Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

Investing in our securities involves risk. Persons investing in our securities should carefully consider the risks described below and the other information contained in this report and other filings that we make from time to time with the SEC, including our consolidated and combined financial statements and accompanying notes. Any of the following risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could also be adversely affected by additional factors that apply to all companies generally, as well as other risks that are not currently known to us or that we currently view to be immaterial. In any such case, the trading price of our securities could decline and you may lose all or part of your original investment. While we attempt to mitigate known risks to the extent we believe to be practicable and reasonable, we can provide no assurance, and we make no representation, that our mitigation efforts will be successful.

Risks Related to Our Business

Difficult market conditions can adversely affect our business in many ways, including by reducing the value or performance of the investments that we manage or by reducing the ability of our funds to raise or deploy capital, each of which could negatively impact our net income and cash flow and adversely affect our financial prospects and condition.

Our business and the businesses of the companies in which we invest are materially affected by conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions or events throughout the world, such as interest rates, availability of credit, inflation rates, economic uncertainty, changes in laws (including laws relating to taxation), trade barriers, commodity prices, currency exchange rates and controls and national and international political circumstances (including wars, terrorist acts or security operations). For example, the unprecedented turmoil in the global financial markets during 2008 and 2009 provoked significant volatility of securities prices, contraction in the availability of credit and the failure of a number of companies, including leading financing institutions, and had a material adverse effect on our businesses and the businesses of the companies in which we invest. A more recent example of volatility has occurred beginning in the late summer of 2015 and is continuing.

Low levels of growth and high levels of government debt in major markets including the United States and Europe persists, and Europe continues to experience high unemployment and ongoing austerity. Concerns regarding sovereign defaults and the possibility that one or more countries might leave the European Union have resurfaced. The pace of China’s fixed asset investment growth has been slowing, which may pose a risk to the economic stability of China and its major trading partners. China’s slowing also has the potential to hinder the demand for and prices of many important global commodities and consequently reduce capital spending in industries dependent on commodity prices. Although lower commodity prices, including the falling price of oil, are expected to benefit the economies of commodity importing countries, certain of our investments focused on the development, exploration and production of oil and natural gas properties, as well as the sale of products or services used in the natural resources sector, have and will continue to suffer from such a decline. In addition, the Federal Reserve may continue to raise interest rates in 2016, thus raising the cost of financing and possibly slowing economic growth in the United States. Furthermore, higher interest rates in the United States could also reduce the relative attractiveness of other global markets, thereby applying pressure to foreign asset values and currencies.

Such market and economic conditions and events are outside our control and may affect the level and volatility of securities prices and the liquidity and the value of our investments. In addition, we may not be able to or may choose not to manage our exposure to these conditions and/or events. For example, as of March 31, 2009, the date of the lowest aggregate valuation of our private equity funds during the 2008 and 2009 financial market turmoil, the investments in the private equity funds contributed to us in the KPE Transaction were marked down to 67% of original cost, and values across all geographies declined. For example, as of March 31, 2009, the European Fund II, European Fund III, 2006 Fund and Asian Fund had multiples of invested capital of 0.5x, 0.6x, 0.7x and 0.8x, respectively. If not reversed, recent declines in the equity, commodity and debt in the markets are also expected to cause write down in our investments and the investments of our funds. Our profitability may also be adversely affected by our fixed costs and the possibility that we would be unable to scale back other costs within a time frame sufficient to match any decreases in net income relating to changes in market and economic conditions.

Unfavorable market conditions may reduce opportunities for our funds to make, exit and realize value from their investments. For example, when financing is not available, it is difficult for potential buyers to raise sufficient capital to purchase assets in our funds’ portfolios. Consequently, we may earn lower than expected returns on investments, which could cause us to realize diminished or no carried interest. In addition, we may not be able to find suitable investments for the funds to effectively deploy capital, which could adversely affect our ability to raise new funds because we can generally only raise capital for a successor fund following the substantial and successful deployment of capital from the existing fund. In the event of poor performance by existing funds or during periods of unfavorable fundraising conditions, pressures by fund investors for

lower fees, different fee sharing arrangements for transaction or other fees, and other concessions (for example, the inclusion of performance hurdles that require us in our newer funds, including all our newer private equity funds such as North America Fund XI, Asian Fund II and European Fund IV, to generate a specified return on investment prior to our right to receive carried interest) will likely continue and could increase. The outcome of such negotiations could result in our agreement to terms that are materially less favorable to us than for prior funds we have managed. In addition, successor funds raised by us when such unfavorable circumstances described above exist would also likely result in smaller funds than our comparable predecessor funds. Fund investors may also seek to redeploy capital away from certain of our credit or other non‑private equity investment vehicles, which permit redemptions on relatively short notice, in order to meet liquidity needs or invest in other asset classes or with other managers. Any of these developments could adversely affect our future revenues, net income, cash flow, financial condition or ability to retain our employees. See “-Our inability to raise additional or successor funds could have a material adverse impact on our business” and “-Our investors in future funds may negotiate to pay us lower management fees and the economic terms of our future funds may be less favorable to us than those of our existing funds, which could adversely affect our revenues.”

