SiriusPoint (SPNT) Risk Factors

We have and may continue to enter into arrangements with MGAs to secure insurance and reinsurance policies on our behalf. Pursuant to these arrangements, we grant MGAs delegated authority to underwrite risks on our behalf. While we perform due diligence prior to entering into these arrangements, if we do not perform the appropriate level of due diligence or if we fail to confirm that the MGA has adequate knowledge of the underwriting process and relevant regulations, we could face significant losses, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. In addition,the insurance and re-insurance business written by some of the MGAs we partner with is inherently uncertain because these MGAs are typically early-stage ventures which may lack historical data, are growing rapidly and may represent new products, markets or technologies. As a result, we may face significant losses if we do not properly address the risks, including but not limited to the initial reserving and pricing of the business produced by the MGAs. In addition, if we fail to provide appropriate continued oversight over the MGAs we partner with or fail to recognize accumulation, aggregation or concentration risks, we could face significant underwriting losses. As agents on our behalf, MGAs must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to economic and trade sanctions, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws and anti-money laundering laws. Failure of MGAs to comply with laws related to financial crimes or other company guidelines, could result in regulatory actions against us, cause us to be subject to violation of economic and trade sanctions resulting in reputational harm and/or subject us to civil and criminal penalties, including the loss of our insurance licenses. The loss of our ability to be licensed in a jurisdiction, the damage to our commercial reputation and/or the payment of civil and/or criminal penalties could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and/or operating results.

SiriusPoint's activities are subject to extensive regulation under the laws and regulations of the U.S., the U.K., Bermuda, Sweden and the EU and its member states and the other jurisdictions in which SiriusPoint operates. SiriusPoint's operations in each of these jurisdictions are subject to varying degrees of regulation and supervision. The laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which SiriusPoint's insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are domiciled require, among other things, that these subsidiaries maintain minimum levels of statutory capital, surplus and liquidity, meet solvency standards, submit to periodic examinations of their financial condition and restrict payments of dividends, distributions and reductions of capital in certain circumstances. Statutes, regulations and policies to which SiriusPoint's insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are subject may also restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to write insurance and reinsurance policies, make certain investments and distribute funds. SiriusPoint devotes a significant amount of time and resources to complying with various regulatory requirements imposed in Bermuda, Sweden, the U.S., the EU and the U.K. and various other jurisdictions around the globe. There remains significant uncertainty as to the impact that these various regulations and legislation will have on SiriusPoint. Such impacts could include constraints on SiriusPoint's ability to move capital between subsidiaries or requirements that additional capital be provided to subsidiaries in certain jurisdictions, which may adversely impact SiriusPoint's profitability. In addition, while SiriusPoint currently has excess capital and surplus under applicable capital adequacy requirements, such requirements or similar regulations, in their current form or as they may be amended in the future, may have a material adverse effect on SiriusPoint's business, financial condition or results of operations. SiriusPoint's insurance and reinsurance operating subsidiaries may not be able to maintain necessary licenses, permits, authorizations or accreditations in territories where SiriusPoint is currently engaged in business or obtain them in new territories, or may be able to do so only at significant cost. In addition, SiriusPoint may not be able to comply fully with, or obtain appropriate exemptions from, the wide variety of laws and regulations applicable to insurance or reinsurance companies or holding companies. In addition to insurance and financial industry regulations, SiriusPoint's activities are also subject to relevant economic and trade sanctions, anti-money laundering regulations, privacy laws, and anti-corruption laws including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.K. Bribery Act 2010 and the Bermuda Bribery Act 2016, which may increase the costs of regulatory compliance, limit or restrict SiriusPoint's ability to do business or engage in certain regulated activities, or subject SiriusPoint to the possibility of regulatory actions or proceedings. From time to time, various laws and regulations are proposed for application to the U.S. insurance industry, some of which could adversely affect the results of reinsurers and insurers. Additionally, the NAIC has been responsible for establishing certain regulatory and corporate governance requirements, which are intended to result in a group-wide supervision focus and include the Model Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act and the Insurance Holding Company System Model Regulation, the Requirements for ERM Report within the Annual Holding Company Registration (i.e., Form F), the Supervisory College, the Risk Management and ORSA Model, the CGAD and the Revisions to Annual Financial Reporting Model Regulation to expand the corporate audit function to provide reasonable assurance of the effectiveness of enterprise risk management, internal controls, and corporate governance. We are unable to predict the potential effect, if any, such legislative or regulatory developments may have on our future operations or financial condition. In addition to the complexity of the laws and regulations themselves, the development of new laws and regulations or changes in application or interpretation of current laws and regulators or conflict between them also increases our legal and regulatory compliance complexity. SiriusPoint, its employees, or its agents acting on SiriusPoint's behalf may not be in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations or their interpretation by the relevant authorities and, given the complex nature of the risks, it may not always be possible for SiriusPoint to ascertain compliance with such laws and regulations. Failure to comply with or to obtain appropriate authorizations and/or exemptions under any applicable laws or regulations, including those referred to above, could subject SiriusPoint to investigations, criminal sanctions or civil remedies, including fines, injunctions, loss of an operating license, reputational consequences, and other sanctions, all of which could have a material adverse effect on SiriusPoint's business. Also, changes in the laws or regulations to which SiriusPoint is subject could have a material adverse effect on its business. In addition, in most jurisdictions, government and regulatory authorities have the power to interpret or amend applicable laws and regulations, and have discretion to grant, renew or revoke licenses and approvals SiriusPoint needs to conduct its activities. Such governmental and regulatory authorities may require SiriusPoint to incur substantial costs in order to comply with such laws and regulations.

