Item 1A. Risk Factors

operations and liquidity. For additional information related to risks associated with the adverse development cover, see Part II, Item 7, MD&A - Critical Accounting Estimates - Property & Casualty Other Operations - Adverse Development Cover.

We are vulnerable to losses from catastrophes, both natural and man-made.

Our insurance operations expose us to claims arising out of catastrophes. Catastrophes can be caused by various unpredictable natural events, including, among others, earthquakes, hurricanes, hailstorms, severe winter weather, wind storms, fires, tornadoes, and pandemics. Catastrophes can also be man-made, such as terrorist attacks, cyber-attacks, explosions or infrastructure failures.

The geographic distribution of our business subjects us to catastrophe exposure for events occurring in a number of areas, including, but not limited to: hurricanes in Florida, the Gulf Coast, the Northeast and the Atlantic coast regions of the United States; tornadoes and hail in the Midwest and Southeast; earthquakes in California and the New Madrid (Midwest) region of the United States; and the spread of disease. Any increases in the values and concentrations of insured employees and property in these areas would increase the severity of catastrophic events in the future. In addition, over time, climate change may increase the severity of certain natural catastrophe events. Potential examples include, but are not limited to:

•	an increase in the frequency or severity of wind and thunderstorm and tornado/hailstorm events due to increased convection in the atmosphere,

•	more frequent brush fires in certain geographies due to prolonged periods of drought,

•	higher incidence of deluge flooding, and

•	the potential for an increase in severity of the largest hurricane events due to higher sea surface temperatures.

Our businesses also have exposure to global or nationally occurring pandemics caused by highly infectious and potentially fatal diseases spread through human, animal or plant populations.

In the event of one or more catastrophes, policyholders may be unable to meet their obligations to pay premiums on our insurance policies. Further, our liquidity could be constrained by a catastrophe, or multiple catastrophes, which could result in extraordinary losses. In addition, in part because accounting rules do not permit insurers to reserve for such catastrophic events until they occur, claims from catastrophic events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The amount we charge for catastrophe exposure may be inadequate if the frequency or severity of catastrophe losses changes over time or if the models we use to estimate the exposure prove inadequate. In addition, regulators or legislators could limit our ability to charge adequate pricing for catastrophe exposures or shift more responsibility for covering risk.

Terrorism is an example of a significant man-made caused potential catastrophe. Private sector catastrophe reinsurance is limited and generally unavailable for terrorism losses caused by attacks with nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological weapons. Reinsurance coverage from the federal government under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015

(“TRIPRA”) is also limited and only applies for certified acts of terrorism that exceed a certain threshold of industry losses. Accordingly, the effects of a terrorist attack in the geographic areas we serve may result in claims and related losses for which we do not have adequate reinsurance. Further, the continued threat of terrorism and the occurrence of terrorist attacks, as well as heightened security measures and military action in response to these threats and attacks or other geopolitical or military crises, may cause significant volatility in global financial markets, disruptions to commerce and reduced economic activity. These consequences could have an adverse effect on the value of the assets in our investment portfolio as well as those in our separate accounts. Terrorist attacks also could disrupt our operation centers. For a further discussion of TRIPRA, see Part II, Item 7, MD&A - Enterprise Risk Management - Insurance Risk Management, Reinsurance as a Risk Management Strategy.

As a result, it is possible that any, or a combination of all, of these factors related to a catastrophe, or multiple catastrophes, whether natural or man-made, can have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Pricing for our products is subject to our ability to adequately assess risks, estimate losses and comply with state insurance regulations.

We seek to price our property and casualty and group benefits insurance policies such that insurance premiums and future net investment income earned on premiums received will provide for an acceptable profit in excess of underwriting expenses and the cost of paying claims. Pricing adequacy depends on a number of factors, including proper evaluation of underwriting risks, the ability to project future claim costs, our expense levels, net investment income realized, our response to rate actions taken by competitors, legal and regulatory developments, and the ability to obtain regulatory approval for rate changes.

State insurance departments regulate many of the premium rates we charge and also propose rate changes for the benefit of the property and casualty consumer at the expense of the insurer, which may not allow us to reach targeted levels of profitability. In addition to regulating rates, certain states have enacted laws that require a property and casualty insurer to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities, joint underwriting associations and other residual market plans. State regulators also require that an insurer offer property and casualty coverage to all consumers and often restrict an insurer's ability to charge the price it might otherwise charge or restrict an insurer's ability to offer or enforce specific policy deductibles. In these markets, we may be compelled to underwrite significant amounts of business at lower than desired rates or accept additional risk not contemplated in our existing rates, participate in the operating losses of residual market plans or pay assessments to fund operating deficits of state-sponsored funds, possibly leading to lower returns on equity. The laws and regulations of many states also limit an insurer's ability to withdraw from one or more lines of insurance in the state, except pursuant to a plan that is approved by the state's insurance department. Additionally, certain states require insurers to participate in guaranty funds for impaired or insolvent insurance companies. These funds periodically assess losses against all insurance companies doing business in the state. Any of these factors could have a material

