F&G Annuities & Life Inc (FG) Risk Analysis

Insurance businesses are subject to extensive regulation by state insurance authorities in each state in which they operate. Most states also regulate insurance holding companies like us with respect to acquisitions, changes of control and the terms of transactions with our affiliates. In addition, we may incur significant costs in the course of complying with regulatory requirements. State insurance regulators, the NAIC and federal regulators continually reexamine existing laws and regulations and may impose changes in the future. New interpretations of existing laws and the passage of new legislation may harm our ability to sell new policies, increase our claim exposure on policies we issued previously and adversely affect our profitability and financial strength. We are also subject to the risk that compliance with any particular regulator's interpretation of a legal or accounting issue may not result in compliance with another regulator's interpretation of the same issue, particularly when compliance is judged in hindsight. Regulators and other authorities have the power to bring administrative or judicial proceedings against us, which could result in, among other things, suspension or revocation of our licenses, cease and desist orders, fines, civil penalties, criminal penalties or other disciplinary action, which could materially harm our results of operations and financial condition. We cannot predict what form any future changes in these or other areas of regulation affecting the insurance industry might take or what effect, if any, such proposals might have on us if enacted into law. In addition, because our activities are relatively concentrated in a small number of lines of business, any change in law or regulation affecting one of those lines of business could have a disproportionate impact on us as compared to other more diversified insurance companies. Please refer to "Business-Regulation of F&G" included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional details on the impact of regulations on our business.

Pursuant to the Transaction Agreements, FNF has agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities, and we have agreed to indemnify FNF for certain liabilities, in certain cases for uncapped amounts. Indemnities that we may be required to provide FNF may not be subject to any cap, may be significant and could negatively impact our business, particularly with respect to indemnities provided in the Tax Sharing Agreement. Third parties could also seek to hold us responsible for any of the liabilities that FNF has agreed to retain under the Transaction Agreements. Any amounts that we are required to pay pursuant to these indemnification obligations and other liabilities could require us to divert cash that would otherwise have been used operating our business. Further, the indemnities from FNF may not be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities, and FNF may not be able to fully satisfy its indemnification obligations. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from FNF any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses ourselves. Each of these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases using enacted tax rates expected to be in effect during the years in which the basis differences reverse. Deferred tax assets, in essence, represent future savings of taxes that would otherwise be paid in cash. We are required to evaluate the recoverability of our deferred tax assets each quarter and establish a valuation allowance, if necessary, to reduce our deferred tax assets to an amount that is more-likely-than-not to be realizable. In determining the need for a valuation allowance, we consider many factors, including future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, future taxable income exclusive of reversing temporary differences and carryforwards, taxable income in prior carryback years and implementation of any feasible and prudent tax planning strategies management would employ to realize the tax benefit. Based on our current assessment of future taxable income, including available tax planning opportunities, we anticipate it is more-likely-than-not that we will generate sufficient taxable income to realize all of our deferred tax assets as to which we do not have a valuation allowance. If future events differ from our current assumptions, the valuation allowance may need to be increased, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