SiriusPoint is incorporated in Bermuda and certain of our operating companies are domiciled in Bermuda. Therefore, our exposure to potential changes in Bermuda law and regulations that may have an adverse impact on our operations, such as the imposition of tax liability, increased regulatory supervision or changes in regulation, could have a material adverse effect on our business. The Bermuda insurance and reinsurance regulatory framework recently has become subject to increased scrutiny in many jurisdictions, including in the U.S. and in various states within the U.S. SiriusPoint is unable to predict the impact of such scrutiny on its operations. In addition, SiriusPoint may be impacted by changes in the political environment in Bermuda, which could make it difficult to operate in, or attract talent to, Bermuda. Bermuda is a small jurisdiction and may be disadvantaged in participating in global or cross border regulatory matters as compared with larger jurisdictions such as the U.S. or the leading EU countries. Bermuda, which is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, may consider changes to its relationship with the United Kingdom in the future. A change to Bermuda's regulatory or political environment could have an adverse effect on the international reinsurance market focused there which could, in turn, have a material adverse impact on SiriusPoint.

Utilization of most deferred tax assets is dependent on generating sufficient future taxable income in the appropriate jurisdiction and/or entity and in the appropriate character (e.g. capital vs ordinary). If it is determined that it is more likely than not that sufficient future taxable income will not be generated, we would be required to increase applicable valuation allowance(s). Most of our deferred tax assets are determined by reference to applicable corporate income tax rates, in particular in the U.S., Luxembourg and Sweden. Accordingly, in the event of new legislation that reduces any such corporate income tax rates, the carrying value of certain deferred tax assets would decrease. A material devaluation in the Company's deferred tax assets due to either insufficient taxable income or lower corporate income tax rates would have an adverse effect on SiriusPoint's results of operations and financial condition. In 2016 and early 2021, one of our legacy U.S. subgroups with legacy tax attributes experienced an "ownership change" for purposes of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), which is defined as an increase in the percentage of ownership (by value) of one or more "5-percent shareholders" (as defined in the Code) by more than 50% over the lowest percentage owned by such shareholders at any time during the prior three years (calculated on a rolling basis). As a result, such U.S. subgroup is subject to annual limitations on its tax loss and credit carryforwards based on the equity value of the subgroup immediately before each ownership change, multiplied by an IRS-published rate. We have taken into account the application of Section 382 in evaluating the recoverability of our net deferred tax assets in the U.S. In the event the U.S. subgroup experiences another ownership change in the future, the Section 382 limitation would apply on top of the pre-existing Section 382 limitations.