Part I - Item 1A. Risk Factors

adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Additionally, the property and casualty and group benefits insurance markets have been historically cyclical, experiencing periods characterized by relatively high levels of price competition, less restrictive underwriting standards, more expansive coverage offerings, multi-year rate guarantees and declining premium rates, followed by periods of relatively low levels of competition, more selective underwriting standards, more coverage restrictions and increasing premium rates. In all of our property and casualty and group benefits insurance product lines and states, there is a risk that the premium we charge may ultimately prove to be inadequate as reported losses emerge. In addition, there is a risk that regulatory constraints, price competition or incorrect pricing assumptions could prevent us from achieving targeted returns. Inadequate pricing could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Competitive activity, use of data analytics, or technological changes may adversely affect our market share, demand for our products, or our financial results.

The industries in which we operate are highly competitive. Our principal competitors are other property and casualty insurers, group benefits providers and providers of mutual funds and exchange-traded products. Competitors may expand their risk appetites in products and services where The Hartford currently enjoys a competitive advantage. Larger competitors with more capital and new entrants to the market could result in increased pricing pressures on a number of our products and services and may harm our ability to maintain or increase our profitability. For example, larger competitors, including those formed through consolidation, may have lower operating costs and an ability to absorb greater risk while maintaining their financial strength ratings, thereby allowing them to price their products more competitively. In addition, a number of insurers are making use of "big data" analytics to, among other things, improve pricing accuracy, be more targeted in marketing, strengthen customer relationships and provide more customized loss prevention services. If they are able to use big data more effectively than we are, it may give them a competitive advantage. Because of the highly competitive nature of the industries we compete in, there can be no assurance that we will continue to compete effectively with our industry rivals, or that competitive pressure will not have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Our business could also be affected by technological changes, including further advancements in automotive safety features, the development of autonomous or “self-driving” vehicles, and platforms that facilitate ride sharing. These technologies could impact the frequency or severity of losses, disrupt the demand for certain of our products, or reduce the size of the automobile insurance market as a whole. In addition, the risks we insure are affected by the increased use of technology in homes and businesses, including technology used in heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems and the introduction of more automated loss control measures. While there is substantial uncertainty about the timing, penetration and reliability of such technologies, any such impacts could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We may experience difficulty in marketing and providing insurance products and investment advisory services through distribution channels and advisory firms.

We distribute our insurance products, mutual funds and ETPs through a variety of distribution channels, including brokers, independent agents, broker-dealers, banks, affinity partners, our own internal sales force and other third-party organizations. In some areas of our business, we generate a significant portion of our business through third-party arrangements. For example, we market personal lines products in large part through an exclusive licensing arrangement with AARP that continues through January 1, 2023. Our ability to distribute products through AARP may be adversely impacted by membership levels and the pace of membership growth. While we periodically seek to renew or extend third party arrangements, there can be no assurance that our relationship with these third parties will continue. An interruption in our relationship with certain of these third parties could materially affect our ability to market our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Unexpected and unintended claim and coverage issues under our insurance contracts may adversely impact our financial performance.

Changes in industry practices and in legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions may require us to pay claims we did not intend to cover when we wrote the policies. These issues may either extend coverage beyond our underwriting intent or increase the frequency or severity of claims. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent until some time after we have issued insurance contracts that are affected by the changes. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance contracts may not be known for many years after a contract is issued, and this liability may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity at the time it becomes known.

Our program to manage interest rate and equity risk related to our variable annuity guaranteed benefits may be ineffective which could result in statutory and GAAP volatility in our earnings and potentially material charges to net income.

Some of the in-force business within our Talcott Resolution operations, especially variable annuities, offer guaranteed benefits, including GMDBs and GMWBs. These GMDBs and GMWBs expose the Company to interest rate risk and significant equity risk. A decline in equity markets would not only result in lower fee income, but would also increase our exposure to liability for benefit claims. We use reinsurance and benefit designs, such as caps, to mitigate the exposure associated with GMDB. We also use reinsurance in combination with product management actions, such as rider fee increases, investment restrictions and buyout offers, as well as derivative instruments to attempt to minimize the claim exposure and to reduce the volatility of net income associated with the GMWB liability. We remain liable for the guaranteed benefits in the event that

Part I - Item 1A. Risk Factors

reinsurers or derivative counterparties are unable or unwilling to pay, which could result in a need for additional capital to support in-force business.