In December 2020, the DOL issued its final version of an investment advice rule replacing the previous "Fiduciary Rule" that had been challenged by industry participants and vacated in March 2018 by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The new investment advice rule reinstates the five-part test for determining whether a person is considered a fiduciary for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and sets forth a new exemption, referred to as prohibited transaction class exemption ("PTE") 2020-02. The rule's preamble also contains the DOL's reinterpretation of elements of the five-part test that appears to encompass more insurance agents selling IRA products and withdraws the DOL's longstanding position that rollover recommendations out of employer plans are not subject to ERISA. The new rule took effect on February 16, 2021. The DOL left in place PTE 84-24, which is a longstanding class exemption providing prohibited transaction relief for insurance agents selling annuity products, provided that certain disclosures are made to the plan fiduciary, which is the policyholder in the case of an IRA, and certain other conditions are met. Among other things, these disclosures include the agent's relationship to the insurer and commissions received in connection with the annuity sale. We, along with FGL Insurance and FGL NY Insurance, designed and launched a compliance program in January 2022 requiring all agents selling IRA products to submit an acknowledgment with each IRA application indicating the agent has satisfied PTE 84-24 requirements on a precautionary basis in case the agent acted or is found to have acted as a fiduciary. Meanwhile, the DOL has publicly announced its intention to consider future rulemaking that may revoke or modify PTE 84-24. On April 23, 2024, following previous attempts to expand fiduciary regulation for advisers, the DOL released a new rule, the New Fiduciary Rule, which significantly broadens the definition of "fiduciary" under ERISA and Section 4975 when advisers provide investment recommendations to plans subject to ERISA and Section 4975 of the Code. Among other requirements, the New Fiduciary Rule provides that any person will be an investment advice fiduciary if such person provides investment advice or makes an investment recommendation to a retirement investor (i.e., a plan, a discretionary plan fiduciary, a plan participant or beneficiary, an IRA, an IRA owner or beneficiary, or an IRA fiduciary) for a fee or other compensation, the person makes professional investment recommendations to investors on a regular basis as part of their business, and the recommendation is provided under circumstances that would indicate to a reasonable investor in like circumstances that the recommendation is based on a review of the particular needs or individual investor circumstances of the retirement investor, reflects the application of professional or expert judgment to the retirement investor's particular needs or individual circumstances, and may be relied upon by the retirement investor as intended to advance the retirement investor's best interest. Unlike the current ERISA standard, the New Fiduciary Rule subjects non-discretionary investment advice to retirement plans and accounts under the care and loyalty standards that also apply to investment advisors with discretionary authority or control over such plans and accounts. In addition, on the same date, the DOL issued amended versions of PTE 2020-02 and PTE 84-24, either or both of which provide prohibited transaction exemptive relief to insurance companies and insurance producers who make insurance product recommendations to retirement investors, subject to certain conditions. The New Fiduciary Rule likely means that certain of the Company's agents will be considered fiduciaries for purposes of ERISA and the Code, subjecting the Company, and the insurance industry on the whole, to greater regulatory risk. The DOL's new Fiduciary Rule, which was scheduled to become effective on September 23, 2024, has been challenged. On July 25, 2024, in the case of Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice, Inc., et al. v. United States Department of Labor, et al., ("Federation of Americans") the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order staying the effective date of the DOL's final fiduciary rule (and related amendments to PTE 84-24) that was issued in March 2024. The District Court, in part relying on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, found that the plaintiffs (primarily insurance agents) were likely to succeed on their arguments that the Final Rule improperly expanded the definition of an "investment advice fiduciary" under ERISA. As a result, the Final Rule's original effective date of September 23, 2024 has been delayed until further notice. In addition, on July 26, 2024, a companion case to Federation of Americans filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, American Council of Life Insurers, et al. v. United States Dep't of Labor, et al., held the remaining PTE amendments included in the Final Rule (PTEs 2020-02, 75-1, 77-4, 80-83, 83-1 and 86-128) that were not challenged in Federation of Americans were also stayed, noting that the Northern District fully agreed with the Eastern District's analysis and decision to stay the effective date of the Final Rule. On September 20, 2024, the DOL appealed both rulings to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 11, 2025, the DOL filed an unopposed motion to hold the appeals in abeyance to allow new agency officials time to become familiar with the issues in these cases and determine how they wish to proceed. The motion was granted so the appeals are in abeyance. A Fifth Circuit reversal of the Texas district court rulings could have harmful effects on the insurance industry, creating additional hurdles to operate our business. Management believes these current and emerging developments relating to market conduct standards for the financial services industry may, over time, materially affect the way in which our agents do business, the role of IMOs, sale of IRA products including IRA-to-IRA and employer plan rollovers, how we supervise our distribution force, compensation practices and liability exposure and costs. In addition to implementing the compliance procedures described above, management is monitoring further developments closely and will be working with IMOs and distributors to adapt to these evolving regulatory requirements and risks. Please refer to "Business-Regulation of F&G" for additional details on the DOL's "Fiduciary Rule."

If we do not maintain an effective outsourcing strategy or third-party providers do not perform as contracted, we may experience operational difficulties, increased costs and a loss of business that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. If there is a delay in our third-party providers' introduction of our new products or if our third-party providers are unable to service our customers appropriately, we may experience a loss of business that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have a formal vendor management program that follows a continuous lifecycle for all third-party providers. The lifecycle includes an initial risk assessment for new relationships to determine risk tier; vendor due diligence depending on the risk tier; contract management to effectively address all terms, conditions, duties and obligations, risks/issues identified; ongoing monitoring and management to ensure compliance with contract provisions and service level agreements; and termination/offboarding to ensure appropriate communication and any other requirements such as destruction of data. If our key providers, distributors or other parties terminate important business arrangements with us, reduce their business with us or renew contracts on terms less favorable to us, which occurs from time to time, we may fail to meet our business objectives and targets, and our cash flows, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. In addition, our reliance on third-party service providers that we do not control does not relieve us of our responsibilities and contractual, legal and other requirements. Any failure or negligence by such third-party service providers in carrying out their contractual duties may result in us becoming subjected to liability to parties who are harmed and ensuing litigation. Any litigation relating to such matters could be costly, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome of any such litigation may be uncertain. Moreover, any adverse publicity arising from such litigation, even if the litigation is not successful, could adversely affect our reputation and sales of our products.