We believe that our activities, as currently conducted and as contemplated, will not cause our non-U.S. entities to be treated as engaging in a United States trade or business and consequently will not cause us to be subject to current United States federal income taxation on our net income (except for specific subsidiaries due to their respective operating models). Because there are no definitive standards provided by the Code, regulations or other relevant authority as to the specific activities that constitute being engaged in the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, and as any such determination is essentially factual in nature and must be made annually, we cannot assure you that the United States Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") will not successfully assert that we are engaged in a trade or business in the United States or, if applicable under the income tax treaty between the U.S. and Bermuda (the "Bermuda Treaty"), engaged in a trade or business in the United States through a permanent establishment, and thus are subject to current United States federal income taxation. If one of our non-U.S. entities were deemed to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States (and, if applicable under the Bermuda Treaty, were deemed to be so engaged through a permanent establishment), it would become subject to United States federal income tax on its net income "effectively connected" (or treated as effectively connected) with the U.S. trade or business, and could be subject to the "branch profits" tax on its after tax earnings and profits that are both effectively connected with the U.S. trade or business and deemed repatriated out of the United States. Any such federal tax liability could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. We could also become subject to income tax in one or more countries, including the United States, as a result of our activities, adverse developments or changes in law, contrary conclusions by the relevant tax authorities or other causes. The imposition of any of these income taxes could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Introduced by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, BEAT is essentially an additional tax that can apply to certain otherwise deductible payments made by U.S. entities to non-U.S. affiliates ("base erosion payments"), including cross-border reinsurance premiums paid or ceded. The statutory BEAT rate is 10% through 2025, and then rises to 12.5% in 2026 and thereafter. Consistent with accounting guidance, the Company will treat BEAT as an in-period tax charge when incurred in future periods for which no deferred taxes need to be provided. Under the BEAT statute and Treasury regulations issued thereunder, a U.S. taxpayer may qualify for certain exemptions from BEAT based on its historical gross receipts or base erosion payments being below specified thresholds. The availability of the latter exemption depends on the total amounts of base erosion payments and U.S. tax deductions for the current tax year, which is not yet known. Currently, legislative proposals include specific provisions that would amend the BEAT provisions. One of these proposed amendments, if enacted, would eliminate one or more exemptions of limitations. While we intend to operate in a manner that limits our exposure to BEAT, uncertainty remains and we cannot assure you that we will not be subject to material amounts of BEAT in the future.

The Company has capital and liquidity in many of its subsidiaries, some of which may reflect undistributed earnings. If such capital or liquidity were to be paid or distributed to the Company or to one of its intermediary subsidiaries as dividends or otherwise, they may be subject to withholding tax by the source country and/or income tax by the recipient country. The Company generally intends to operate, and manage its capital and liquidity, in a tax-efficient manner. However, the applicable tax laws in relevant countries are still evolving, including in connection with guidance and proposals from the OECD. Accordingly, such payments or distributions may be subject to income or withholding tax in jurisdictions where they are not currently taxed or at higher rates of tax than currently taxed, and the applicable tax authorities could attempt to apply income or withholding tax to past earnings or payments.

PFIC status of the Company would subject a U.S. shareholder to tax on distributions from the Company in advance of when tax would otherwise be imposed, in which case the shareholder's investment in the Company could be materially adversely affected. In addition, if we were considered a PFIC, upon the death of any U.S. individual owning shares, such individual's heirs or estate would not be entitled to a "step-up" in the basis of the shares that might otherwise be available under U.S. federal income tax laws. A U.S. shareholder may avoid some of the adverse tax consequences of owning an equity interest in a PFIC by making a qualified electing fund ("QEF") election. Such an electing U.S. shareholder is likely to recognize income in a taxable year in amounts significantly greater than the distributions received from the Company, if any. In the event we are classified as a PFIC in the future, we strongly encourage our shareholders to consult with their own tax advisors with regard to any available tax elections. We will be treated as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes in any taxable year for which either (i) at least 75% of our gross income consists of certain types of "passive income" or (ii) at least 50% of the average value of our assets produce, or are held for the production of, passive income. Passive income includes dividends, interest, rents and royalties. For these purposes, if we own (directly or indirectly) at least 25% (by value) of the stock of another corporation, for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC, we are treated as holding the proportionate share of the assets of such other corporation, and as receiving directly the proportionate share of the income of such other corporation. Under a specific exception, passive income does not include income derived in the active conduct of an insurance business by a qualifying insurance corporation. Whether an insurance company is a qualifying insurance corporation is determined based on an asset to liability test. The test requires the insurance company to have applicable insurance liabilities in excess of 25% of its total assets as reported in the company's financial statements. In January 2021, the Treasury and IRS issued final and proposed regulations providing guidance on the active insurance business exception, including the 25% test and calculation of income that is not treated as passive. The proposed regulations are not effective until adopted in final form. The IRS requested comments on several aspects of the proposed regulations. It is uncertain when the proposed regulations will be finalized, and whether and how the provisions of any final or temporary regulations will vary from proposed regulations. Based on our assets, income, applicable financial statements and activities, including those of our subsidiaries engaged in the active conduct of an insurance business, we do not expect that we will be treated as a PFIC in 2023. However, this conclusion is not free from doubt and the IRS could take a contrary position. While we expect that our insurance subsidiaries will qualify for the active insurance income exception for qualified insurance corporations, in light of pending regulations and in the absence of other detailed guidance, our insurance subsidiaries may not meet the requirements for this exception. Moreover, PFIC classification is a factual determination made annually, and even if we are not a PFIC in 2023, we could become a PFIC in later years. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will not be treated as a PFIC for 2023 or for any future year.