From time to time, we may adjust our risk management program based on contracts in force, market conditions, or other factors. While we believe that these actions improve the efficiency of our risk management related to these benefits, changes to the risk management program may result in greater statutory and GAAP earnings volatility and, based upon the types of hedging instruments used, can result in potentially material charges to net income (loss) in periods of rising equity market pricing levels, higher interest rates and declines in volatility. We are also subject to the risk that these management actions prove ineffective or that unanticipated policyholder behavior, combined with adverse market events, produces economic losses beyond the scope of the risk management techniques employed, which individually or collectively may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Financial Strength, Credit and Counterparty Risks

Downgrades in our financial strength or credit ratings may make our products less attractive, increase our cost of capital and inhibit our ability to refinance our debt.

Financial strength and credit ratings are important in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. Rating agencies assign ratings based upon several factors. While most of the factors relate to the rated company, others relate to the views of the rating agency (including its assessment of the strategic importance of the rated company to the insurance group), general economic conditions, and circumstances outside the rated company's control. In addition, rating agencies may employ different models and formulas to assess the financial strength of a rated company, and from time to time rating agencies have altered these models. Changes to the models or factors used by the rating agencies to assign ratings could adversely impact a rating agency's judgment of its internal rating and the publicly issued rating it assigns us.

Our financial strength ratings, which are intended to measure our ability to meet policyholder obligations, are an important factor affecting public confidence in most of our products and, as a result, our competitiveness. A downgrade or a potential downgrade in the rating of our financial strength or of one of our principal insurance subsidiaries could affect our competitive position and reduce future sales of our products.

Our credit ratings also affect our cost of capital. A downgrade or a potential downgrade of our credit ratings could make it more difficult or costly to refinance maturing debt obligations, to support business growth at our insurance subsidiaries and to maintain or improve the financial strength ratings of our principal insurance subsidiaries. Downgrades could begin to trigger potentially material collateral calls on certain of our derivative instruments and enable counterparties to terminate derivative relationships, both of which could limit our ability to purchase

additional derivative instruments. These events could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. For a further discussion of potential impacts of ratings downgrades on derivative instruments, including potential collateral calls, see Part II, Item 7, MD&A - Capital Resources and Liquidity - Derivative Commitments.

The amount of statutory capital that we must hold to maintain our financial strength and credit ratings and meet other requirements can vary significantly from time to time and is sensitive to a number of factors outside of our control.

We conduct the vast majority of our business through licensed insurance company subsidiaries. Statutory accounting standards and statutory capital and reserve requirements for these entities are prescribed by the applicable insurance regulators and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”). The minimum capital we must hold is based on risk-based capital (“RBC”) formulas for both life and property and casualty companies. The RBC formula for life companies establishes capital requirements relating to insurance, business, asset and interest rate risks, including equity, interest rate and expense recovery risks associated with variable annuities and group annuities that contain death benefits or certain withdrawal benefits. The RBC formula for property and casualty companies sets required statutory surplus levels based on underwriting, asset, credit and off-balance sheet risks.

In any particular year, statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios may increase or decrease depending on a variety of factors, including

•	the amount of statutory income or losses generated by our insurance subsidiaries,

•	the amount of additional capital our insurance subsidiaries must hold to support business growth,

•	the amount of dividends or distributions taken out of our insurance subsidiaries,

•	changes in equity market levels,

•	the value of certain fixed-income and equity securities in our investment portfolio,

•	the value of certain derivative instruments,

•	changes in interest rates,

•	admissibility of deferred tax assets, and

•	changes to the NAIC RBC formulas.

Most of these factors are outside of the Company's control. The Company's financial strength and credit ratings are significantly influenced by the statutory surplus amounts and RBC ratios of our insurance company subsidiaries. In addition, rating agencies may implement changes to their internal models that have the effect of increasing the amount of statutory capital we must hold in order to maintain our current ratings. Also, in extreme scenarios of equity market declines and other capital market volatility, the amount of additional statutory reserves that we are required to hold for our variable annuity guarantees increases at a greater than linear rate. This reduces the statutory surplus used

Part I - Item 1A. Risk Factors

in calculating our RBC ratios. When equity markets increase, surplus levels and RBC ratios would generally be expected to increase. However, as a result of a number of factors and market conditions, including the level of hedging costs and other risk transfer activities, statutory reserve requirements for death and withdrawal benefit guarantees and increases in RBC requirements, surplus and RBC ratios may not increase when equity markets increase. Due to these factors, projecting statutory capital and the related RBC ratios is complex. If our statutory capital resources are insufficient to maintain a particular rating by one or more rating agencies, we may seek to raise capital through public or private equity or debt financing. If we were not to raise additional capital, either at our discretion or because we were unable to do so, our financial strength and credit ratings might be downgraded by one or more rating agencies.

Losses due to nonperformance or defaults by counterparties can have a material adverse effect on the value of our investments, reduce our profitability or sources of liquidity.

