Conifer Holdings (CNFR) Risk Factors

We believe that our future success depends, in large part, on our ability to retain our experienced management team and key employees, particularly our chief executive officer, Nicholas J. Petcoff. There can be no assurance that we can attract and retain the necessary employees to conduct our business activities on a timely basis or at all. Our competitors may offer more favorable compensation arrangements to our key management or employees to incentivize them to leave our Company. Furthermore, our competitors may make it more difficult for us to hire their personnel by offering excessive compensation arrangements to certain employees to induce them not to leave their current employment and bringing litigation against employees who do leave (and possibly us as well) to join us. The loss of any of our executive officers or other key personnel, or our inability to recruit and retain additional qualified personnel as we grow, could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations, and could prevent us from fully implementing our growth strategies.

Approximately 67 of our 77 employees conveyed with the sale of CIS, including the entire underwriting, claims, and information technology teams. We now rely on services agreements for CIS, as a third party vendor, to manage our claims, policy issuance and collections, as well as maintaining the policy management and claims systems. Undergoing such a large change in operations and staff reduction could generate skill and resource limitations within the remaining internal staff. This could result in more significant operational errors and a diminished control environment. We are exposed to many types of operational risk, including the risk of fraud by employees and outsiders, clerical and recordkeeping which can be heightened when third party vendors are heavily relied upon. Third parties with whom we do business, including vendors that provide services or security solutions for our operations, could be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns, failures, or capacity constraints of their own systems or employees. Any of these occurrences could diminish our ability to operate our business, or cause financial loss, potential liability to insureds, inability to secure insurance, reputational damage or regulatory intervention, which could materially adversely affect us.

We purchase reinsurance in many of our lines of business to help manage our exposure to insurance risks that we underwrite and to reduce volatility in our results. The availability and cost of reinsurance are subject to prevailing market conditions, both in terms of price and available capacity, each of which can affect our business volume and profitability. The availability of reasonably affordable reinsurance is a critical element of our business plan. One important way we utilize reinsurance is to reduce volatility in claims payments by limiting our exposure to losses from large risks. Another way we use reinsurance is to purchase substantial protection against concentrated losses when we enter new markets. As a result, our ability to manage volatility and avoid significant losses, expand into new markets or grow by offering insurance to new kinds of enterprises may be limited by the unavailability of reasonably priced reinsurance. We may not be able to obtain reinsurance on acceptable terms or from entities with satisfactory creditworthiness. Under such circumstances, we may have to reduce the level of our underwriting commitments, which would reduce our revenues. Many reinsurance companies have begun to exclude certain coverages from, or alter terms in, the reinsurance contracts we enter into with them. Some exclusions relate to risks that we cannot exclude from the policies we write due to business or regulatory constraints. In addition, reinsurers are imposing terms, such as lower per occurrence and aggregate limits, on direct insurers that do not wholly cover the risks written. As a result, we, like other direct insurance companies, write insurance policies which, to some extent, do not have the benefit of reinsurance protection. These gaps in reinsurance protection expose us to greater risk and greater potential losses. For example, certain reinsurers have excluded coverage for terrorist acts or priced such coverage at unreasonably high rates.

Factors, such as business revenue, economic conditions, the volatility and strength of the capital markets and inflation can all affect the business and economic environment in which we operate. These same factors affect our ability to generate revenue and profits. In an economic downturn that is characterized by higher unemployment, declining spending and reduced corporate revenues, the demand for insurance products is adversely affected, which directly affects our premium levels and profitability. Negative economic factors may also affect our ability to receive the appropriate rate for the risk we insure with our policyholders and may adversely affect the number of policies we can write, including with respect to our opportunities to underwrite profitable business. In an economic downturn, our customers may have less need for insurance coverage, cancel existing insurance policies, modify their coverage or not renew with us. These outcomes would reduce our underwriting profit to the extent these factors are not reflected in the rates we charge.

