and pandemics or other severe public health events, have contributed and may continue to contribute to volatility in global equity and debt markets. Forexample, the Chinese government has in recent years implemented a number of measures to control the rate of economic growth in the country, including byraising interest rates and adjusting deposit reserve ratios for commercial banks, and through other measures designed to tighten credit and liquidity. A slowing ofChina’s growth rate could have a systemic impact on the global economy and on equity and debt markets. As publicly traded equity securities have in recentyears represented an increasingly significant proportion of the assets of many of our funds, stock market volatility, including a sharp decline in the stock marketmay adversely affect our results, including our revenues and net income. In addition, our public equity holdings have at times been concentrated in a few largepositions, thereby making our unrealized mark-to-market valuations particularly sensitive to sharp changes in the price of any of these positions. Further,although the equity markets are not the only means by which we exit investments, should we experience another period of challenging equity markets, our fundsmay experience increased difficulty in realizing value from investments. In addition, inflation in the U.S. continues to show meaningful signs of acceleration and is likely to continue in the near- to medium-term. Further,heightened competition for workers, supply chain issues and rising energy and commodity prices have contributed to increasing wages and other inputs. Higherinflation and rising input costs may put pressure on our portfolio companies’ profit margins, particularly where pricing power is lacking. Similarly, in the case ofreal estate, inflation can negatively impact the profitability of certain real estate assets, such as those with long-term leases that do not provide for short-termrent increases. This would have an adverse impact on the valuations of such investments in our funds and adversely affect our performance and results ofoperations. In addition to the factors described above, other factors described herein that may affect market, economic and geopolitical conditions, and therebyadversely affect our business include, without limitation: • economic slowdown in the U.S. and internationally, • changes in interest rates and/or a lack of availability of credit in the U.S. and internationally, and• changes in law and/or regulation, and uncertainty regarding government and regulatory policy, including in connection with the current administration.

Countries and industries around the globe continue to grapple with the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although meaningful global economicrecovery is underway, such recovery may continue to be uneven and characterized by dispersion across sectors and regions. Any deceleration in the rate of globalgrowth in certain industries, sectors or geographies may contribute to poor financial results at our funds’ portfolio companies, which may result in lowerinvestment returns for our funds. For example, periods of economic weakness have and may in the future contribute to a decline in commodity prices and/orvolatility in the oil and natural gas markets, each of which would have an adverse effect on our energy investments. The performance of our funds’ portfoliocompanies would also likely be negatively impacted if pressure on wages and other inputs increasingly pressure profit margins. To the extent the performance ofthose portfolio companies, as well as valuation multiples, do not improve, our funds may sell those assets at values that are less than we projected or even a loss,thereby significantly affecting those investment funds’ performance. In addition, as the governing agreements of our funds contain only limited requirementsregarding diversification of fund investments (by, for example, sector or geographic region), during periods of economic slowdown in certain sectors or regions,the impact on our funds may be exacerbated by concentration of investments in such sector or region. As a result, our ability to raise new funds, as well as ouroperating results and cash flows could be adversely affected. In addition, during periods of weakness, our funds’ portfolio companies may also have difficulty expanding their businesses and operations or meeting theirdebt service obligations or other expenses as they become due, including expenses payable to us. Furthermore, such negative market conditions couldpotentially result in a portfolio company entering bankruptcy proceedings, thereby potentially resulting in a complete loss of the fund’s investment in suchportfolio company and a significant negative impact to the investment fund’s performance and consequently to our operating results and cash flow, as well as toour reputation. In addition, negative market conditions would also increase the risk of default with respect to investments held by our funds that have significantdebt investments, such as our credit-focused funds.