We have credit risk with counterparties on investments, derivatives, premiums receivable and reinsurance recoverables. Among others, our counterparties include issuers of fixed maturity and equity securities we hold, borrowers of mortgage loans we hold, customers, trading counterparties, counterparties under swaps and other derivative contracts, reinsurers, clearing agents, exchanges, clearing houses and other financial intermediaries and guarantors. These counterparties may default on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy, insolvency, lack of liquidity, adverse economic conditions, operational failure, fraud, government intervention and other reasons. Defaults by these counterparties on their obligations to us could have a material adverse effect on the value of our investments, business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Additionally, if the underlying assets supporting the structured securities we invest in default on their payment obligations, our securities will incur losses.

The availability of reinsurance and our ability to recover under reinsurance contracts may not be sufficient to protect us against losses.

As an insurer, we frequently use reinsurance to reduce the effect of losses that may arise from, among other things, catastrophes and other risks that can cause unfavorable results of operations, GMDBs and GMWBs under variable annuity contracts, and to effect the sale of a line of business to an independent company. Under these reinsurance arrangements, other insurers assume a portion of our losses and related expenses; however, we remain liable as the direct insurer on all risks reinsured. Consequently, ceded reinsurance arrangements do not eliminate our obligation to pay claims, and we are subject to our reinsurers' credit risk with respect to our ability to recover amounts due from them. The inability or unwillingness of any reinsurer to meet its financial obligations to us, including the impact of any insolvency or rehabilitation proceedings involving a reinsurer that could affect the Company's access to collateral held in trust, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. This risk may be magnified by a concentration of reinsurance-related credit risk resulting from the sale of the Company’s Individual Life and Retirement

Products businesses. Further details of such concentration can be found in Part II, Item 7, MD&A - Enterprise Risk Management - Reinsurance as a Risk Management Strategy.

In addition, should the availability and cost of reinsurance change materially, we may have to pay higher reinsurance costs, accept an increase in our net liability exposure, reduce the amount of business we write, or access to the extent possible other alternatives to reinsurance, such as use of the capital markets. Further, due to the inherent uncertainties as to collection and the length of time before reinsurance recoverables will be due, it is possible that future adjustments to the Company’s reinsurance recoverables, net of the allowance, could be required, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in a particular quarterly or annual period.

Our ability to declare and pay dividends is subject to limitations.

The payment of future dividends on our capital stock is subject to the discretion of our board of directors, which considers, among other factors, our operating results, overall financial condition, credit-risk considerations and capital requirements, as well as general business and market conditions. Our board of directors may only declare such dividends out of funds legally available for such payments. Moreover, our common stockholders are subject to the prior dividend rights of any holders of depositary shares representing such preferred stock then outstanding. The terms of our outstanding junior subordinated debt securities prohibit us from declaring or paying any dividends or distributions on our capital stock or purchasing, acquiring, or making a liquidation payment on such stock, if we have given notice of our election to defer interest payments and the related deferral period has not yet commenced or a deferral period is continuing.

Moreover, as a holding company that is separate and distinct from our insurance subsidiaries, we have no significant business operations of our own. Therefore, we rely on dividends from our insurance company subsidiaries and other subsidiaries as the principal source of cash flow to meet our obligations. Subsidiary dividends fund payments on our debt securities and the payment of dividends to shareholders on our capital stock. Connecticut state laws and certain other jurisdictions in which we operate limit the payment of dividends and require notice to and approval by the state insurance commissioner for the declaration or payment of dividends above certain levels. Dividends paid from our insurance subsidiaries are further dependent on their cash requirements. In addition, in the event of liquidation or reorganization of a subsidiary, prior claims of a subsidiary’s creditors may take precedence over the holding company’s right to a dividend or distribution from the subsidiary except to the extent that the holding company may be a creditor of that subsidiary. For further discussion on dividends from insurance subsidiaries, see Part II, Item 7, MD&A - Capital Resources & Liquidity.

Part I - Item 1A. Risk Factors

Risks Relating to Estimates, Assumptions and Valuations

Actual results could materially differ from the analytical models we use to assist our decision making in key areas such as underwriting, capital, hedging, reserving, and catastrophe risks.

We use models to help make decisions related to, among other things, underwriting, pricing, capital allocation, reserving, investments, hedging, reinsurance, and catastrophe risk. Both proprietary and third party models we use incorporate numerous assumptions and forecasts about the future level and variability of interest rates, capital requirements, loss frequency and severity, currency exchange rates, policyholder behavior, equity markets and inflation, among others. The models are subject to the inherent limitations of any statistical analysis as the historical internal and industry data and assumptions used in the models may not be indicative of what will happen in the future. Consequently, actual results may differ materially from our modeled results. The profitability and financial condition of the Company substantially depends on the extent to which our actual experience is consistent with assumptions we use in our models and ultimate model outputs. If, based upon these models or other factors, we misprice our products or our estimates of the risks we are exposed to prove to be materially inaccurate, our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity may be adversely affected.