A CFC for U.S. federal income tax purposes is any foreign corporation if, on any day of the taxable year, 10% U.S. shareholders own (directly, indirectly through foreign entities or by attribution by application of certain constructive ownership rules) more than 50% (25% in the case of certain insurance companies) of the total combined voting power of all classes of that corporation's voting shares, or more than 50% (25% in the case of certain insurance companies) of the total value of all the corporation's shares. If we were a CFC, each 10% U.S. shareholder must annually include in its income its pro rata share of our "subpart F income," and "global intangible low-taxed income" ("GILTI") even if no distributions are made. If, with respect to any of our non-U.S. insurance subsidiaries, (i) 20% or more of the gross income in any taxable year is attributable to insurance or reinsurance policies of which the direct or indirect insureds are direct or indirect U.S. shareholders of SiriusPoint (regardless of the number of shares owned by those shareholders) or persons related to such U.S. shareholders and (ii) direct or indirect insureds, whether or not U.S. persons, and persons related to such insureds own directly or indirectly 20% or more of the voting power or value of our shares, U.S. shareholders would most likely be required to include their allocable share of the RPII of the applicable subsidiary for the taxable year in its income, even if no distributions are made. Proposed Treasury regulations published in January 2022 would aggregate all U.S. shareholders for purposes of the 50% ownership test above, which would have the effect of significantly increasing the likelihood that such U.S. shareholders would be subject to RPII. These proposed regulations also address the RPII treatment of certain cross-insurance arrangements and pass-through entities. Especially in light of these proposed regulations, a direct or indirect U.S. shareholder may be required to include amounts in its income in respect of RPII in any taxable year. In addition, subpart F insurance income will be allocated to a tax-exempt organization owning (or treated as owning) our shares if we are a CFC as discussed above and it is a 10% U.S. shareholder or we earn related person insurance income and the exceptions described above do not apply. We cannot assure you that United States persons holding our shares (directly or indirectly) will not be allocated subpart F insurance income. United States tax-exempt organizations should consult their own tax advisors regarding the risk of recognizing unrelated business taxable income as a result of the ownership of our shares.

The insurance and reinsurance industry, including our competitors, customers and insurance and reinsurance brokers, has experienced significant consolidation over the last several years. These consolidated client and competitor enterprises may try to use their enhanced market power to negotiate price reductions for our products and services and/or obtain a larger market share through increased line sizes. If competitive pressures require us to reduce our prices, we would generally expect to reduce our future underwriting activities, resulting in reduced premiums and a reduction in expected earnings. If the insurance industry consolidates further, competition for customers could become more intense and we could incur greater expenses relating to customer acquisition and retention, further reducing our operating margins. In addition, insurance companies that merge may be able to spread their risks across a consolidated, larger capital base so that they require less reinsurance. Reinsurance intermediaries could also continue to consolidate, which may adversely affect our ability to access business and distribute our products. We could also experience more robust competition from larger, better capitalized competitors. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business or our results of operations.

We write insurance and reinsurance policies covering casualty risks. Casualty insurance generally covers the financial consequences of the legal liability of an individual or organization resulting from negligent acts causing bodily injury and/or property damage to a third party. Claims from such business can take years to develop and settle and can be subject to unanticipated claims and economic and social inflation. In addition, we could be adversely affected by proposals or enacted legislation to expand the scope of coverage under existing policies or extend the statute of limitations for certain casualty risks. For example, state legislatures across the U.S. are enacting reforms for claims of past childhood sexual abuse that previously were barred by statutes of limitations, resulting in the revival of old claims. These legislative developments may greatly expand the universe of claimants for which we may be liable. Accordingly, if our pricing and/or reserving assumptions are incorrect, higher than expected losses could materially adversely affect our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

In most of our quota share reinsurance and MGA produced insurance business we do not separately evaluate each of the original individual risks assumed under these reinsurance contracts. We instead evaluate the underwriting processes and environment at the ceding companies and MGAs that we work with to assess the risks associated with their portfolios. Therefore, we are dependent on the original underwriting decisions made by ceding companies and MGAs. We are subject to the risk that the clients may not have adequately evaluated the insured risks and that the premiums ceded may not adequately compensate us for the risks we assume. We also do not separately evaluate each of the individual claims made on the underlying insurance contracts. Therefore, we are dependent on the original claims decisions made by our cedents and MGAs. We are subject to the risk that the cedent or MGA may pay invalid claims, which could result in reinsurance losses for us.