During periods of difficult market or economic conditions or slowdowns (which may occur across one or more industries, sectors or geographies), companies in which we have invested may experience decreased revenues, financial losses, credit rating downgrades, difficulty in obtaining access to financing and increased funding costs. These companies may also have difficulty in expanding their businesses and operations or be unable to meet their debt service obligations or other expenses as they become due, including amounts payable to us. Negative financial results in our funds’ portfolio companies may result in lower investment returns for our investment funds, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results and cash flow. To the extent the operating performance of such portfolio companies (as well as valuation multiples) deteriorate or do not improve, our funds may sell those assets at values that are less than we projected or even at a loss, thereby significantly affecting those funds’ performance and consequently our operating results and cash flow and resulting in lower or no carried interest being paid to us. Adverse conditions may also increase the risk of default with respect to private equity, credit and other investments that we manage or the abandonment or foreclosure of our real asset investments. Even if economic and market conditions do improve broadly, adverse conditions in particular sectors may also cause our performance to suffer. Finally, low interest rates related to monetary stimulus, economic stagnation or deflation may negatively impact expected returns on all types of investments as the demand for relatively higher return assets increases and the supply decreases. In addition, our Capital Markets segment generates fees through a variety of activities in connection with the issuance and placement of equity and debt securities and credit facilities, with the size of fees generally correlated to overall transaction sizes. As a result, the conditions in financial markets as described above, as well as transaction activity in our Private Markets segment and to a lesser extent, Public Markets segment, impact both the frequency and size of fees generated by this segment.

Changes in the debt financing markets may negatively impact the ability of our investment funds, their portfolio companies and strategies pursued with our balance sheet assets to obtain attractive financing for their investments or refinance existing debt and may increase the cost of such financing if it is obtained, which could lead to lower‑yielding investments and potentially decrease our net income.

In the event that our funds are unable to obtain committed debt financing for potential acquisitions or can only obtain debt at an increased interest rate or on unfavorable terms, our funds may have difficulty completing otherwise profitable acquisitions or may generate profits that are lower than would otherwise be the case, either of which could lead to a decrease in the investment income earned by us. Any failure by lenders to provide previously committed financing can also expose us to potential claims by sellers of businesses which we may have contracted to purchase. Similarly, certain of the strategies pursued using our balance sheet assets rely on the use of leverage, including the issuance of CLOs, and other secured and unsecured borrowings. Additionally, credit spreads in the lowest rated high yield bonds have increased from cyclical lows in 2014, and financing sources particularly in the U.S., are exercising caution in providing new credits. This tightening in debt financing could impact our ability to finance transactions. Our ability to generate returns on these assets and make cash available for distribution to our unitholders would be reduced to the extent that changes in market conditions cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from the assets acquired and financed. Similarly, our portfolio companies regularly utilize the corporate debt markets in order to obtain financing for their operations. To the extent that credit markets render such financing difficult to obtain or more expensive, this may negatively impact the operating performance of those portfolio companies and, therefore, the investment returns on our funds. In addition, to the extent that conditions in the credit markets impair the ability of our portfolio companies to refinance or extend maturities on their outstanding debt, either on favorable terms or at all, the operating performance of those portfolio companies may be negatively impacted, which could impair the value of our investment in those portfolio companies and lead to a decrease in the investment income earned by us. In some cases, the inability of our portfolio companies to refinance or extend maturities may result in the inability of those companies to repay debt at maturity and may cause the companies to sell assets, undergo a recapitalization or seek bankruptcy protection, which would also likely impair the value of our investment and lead to a decrease in investment income earned by us.

We have significant liquidity requirements, and adverse economic and market conditions may adversely affect our sources of liquidity, which could adversely affect our business operations in the future.