The valuation of our securities and investments and the determination of allowances and impairments are highly subjective and based on methodologies, estimations and assumptions that are subject to differing interpretations and market conditions.

Estimated fair values of the Company’s investments are based on available market information and judgments about financial instruments, including estimates of the timing and amounts of expected future cash flows and the credit standing of the issuer or counterparty. During periods of market disruption, it may be difficult to value certain of our securities if trading becomes less frequent and/or market data becomes less observable. There may be certain asset classes that were in active markets with significant observable data that become illiquid due to the financial environment. In addition, there may be certain securities whose fair value is based on one or more unobservable inputs, even during normal market conditions. As a result, the determination of the fair values of these securities may include inputs and assumptions that require more estimation and management judgment and the use of complex valuation methodologies. These fair values may differ materially from the value at which the investments may be ultimately sold. Further, rapidly changing or unprecedented credit and equity market conditions could materially impact the valuation of securities and the period-to-period changes in value could vary significantly.

Decreases in value could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

Similarly, management’s decision on whether to record an other-than-temporary impairment or write down is subject to significant judgments and assumptions regarding changes in general economic conditions, the issuer's financial condition or future recovery prospects, estimated future cash flows, the effects of changes in interest rates or credit spreads, the expected recovery period and the accuracy of third party information used in internal assessments. As a result, management’s evaluations and assessments are highly judgmental and its projections of future cash flows over the life of certain securities may ultimately prove incorrect as facts and circumstances change.

If assumptions used in estimating future gross profits differ from actual experience, we may be required to accelerate the amortization of DAC and increase reserves for GMDB and GMWB on variable annuities, which could adversely affect our results of operation.

The Company has deferred acquisition costs associated with the prior sales of its variable annuity products. Deferred acquisition costs for the variable annuity products are amortized over the expected life of the contracts. The remaining deferred but not yet amortized cost is referred to as the Deferred Acquisition Cost ("DAC") asset. We amortize these costs based on the ratio of actual gross profits in the period to the present value of current and future estimated gross profits (“EGPs”). The Company evaluates the EGPs compared to the DAC asset to determine if an impairment exists. The Company also establishes reserves for GMDB and the life contingent portion of GMWB using components of EGPs. The projection of EGPs, or components of EGPs, requires the use of certain assumptions that may not prove accurate, including those related to changes in the separate account fund returns, full or partial surrender rates, mortality, withdrawal benefit utilization, withdrawal rates, annuitization and hedging costs.

In addition, if our assumptions about policyholder behavior (e.g., full or partial surrenders, benefit utilization and annuitization) and costs related to mitigating risks, including hedging costs, prove to be inaccurate or if significant or sustained equity market declines occur, we could be required to accelerate the amortization of DAC related to variable annuity contracts, and increase reserves for GMDB and life-contingent GMWB which would result in a charge to net income.

If our businesses do not perform well, we may be required to establish a valuation allowance against the deferred income tax asset or to recognize an impairment of our goodwill.

Our income tax expense includes deferred income taxes arising from temporary differences between the financial reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities and carry-forwards for foreign tax credits, capital losses, net operating losses and alternative minimum tax credits. Deferred tax assets are assessed periodically by management to determine if it is more likely than not that the deferred income tax assets will be realized. Factors in management's determination include the performance of the

Part I - Item 1A. Risk Factors

business, including the ability to generate, from a variety of sources and tax planning strategies, sufficient future taxable income and capital gains before net operating loss and capital loss carry-forwards expire. If based on available information, it is more likely than not that we are unable to recognize a full tax benefit on deferred tax assets, then a valuation allowance will be established with a corresponding charge to net income (loss). Charges to increase our valuation allowance could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Goodwill represents the excess of the amounts we paid to acquire subsidiaries and other businesses over the fair value of their net assets at the date of acquisition. We test goodwill at least annually for impairment. Impairment testing is performed based upon estimates of the fair value of the “reporting unit” to which the goodwill relates. The reporting unit is the operating segment or a business one level below an operating segment if discrete financial information is prepared and regularly reviewed by management at that level. The fair value of the reporting unit could decrease if new business, customer retention, profitability or other drivers of performance differ from expectations. If it is determined that the goodwill has been impaired, the Company must write down the goodwill by the amount of the impairment, with a corresponding charge to net income (loss). These write downs could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Strategic and Operational Risks

As our Talcott Resolution business continues to run-off, the Company is exposed to a number of risks related to the run-off business that could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Despite being in run-off, Talcott Resolution represents a meaningful share of the Company’s earnings. Talcott Resolution’s revenues and earnings have been and will continue declining as variable and fixed annuity policies lapse. While the Company has been reducing expenses associated with the Talcott Resolution business as the revenues from that business decline, going forward it may become more difficult to reduce expenses, particularly corporate and other enterprise shared services costs, and this could adversely affect the Company’s results of operations. In addition, as Talcott Resolution's earnings decline, there will be less retained earnings in the Company’s Talcott Resolution insurance subsidiaries available to fund capital management actions.