We have material exposures arising from our coverages for natural disasters and catastrophes. Changes in climate conditions have resulted in increased severity and frequency of weather-related natural disasters and catastrophes. For example, during the year ended December 31, 2023, the industry experienced several significant severe weather events. In addition, rising sea levels are expected to add to the risks associated with coastal flooding in many geographical areas. We believe that these changes in climate conditions, when coupled with projected demographic trends in catastrophe-exposed regions, have increased the average economic value of expected losses, increased the number of people exposed per year to natural disasters and in general have exacerbated disaster risk, including risks to infrastructure, global supply chains and agricultural production. This could lead to higher overall losses that we may not be able to recoup, particularly in the current economic and competitive environment, and in light of higher insurance and reinsurance costs. Over the long-term, global climate change could impair our ability to predict the costs associated with future weather events and could also give rise to new environmental liability claims in the energy, manufacturing and other industries we serve. A substantial portion of our coverages may be adversely impacted by climate change, and we cannot assure you that our risk assessments and models accurately reflect environmental and climate related risks. Given the scientific uncertainty of predicting the effect of climate cycles and global climate change on the frequency and severity of natural catastrophes and the resulting lack of adequate predictive tools, we may be unable to adequately model the associated exposures and potential losses in connection with such catastrophes, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition. The frequency and severity of weather-related natural disasters and catastrophes and potential connections to climate change are currently being analyzed by the insurance industry. In addition to physical risks, we may also encounter market pressure to contribute to a low-carbon economy. This involves reducing insurance liability exposure or no longer underwriting risks for carbon-intensive businesses, as well as reducing asset portfolio exposure or ceasing investments in such businesses. There is a potential risk that certain aspects of our business cease to be viable due to this transition. Government policies or regulations aimed at slowing climate change, such as emission controls or technology mandates, may have an adverse impact on the demand for our products and our investments in relevant sectors. We are subject to complex and changing laws, regulation and public policy debates relating to climate change which are difficult to predict and quantify and may have an adverse impact on our business.

We write reinsurance contracts and insurance policies that cover unpredictable catastrophic events. Covered unpredictable catastrophic events, predominantly in our property catastrophe excess line of business, include natural perils and other disasters, such as hurricanes, windstorms, earthquakes, floods, wildfires and severe winter weather. Catastrophes can also include terrorist attacks, explosions and infrastructure failures. While we have taken steps to reduce our exposure to catastrophe risks, these risks may still affect our results of operations and financial condition. For more information about our risks due to terrorist attacks, see "Risks Relating to Our Business-We have exposure to potential terrorist acts that can materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and/or financial condition." We have significant exposure to a potential major earthquake or series of earthquakes in various geographic regions, including in California, the Midwestern United States, Canada, Japan and Latin America. We also have significant exposure to windstorm damage in various geographic regions, including Northern Europe, coastal regions of the United States including the Northeast and North Atlantic coast, and Japan. Similar exposures to losses caused by the same types of catastrophic events occur in other lines of business such as aviation, casualty, contingency, credit, marine, and accident and health (including trip cancellation), including pandemic risk. The extent of catastrophe losses is a function of both the severity of the event and total amount of insured exposure affected by the event. Increases in the value and concentration of insured property or insured individuals, the effects of inflation, changes in weather patterns, such as climate change, and increased terrorism could increase the future frequency and/or severity of claims from catastrophic events. Claims from catastrophic events could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Our ability to write new reinsurance contracts and insurance policies could also be impacted as a result of corresponding reductions in our capital levels. For a further discussion, see "Risks Relating to our Business-Global climate change may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition." Although we attempt to manage our exposure to such events through a multitude of approaches, including geographic diversification, geographic limits, individual policy limits, exclusions or limitations from coverage, purchase of insurance and reinsurance, the availability of these management tools may be dependent on market factors and, to the extent available, may not respond in the way that is expected. For instance, we seek to manage our exposure to catastrophe losses by limiting the aggregate insured value of policies in geographic areas with exposure to catastrophic events by estimating PML for many different catastrophe scenarios and by buying reinsurance, including retrocession coverage. To manage and analyze aggregate insured values and PML, we use a variety of tools, including external and internal catastrophe modeling software packages. Estimates of PMLs are dependent on many variables, including assumptions about demand surge and storm surge, loss adjustment expenses, insurance-to-value for the underlying properties, the relationship of the actual event parameters to the modelled event and the quality of portfolio data provided to us by ceding companies (in the case of our reinsurance operations). Accordingly, if these assumptions about the variables are incorrect, the losses we might incur from an actual catastrophe could be materially higher than our expectation of losses generated from modelled catastrophe scenarios which could materially adversely affect our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.