We expect that our primary liquidity needs will consist of cash required to:

•	continue to grow our business, including seeding new strategies and funding our capital commitments made to existing and future funds, co‑ investments and any net capital requirements of our capital markets companies;

•	warehouse investments in portfolio companies or other investments for the benefit of one or more of our funds, accounts or CLOs pending the contribution of committed capital by the investors in such vehicles;

•	service debt obligations including the payment of obligations upon maturity or redemption, as well as any contingent liabilities that may give rise to future cash payments;

•	fund cash operating expenses and amounts recorded for litigation matters;

•	pay amounts that may become due under our tax receivable agreement with KKR Holdings;

•	make cash distributions in accordance with our distribution policy;

•	underwrite commitments within our capital markets business;

•	fund our equity commitment to joint ventures such as Merchant Capital Solutions LLC;

•	make future purchase price payments in connection with our proprietary acquisitions, such as our acquisition of Prisma and strategic partnerships with other fund managers;

•	acquire additional principal assets, including other businesses and office space; and

•	repurchase KKR & Co. L.P. common units, including pursuant to the unit repurchase program announced on October 27, 2015.

These liquidity requirements are significant and, in some cases, involve capital that will remain invested for extended periods of time. As of December 31, 2015, we have approximately $1.4 billion of remaining unfunded capital commitments to our investment funds. Our commitments to our funds will require significant cash outlays over time, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient cash flows from realizations of investments to fund them.

In addition, as of December 31, 2015, we had $2.0 billion of borrowings outstanding under our credit facilities and debt securities and $1.3 billion of cash and short‑term investments. This includes KFN’s debt obligations of $657.3 million and KFN’s 7.375% Series A LLC preferred shares of $373.8 million, which do not provide for recourse to KKR beyond the assets of KFN. While we have long‑term committed financings with substantial facility limits, the terms of those facilities will expire in 2017 and 2019, and our senior notes become due in 2020, 2043 and 2044, and any borrowings thereunder will require refinancing or renewal, which could result in higher borrowing costs, or issuing equity. Depending on credit or other market conditions, we may not be able to renew all or part of these borrowings or find alternate sources of financing on commercially reasonable terms and we may not be able to raise equity. In addition, the incurrence of additional debt by us or our subsidiaries in the future could result in downgrades of our existing corporate credit ratings, which could limit the availability of future financing and increase our costs of borrowing.

In addition, the underwriting commitments for our capital markets business may require significant cash obligations, and these commitments may also put pressure on our liquidity. The holding company for our capital markets business has entered into a credit agreement that provides for revolving borrowings of up to $500 million, which can only be used in connection with our capital markets business, including placing and underwriting securities offerings. To the extent we commit to buy and sell an issue of securities in firm commitment underwritings or otherwise, we may be required to borrow under our credit agreement for our capital markets business to fund such obligations, which, depending on the size and timing of the obligations, may limit our ability to enter into other underwriting arrangements or similar activities, service existing debt obligations or otherwise grow our business. Regulatory capital requirements may also limit the ability of our broker‑dealer subsidiaries to participate in underwriting or other transactions or to allocate our capital more efficiently across our businesses.

In connection with our acquisition of Prisma and strategic partnerships with Nephila and Marshall Wace, we may be obligated to make future purchase price payments based on the respective performance of these businesses or the exercise of certain options. In addition in connection with the development of a new KKR office in New York City, we will be required to pay for the construction and completion of the office.

In the event that our liquidity requirements were to exceed available liquid assets for the reasons specified above or for any other reason, we could be forced to sell assets or seek to raise debt or equity capital on unfavorable terms. For further discussion of our liquidity needs see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Liquidity.”

The “clawback” or “net loss sharing” provisions in our governing agreements may give rise to a contingent obligation that may require us to return or contribute amounts to our funds and fund investors.

The partnership documents governing our carry‑paying funds, including funds relating to private equity, infrastructure, energy, real estate, mezzanine, direct lending and special situations investments, generally include a “clawback” provision that, if triggered, may give rise to a contingent obligation requiring the general partner to return amounts to the fund for distribution to the fund investors at the end of the life of the fund. Under a clawback obligation, upon the liquidation of a fund, the general partner is required to return, typically on an after‑tax basis, previously distributed carry to the extent that, due to the diminished performance of later investments, the aggregate amount of carry distributions received by the general partner during the term of the fund exceed the amount to which the general partner was ultimately entitled, including the effects of any performance thresholds. Excluding carried interest received by the general partners of funds that were not contributed to us in the KPE Transaction, as of December 31, 2015, no carried interest was subject to this clawback obligation, assuming that all applicable carry paying funds were liquidated at their December 31, 2015 fair values. Had the investments in such funds been liquidated at zero value, the clawback obligation would have been $2,423.4 million.