Further, while the Company continues to actively consider alternatives for reducing the size and risk of the annuity book of business, opportunities to do so may be limited and any initiatives pursued may not achieve the anticipated benefits and may negatively impact our statutory capital, net income, core earnings or shareholders’ equity. The Company could pursue transactions or other strategic options to reduce the size and risk of Talcott Resolution's annuity book of business which could result in a significant loss to the Company.

Our businesses may suffer and we may incur substantial costs if we are unable to access our systems and safeguard the security of our data in the event of a disaster, cyber breach or other information security incident.

We use technology to process, store, retrieve, evaluate and utilize customer and company data and information. Our information technology and telecommunications systems, in turn, interface with and rely upon third-party systems. We and our third party vendors must be able to access our systems to provide insurance quotes, process premium payments, make changes to existing policies, file and pay claims, administer variable annuity products and mutual funds, provide customer support, manage our investment portfolios and hedge programs, report on financial results and perform other necessary business functions.

Systems failures or outages could compromise our ability to perform these business functions in a timely manner, which could harm our ability to conduct business and hurt our relationships with our business partners and customers. In the event of a disaster such as a natural catastrophe, a pandemic, an industrial accident, a cyber attack, a blackout, a terrorist attack (including conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological) or war, systems upon which we rely may be inaccessible to our employees, customers or business partners for an extended period of time. Even if our employees and business partners are able to report to work, they may be unable to perform their duties for an extended period of time if our data or systems used to conduct our business are disabled or destroyed.

Our systems have been, and will likely continue to be, subject to viruses or other malicious codes, unauthorized access, cyber-attacks or other computer related penetrations. The frequency and sophistication of such threats continue to increase as well. While, to date, The Hartford is not aware of having experienced a material breach of our cyber security systems, administrative and technical controls as well as other preventive actions may be insufficient to prevent physical and electronic break-ins, denial of service, cyber-attacks or other security breaches to our systems or those of third parties with whom we do business. Such an event could compromise our confidential information as well as that of our clients and third parties, impede or interrupt our business operations and result in other negative consequences, including remediation costs, loss of revenue, additional regulatory scrutiny and litigation and reputational damage. In addition, we routinely transmit, to third parties personal, confidential and proprietary information, which may be related to employees and customers, by email and other electronic means, along with receiving and storing such information on our systems. Although we attempt to keep such information confidential, we may be unable to secure the information in all events, especially with clients, vendors, service providers, counterparties and other third parties who may not have appropriate controls to protect confidential information.

Furthermore, certain of our businesses must comply with regulations to control the privacy of customer, employee and third party data. A misuse or mishandling of confidential or proprietary information could result in legal liability, regulatory action and reputational harm.

Third parties, including third party administrators, are also subject to cyber-breaches of confidential information, along with the other risks outlined above, any one of which may result in our

Part I - Item 1A. Risk Factors

incurring substantial costs and other negative consequences, including a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. While we maintain cyber liability insurance that provides both third party liability and first party insurance coverages, our insurance may not be sufficient to protect against all loss.

Performance problems due to outsourcing and other third-party relationships may compromise our ability to conduct business.

We outsource certain business and administrative functions and rely on third-party vendors to perform certain functions or provide certain services on our behalf and have a significant number of information technology and business processes outsourced with a single vendor. If we are unable to reach agreement in the negotiation of agreements or renewals with certain third-party providers, or if such third-party providers experience disruptions or do not perform as anticipated, we may we may be unable to meet our obligations to customers and claimants, incur higher costs and lose business which may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. For other risks associated with our outsourcing of certain functions, see the immediately preceding risk factor.

Our ability to execute on our capital management plan, expense reduction initiatives and other actions, which may include acquisitions, divestitures or restructurings, is subject to material challenges, uncertainties and risks.

The ability to execute on our capital management plan remains subject to material challenges, uncertainties and risks. We may not achieve all of the benefits we expect to derive from our plan to repurchase our equity and reduce our debt. Our capital management plan is subject to execution risks, including, among others, risks related to market fluctuations, investor interest and potential legal constraints that could delay execution at an otherwise optimal time. There can be no assurance that we will in fact complete our capital management plan over the planned time frame or at all. Initiatives to reduce expenses so that our ongoing businesses remain or become cost efficient may not be successful and we may not be able to reduce corporate and shared services expenses in the manner and on the schedule we currently anticipate. We may take further actions beyond the capital management plan, which may include acquisitions, divestitures or restructurings, that may involve additional uncertainties and risks that negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property and may be subject to infringement claims.