Our owned distribution strategy, including our investments in minority and majority stakes in various NMGs and other distribution consolidators, exposes us to operational, financial, and strategic risks. These investments, including stakes in Syncis Holdings, DCMT Worldwide, a majority interest in Roar, and a wholly-owned interest in PALH, represent a significant component of our distribution strategy. The success of this strategy depends on the continued growth and performance of these businesses, which is subject to challenges such as the retention and performance of agents, market demand in cultural communities, and our ability to integrate these entities effectively into our broader operations. Furthermore, as industry consolidation among independent agent distribution channels accelerates, competition to acquire and partner with high-performing platforms intensifies, limiting our ability to secure attractive investment opportunities. Our ownership stakes also expose us to financial risks, including the potential for impairment of goodwill or intangible assets if these entities underperform, as well as regulatory and compliance risks related to licensing and fiduciary standards. These factors, combined with the operational challenges of managing both majority and minority investments, create risks that could materially and adversely affect our financial performance, competitive position, and long-term growth prospects.

Our results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the U.S. economy. Adverse economic conditions may result in a decline in revenues and/or erosion of our profit margins. In addition, in the event of extreme prolonged market events and economic downturns, we could incur significant losses. Even in the absence of a market downturn we are exposed to substantial risk of loss due to market volatility. Factors such as consumer spending, business investment, government spending, the volatility and strength of the capital markets, investor and consumer confidence, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, inflation levels, changes in trade policy, tariffs and trade sanctions on goods, trade wars, United States-China relations and supply chain disruptions all affect the business and economic environment and, ultimately, the amount and profitability of our business. In an economic downturn characterized by higher unemployment, lower family income, negative investor sentiment and lower consumer spending, the demand for our insurance products could be adversely affected. Under such conditions, we may also experience an elevated incidence of policy lapses, policy loans, withdrawals and surrenders. In addition, our investments could be adversely affected as a result of deteriorating financial and business conditions affecting the issuers of the securities in our investment portfolio. As of December 31, 2024, current economic conditions, including high inflation rates, have not adversely affected our business, results of operations and financial condition. However, we cannot predict if it will impact our business, results of operations and financial condition in the future for the forgoing reasons. Please refer to "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Business Trends and Conditions" for additional details on economic conditions and market conditions that may impact our business.

The estimated cost of providing guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit riders associated with our annuity products incorporates various assumptions about the overall performance of equity markets over certain time periods. Periods of significant and sustained downturns in equity markets or increased equity volatility could result in an increase in the valuation of the MRBs or contractholder funds liabilities associated with such products, resulting in a reduction in our revenues and net income.

We are highly dependent on automated and information technology systems to record and process our internal transactions and transactions involving our customers, as well as to calculate reserves, value invested assets and complete certain other components of our financial statements. The integrity of our computer systems and the protection of the information, including policy holder information, that resides on such systems are important to our successful operation. If we fail to maintain an adequate security infrastructure, adapt to emerging security threats or follow our internal business processes with respect to security, the information or assets we hold could be compromised. Further, even if we, or third parties to which we outsource certain information technology services, maintain a reasonable, industry-standard information security infrastructure to mitigate these risks, the inherent risk that unauthorized access to information or assets remains. This risk is increased by transmittal of information over the internet and the increased threat and sophistication of cyber criminals. While, to date, we believe that we have not experienced a material breach of our computer systems, the occurrence or scope of such events is not always apparent. In addition, some laws and certain of our contracts require notification of various parties, including regulators, consumers or customers, in the event that confidential or personal information has or may have been taken or accessed by unauthorized parties. Such notifications can potentially result in, among other things, adverse publicity, diversion of management and other resources, the attention of regulatory authorities, the imposition of fines, and disruptions in business operations, the effects of which may be material. Any inability to prevent security or privacy breaches, or the perception that such breaches may occur, could inhibit our ability to retain or attract new clients and/or result in financial losses, litigation, increased costs, negative publicity, or other adverse consequences to our business. Further, our financial institution clients have obligations to safeguard their information technology systems and the confidentiality of customer information. In certain of our businesses, we are bound contractually and/or by regulation to comply with the same requirements. If we fail to comply with these regulations and requirements, we could be exposed to suits for breach of contract, governmental proceedings or the imposition of fines. In addition, future adoption of more restrictive privacy laws, rules or industry security requirements by federal or state regulatory bodies or by a specific industry in which we do business could have an adverse impact on us through increased costs or restrictions on business processes.