Along with other insurers in the industry, we use models developed by third-party vendors in assessing our exposure to catastrophe losses that assume various conditions and probability scenarios. However, these models do not necessarily accurately predict future losses or accurately measure losses currently incurred. Catastrophe models, which have been evolving since the early 1990s, use historical information about various catastrophes and detailed information about our business. While we use this information in connection with our pricing and risk management activities, there are limitations with respect to their usefulness in predicting losses in any reporting period. Examples of these limitations are significant variations in estimates between models and modelers and material increases and decreases in model results due to changes and refinements of the underlying data elements and assumptions. Such limitations lead to questionable predictive capability and post-event measurements that have not been well understood or proven to be sufficiently reliable. In addition, the models are not necessarily reflective of company or state-specific policy language, demand surge for labor and materials or loss settlement expenses, all of which are subject to wide variation by catastrophe. Because the occurrence and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable and may vary significantly from year to year, historical results of operations may not be indicative of future results of operations.

As a holding company which owns insurance companies domiciled in the United States, we and our admitted Insurance Company Subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation, primarily by Michigan (the domiciliary state for CIC and WPIC) and to a lesser degree, the other jurisdictions in which we operate. Most insurance regulations are designed to protect the interests of insurance policyholders, as opposed to the interests of shareholders. These regulations generally are administered by a department of insurance in each state and relate to, among other things, authorizations to write certain lines of business, capital and surplus requirements, reserve requirements, rate and form approvals, investment and underwriting limitations, affiliate transactions, dividend limitations, cancellation and non-renewal of policies, changes in control, solvency and a variety of other financial and non-financial aspects of our business. These laws and regulations are regularly re-examined and any changes in these laws and regulations or new laws may be more restrictive, could make it more expensive to conduct business or otherwise adversely affect our operations. State insurance departments also conduct periodic examinations of the affairs of insurance companies and require the filing of annual and other reports relating to financial condition, holding company issues and other matters. These regulatory requirements may impose timing and expense or other constraints that could adversely affect our ability to achieve some or all of our business objectives. In addition, regulatory authorities have broad discretion to deny or revoke licenses for various reasons, including the violation of regulations. In some instances, where there is uncertainty as to applicability, we follow practices based on our interpretations of regulations or practices that we believe are generally followed by the industry. These practices may turn out to be different from the interpretations of regulatory authorities. If we do not have the requisite licenses and approvals or do not comply with applicable regulatory requirements, insurance regulatory authorities could preclude or temporarily suspend us from carrying on some or all of our activities or otherwise penalize us. This could adversely affect our ability to operate our business. The admitted market is subject to more state regulation than the E&S market, particularly with regard to rate and form filing requirements, restrictions on the ability to exit lines of business, premium tax payments and membership in various state associations, such as guaranty associations. Some states have deregulated their commercial insurance markets. We cannot predict the effect that further deregulation would have on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The State of Michigan has adopted the NAIC's calculation to measure the adequacy of statutory capital of U.S.-based insurers, known as RBC. The RBC calculation establishes the minimum amount of capital necessary for a company to support its overall business operations. Insurers falling below a calculated threshold may be subject to varying degrees of regulatory action, including supervision, rehabilitation or liquidation. Failure to maintain adequate RBC at the required levels could adversely affect the ability of our Insurance Company Subsidiaries to maintain regulatory authority to conduct their business. The State of Michigan has adopted the NAIC's holding company act and regulations. This act requires, among other things, that: - An insurance holding company system's ultimate controlling person submit an annual enterprise risk report to its domiciliary state insurance regulator which identifies activities, circumstances or events involving one or more affiliates of an insurer that may have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition or liquidity of the insurer or its insurance holding company system as a whole,- A controlling person to submit prior notice to its domiciliary insurance regulator of a divestiture of control, and - Insurers comply with certain minimum requirements for cost sharing and management agreements between the insurer and its affiliates. The State of Michigan also adopted the NAIC's Risk Management and Own Risk and Solvency Assessment Model Act (the "ORSA Model Act"). The ORSA Model Act requires that an insurance holding company system's Chief Risk Officer to submit annually to its domiciliary regulator an Own Risk and Solvency Assessment Summary Report ("ORSA"). The ORSA is a confidential internal assessment conducted by that insurer of the material and relevant risks identified by the insurer associated with the insurer's current business plan and the sufficiency of capital resources to support those risks. The Company is currently exempt from providing an ORSA summary report as it does not meet the minimum premium requirements. We may be required to comply with this requirement in the future if our gross written premium exceeds $500 million annually. We cannot predict the impact these requirements or any other regulatory requirements may have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.