We rely on a combination of contractual rights and copyright, trademark, patent and trade secret laws to establish and protect our intellectual property. Although we use a broad range of measures to protect our intellectual property rights, third parties may infringe or misappropriate our intellectual property. We may have to litigate to enforce and protect our intellectual property and to determine its scope, validity or enforceability, which could divert significant resources and may not prove successful.

Litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights may not be successful and cost a lot of money. The inability to secure or enforce the protection of our intellectual property assets could harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to compete. We also may be subject to costly litigation in the event that another party alleges our operations or activities infringe upon their intellectual property rights, including patent rights, or violate license usage rights. Any such intellectual property claims and any resulting litigation could result in significant expense and liability for damages, and in some circumstances we could be enjoined from providing certain products or services to our customers, or utilizing and benefiting from certain patent, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets or licenses, or alternatively could be required to enter into costly licensing arrangements with third parties, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Regulatory and Legal Risks

Regulatory and legislative developments could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

In the U.S., regulatory initiatives and legislative developments may significantly affect our operations and prospects in ways that we cannot predict.

For example, potential repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act and modification of the Dodd-Frank Act could have unanticipated consequences for the Company and its businesses. With respect to the potential repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, see Part II, Item 7, MD&A - Capital Resources and Liquidity - Contingencies - Regulatory and Legal Developments.

The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted on July 21, 2010, mandating changes to the regulation of the financial services industry that could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. The Dodd-Frank Act requires central clearing of certain derivatives transactions and greater margin requirements for those transactions, which increases the costs of our hedging program. In addition, the proprietary trading and market making limitation of the Volcker Rule could adversely affect the pricing and liquidity of our investment securities and limitations of banking entity involvement in and ownership of certain asset-backed securities transactions could adversely affect the market for insurance-linked securities, including catastrophe bonds. It is unclear whether and to what extent Congress will make changes to the Dodd-Frank Act, and how those changes might impact the Company, its business, financial conditions, results of operations and liquidity.

We are subject to extensive laws and regulations that are complex, subject to change and often conflicting in their approach or intended outcomes. Compliance with these laws and regulations can increase cost, affect our strategy, and constrain our ability to adequately price our products.

Our insurance subsidiaries are regulated by the insurance departments of the states in which they are domiciled, licensed or

Part I - Item 1A. Risk Factors

authorized to conduct business. State regulations generally seek to protect the interests of policyholders rather than an insurer or the insurer’s shareholders and other investors. U.S. state laws grant insurance regulatory authorities broad administrative powers with respect to, among other things, licensing and authorizing lines of business, approving policy forms and premium rates, setting statutory capital and reserve requirements, limiting the types and amounts of certain investments and restricting underwriting practices. State insurance departments also set constraints on domestic insurer transactions with affiliates and dividends and, in many cases, must approve affiliate transactions and extraordinary dividends as well as strategic transactions such as acquisitions and divestitures.

In addition, future regulatory initiatives could be adopted at the federal or state level that could impact the profitability of our businesses. For example, the NAIC and state insurance regulators are continually reexamining existing laws and regulations, specifically focusing on modifications to statutory accounting principles, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws and regulations. The NAIC continues to enhance the U.S. system of insurance solvency regulation, with a particular focus on group supervision, risk-based capital, accounting and financial reporting, enterprise risk management and reinsurance. Any proposed or future legislation or NAIC initiatives, if adopted, may be more restrictive on our ability to conduct business than current regulatory requirements or may result in higher costs or increased statutory capital and reserve requirements. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors ("IAIS") each have initiatives underway to develop insurance group capital standards. While the Company would not currently be subject to either of these capital standard regimes, it is possible that in the future standards similar to what is being contemplated by the Federal Reserve Board or the IAIS could apply to the Company. The NAIC is in the process of developing a U.S. group capital calculation that will employ a methodology based on aggregated risk-based capital.

Further, a particular regulator or enforcement authority may interpret a legal, accounting, or reserving issue differently than we have, exposing us to different or additional regulatory risks. The application of these regulations and guidelines by insurers involves interpretations and judgments that may be challenged by state insurance departments. The result of those potential challenges could require us to increase levels of statutory capital and reserves or incur higher operating and/or tax costs.

In addition, our asset management businesses are also subject to extensive regulation in the various jurisdictions where they operate.. These laws and regulations are primarily intended to protect investors in the securities markets or investment advisory clients and generally grant supervisory authorities broad administrative powers. Compliance with these laws and regulations is costly, time consuming and personnel intensive, and may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Our insurance business is sensitive to significant changes in the legal environment that could adversely affect The Hartford’s results of operations or financial condition or harm its businesses.

