Horace Mann Educators (HMN) Risk Analysis

Our ability to successfully increase new business in the educator market is largely dependent on our ability to effectively access educators either in their school buildings or through other approaches. While this is especially true for the sale of 403(b) tax-qualified retirement products via payroll deduction and worksite direct sales, any significant decrease in access, either through fewer payroll slots, increased security measures, impacts of state or federal level pension reform initiatives, or for other reasons, could adversely affect the sale of all lines of business and require us to change our traditional approach to worksite marketing and promotion, as well as contact with potential customers. With the current IRS regulations regarding Section 403(b) arrangements, including retirement products, our ability to maintain and increase our share of the 403(b) market, and the access it gives for other product lines, will depend on our ability to successfully compete in this market. Some school districts and benefit consultants have placed emphasis on the relative financial strength ratings of competing companies, as well as low-cost product and distribution approaches, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to other more highly rated insurance companies. Our ability to maintain and obtain product and corporate endorsements from, and/or marketing agreements with, local, state and national education-related associations is important to our marketing strategy. In addition to teacher organizations, we have established relationships with various other educator, principal, school administrator and school business official groups. These contacts and endorsements help to establish our brand name and presence in the educational community and to enhance access to educators.

We increasingly rely on services and products provided by a number of vendors in the U.S. and abroad. These include, for example, vendors of computer hardware and software, including on-demand software, and vendors of services such as investment management advisement, third-party administrators of our supplemental group benefit products, information technology services - such as those associated with policy administrative systems - and delivery services for customer policy-level communications. In the event that one or more of our vendors suffers a bankruptcy or otherwise becomes unable to continue to provide products or services, we may suffer operational difficulties and financial losses.

There are many events which may harm our reputation, including, but not limited to, those discussed in this Item 1A regarding regulatory investigations, legal proceedings, and cyber or other information security incidents. Any negative public perception, founded or otherwise, can be widely and rapidly shared over social media or other means, and could cause damage to our reputation. Damage to our reputation could reduce demand for our insurance products, reduce our ability to recruit and retain employees, or lead to greater regulatory scrutiny of our operations. As an insurance company, we are paid to accept certain risks. Those who conduct our business, including executive officers and members of management, employees and independent agents, do so in part by making decisions that involve exposing us to risk. These include decisions such as maintaining effective underwriting and pricing discipline, maintaining effective claims management and customer service performance, managing our investment portfolio, delivering effective technology solutions, complying with established sales practices, executing our capital management strategy, exiting a line of business and/or pursuing strategic growth initiatives, and other decisions. Although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor business decisions and prevent us from taking excessive risks or unintentionally failing to comply with internal policies and practices, there can be no assurance that these controls and procedures will be effective. If our employees and independent agents take excessive risks and/or fail to comply with internal policies and practices, the impact of those events may damage our market position and reputation.

We are subject to extensive regulation and supervision in the jurisdictions in which we do business. Each jurisdiction has a unique and complex set of laws and regulations. Furthermore, certain federal laws impose additional requirements on businesses, including insurers. Regulation generally is designed to protect the interests of policyholders, as opposed to stockholders and non-policyholder creditors. Such regulations, among other things, impose restrictions on the amount and type of investments our insurance subsidiaries may hold. Dodd-Frank created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. FIO studies the current insurance regulatory system and is charged with monitoring and providing specific reports on various aspects of the insurance industry. However, FIO does not have general supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance. FIO has suggested an expanded federal role in some circumstances. Additional federal regulations could adversely affect the efficiency and effectiveness of business processes, financial condition and results of operations of us, insurers of similar size and/or the insurance industry as a whole. Our insurance subsidiaries are regulated by a department of insurance in each state and territory in which we do business. Certain states have established minimum capital requirements for insurance companies licensed to do business in their state. These regulators have the discretionary authority through licensing to limit or prohibit writing new business within the jurisdiction when, in the state's judgment, the insurance subsidiary is not maintaining adequate statutory surplus or capital. States also regulate the rates insurers may charge for certain property and casualty products. Legislation and voter initiatives have expanded, in some instances, the states' regulation of rates and have increased data reporting requirements. Consumer-related pressures to roll back rates, even if not enacted by legislation or upheld upon judicial appeal, may affect our ability to obtain timely rate increases or operate at desired levels of profitability. Changes in insurance regulations, including those affecting the ability of our insurance subsidiaries to distribute cash to us and those affecting the ability of our insurance subsidiaries to write profitable property and casualty insurance policies in one or more states, may adversely affect the financial condition and results of operations of the insurance subsidiaries. Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to a system of assessing minimum capital adequacy, known as risk-based capital (RBC). RBC is used to identify companies that may merit further regulatory action by analyzing the adequacy of the insurer's surplus in relation to statutory requirements. Our insurance subsidiaries could be adversely affected by regulations that change statutory surplus and RBC requirements. If an insurer's ratio falls below specified levels, the insurer is subject to different degrees of regulatory action depending on the magnitude of the deficiency. This could have a material adverse effect upon the business volume and profitability of the insurance subsidiaries as well as result in increased regulatory scrutiny or action by state regulatory authorities. Our broker-dealer and investment advisor subsidiaries are subject to regulation and supervision by the SEC, FINRA and certain state regulatory bodies. The SEC, FINRA and other governmental agencies, as well as state securities commissions, may examine or investigate the activities of broker-dealers and investment advisors. It is possible that any examination or investigation could lead to enforcement action by the regulator and/or may result in payment of fines and penalties, payments to customer or both, which could have an adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. In the event of insolvency, liquidation or other reorganization of any of our insurance subsidiaries, our creditors and stockholders would have no right to proceed against any such insurance subsidiary or cause the liquidation or bankruptcy of any such insurance subsidiary under federal or state bankruptcy laws. The insurance laws of the domiciliary state would govern such proceedings and the relevant insurance commissioner would act as liquidator or rehabilitator for the insurance subsidiary. Creditors and policyholders of any such insurance subsidiary would be entitled to full payment from the assets of the insurance subsidiary before we, as a stockholder, would be entitled to receive any distribution.