Like any major P&C insurance company, litigation is a routine part of The Hartford’s business - both in defending and indemnifying our insureds and in litigating insurance coverage disputes. The Hartford accounts for such activity by establishing unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves. Significant changes in the legal environment could cause our ultimate liabilities to change from our current expectations. Such changes could be judicial in nature, like trends in the size of jury awards, developments in the law relating to tort liability or the liability of insurers, and rulings concerning the scope of insurance coverage or the amount or types of damages covered by insurance. Legislative developments, like changes in federal or state laws relating to the liability of policyholders or insurers, could have a similar effect. It is impossible to forecast such changes reliably, much less to predict how they might affect our loss reserves or how those changes might adversely affect our ability to price our insurance products appropriately. Thus, significant judicial or legislative developments could adversely affect The Hartford’s business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Changes in federal or state tax laws could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Changes in federal or state tax laws and tax rates could have a material adverse effect on our profitability and financial condition, and could result in our incurring materially higher corporate taxes. Higher tax rates may cause the small businesses we insure to hire fewer workers and decrease investment in their businesses, including purchasing fewer vehicles, property and equipment, which could adversely affect our ability to sell our products and services to these customers. If tax rates decline, our deferred tax asset would be reduced, resulting in a charge against earnings. In addition, a reduction in tax rates or change in laws could adversely affect the Company’s ability to realize the benefits of its net operating loss carryovers and alternative minimum tax credits. In addition, a reduction in tax rates could increase the level of statutory reserves the Company must hold which could adversely affect statutory surplus.

In addition, the Company’s tax return reflects certain items such as tax-exempt bond interest, dividends received deductions, tax credits, and insurance reserve deductions. There is an increasing risk that, in the context of deficit reduction or overall tax reform, federal and/or state tax legislation could modify or eliminate these items, impacting the Company, its investments, investment strategies, and/or its policyholders. In the context of deficit reduction or overall tax reform, federal and/or state tax legislation could modify or eliminate provisions of current tax law that are beneficial to the Company, including tax-exempt bond interest, dividends received deduction, tax credits, and insurance reserve deductions, or could impose new taxes such as on goods or services purchased overseas.

Moreover, many of the life and annuity products that the Company previously sold benefit from one or more forms of tax-favored status under current federal and state income tax

Part I - Item 1A. Risk Factors

regimes. For example, the Company previously sold annuity contracts that allowed policyholders to defer the recognition of taxable income earned within the contract. Because the Company no longer sells these products, changes in the future taxation of life insurance and/or annuity contracts will not adversely impact future sales. If, however, the tax treatment of earnings accrued inside an annuity contract changed prospectively, and the tax favored status of existing contracts were grandfathered, holders of existing contracts would be less likely to surrender, which would make running off our existing life and annuity business more difficult.

Regulatory requirements could delay, deter or prevent a takeover attempt that shareholders might consider in their best interests.

Before a person can acquire control of a U.S. insurance company, prior written approval must be obtained from the insurance commissioner of the state where the domestic insurer is domiciled. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of a domestic insurer, the state insurance commissioner will consider such factors as the financial strength of the applicant, the acquirer's plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer, and any such additional information as the insurance commissioner may deem necessary or appropriate for the protection of policyholders or in the public interest. Generally, state statutes provide that control over a domestic insurer is presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing 10 percent or more of the voting securities of the domestic insurer or its parent company. Because a person acquiring 10 percent or more of our common stock would indirectly control the same percentage of the stock of our U.S. insurance subsidiaries, the insurance change of control laws of various U.S. jurisdictions would likely apply to such a transaction. Other laws or required approvals pertaining to one or more of our

existing subsidiaries, or a future subsidiary, may contain similar or additional restrictions on the acquisition of control of the Company. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter, or prevent a change of control, including transactions that our Board of Directors and some or all of our shareholders might consider to be desirable.

Changes in accounting principles and financial reporting requirements could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

As an SEC registrant, we are currently required to prepare our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, as promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB"). Accordingly, we are required to adopt new guidance or interpretations which may have a material effect on our results of operations and financial condition that is either unexpected or has a greater impact than expected. For a description of changes in accounting standards that are currently pending and, if known, our estimates of their expected impact, see Note 1 of the consolidated financial statements.

The FASB is working on several projects that could result in significant changes in GAAP, including how we account for our long-duration insurance contracts, which primarily relate to our life and annuity products. In particular, liabilities for life-contingent fixed annuities would be discounted using current high-quality fixed-income instrument yields rather than using historical yields, likely resulting in greater volatility in other comprehensive income. As a result, the adoption of these future accounting standards relating to insurance contracts could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.