Certain private equity funds that were contributed to us in the KPE Transaction in 2009 also include a “net loss sharing provision.” Upon the liquidation of an investment vehicle to which a net loss sharing obligation applies, the general partner is required to contribute capital to the vehicle, to fund 20% of the net losses on investments. In these vehicles, such losses would be required to be paid by us to the fund investors in those vehicles in the event of a liquidation of the fund regardless of whether any carried interest had previously been distributed, and a greater share of investment losses would be allocable to us relative to the capital that we contributed to it as general partner. Based on the fair market values as of December 31, 2015, there would have been no net loss sharing obligation. If the vehicles were liquidated at zero value, the net loss sharing obligation would have been zero as of December 31, 2015.

Prior to the KPE Transaction in 2009, certain of our principals who received carried interest distributions with respect to certain private equity funds contributed to us had personally guaranteed, on a several basis and subject to a cap, the contingent obligations of the general partners of such private equity funds to repay amounts to fund investors pursuant to the general partners’ clawback obligations. The terms of the KPE Transaction require that our principals remain responsible for any clawback obligations relating to carry distributions received prior to the KPE Transaction, up to a maximum of $223.6 million. Through investment realizations, this amount has been reduced to $159.7 million as of December 31, 2015. Using valuations as of December 31, 2015, no amounts are due with respect to the clawback obligation required to be funded by our principals. Carry distributions arising subsequent to the KPE Transaction may give rise to clawback obligations that may be allocated generally to us and our principals who participate in the carry pool. Unlike the clawback obligation, we will be responsible for amounts due under a net loss sharing obligation and will indemnify our principals for any personal guarantees that they have provided with respect to such amounts. In addition, guarantees of or similar arrangements relating to clawback or net loss sharing obligations in favor of third party investors in an individual investment partnership by entities we own may limit distributions of carried interest more generally.

Our earnings and cash flow are highly variable due to the nature of our business and we do not intend to provide earnings guidance, each of which may cause the value of interests in our business to be volatile.

Our earnings are highly variable from quarter to quarter due to the volatility of investment returns of most of our funds, other investment vehicles and our principal assets and the fees earned from our businesses. We recognize earnings on investments in our funds based on our allocable share of realized and unrealized gains (or losses) reported by such funds and for certain of our recent funds, when a performance hurdle is achieved. During times of market volatility, as we are presently experiencing, the fair value of our funds and our principal assets are more variable, and as publicly traded equity securities currently represent a higher proportion of the assets of many of our funds and principal assets than in the prior year, volatility in the equity markets may have a greater impact on our reported results than in the past. See also "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition & Results of Operations--Critical Accounting Policies -- Fair Value Measurements" for a

discussion of the impact of equity markets on the value of private equity investments. A decline in realized or unrealized gains, a failure to achieve a performance hurdle or an increase in realized or unrealized losses, would adversely affect our net income.

Fee income, which we recognize when contractually earned, can vary due to fluctuations in AUM, the number of investment transactions made by our funds, the number of portfolio companies we manage, the fee provisions contained in our funds and other investment products and transactions by our capital markets business. In any particular quarter, fee income may vary significantly due to the receipt of termination fees or fees received by our Capital Markets business from syndications, in particular large equity syndications. While these events occur periodically, they generally do not occur every quarter and their size and frequency are variable. Fees and Other for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015 were $762.5 million and $1,110.0 million and $1,043.8 million, respectively. We may create new funds or investment products or vary the terms of our funds or investment products (for example our newer funds include performance hurdles), which may alter the composition or mix of our income from time to time. We may also experience fluctuations in our results from quarter to quarter, including our revenue and net income, due to a number of other factors, including changes in the values of our funds’ investments, changes in the amount of distributions or interest earned in respect of investments, changes in our operating expenses, the degree to which we encounter competition and general economic and market conditions. In addition, our earnings and cash flows are dependent in part on the performance of KFN, a specialty finance company that we acquired in 2014, and is subject to the risks to KFN’s businesses as described elsewhere in the report. Although KFN is a subsidiary of KKR, KFN has its own indebtedness and preferred shares outstanding. The terms of its indebtedness and preferred shares impose limitations on KFN’s current and future operations and may restrict its ability to make distributions to KKR. Net income (loss) attributable to KKR & Co. L.P. for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015 was $691.2 million, $477.6 million and $488.5 million, respectively. Such fluctuations may lead to variability in the value of interests in our business and cause our results for a particular period not to be indicative of our performance in future periods. It may be difficult for us to achieve steady growth in net income and cash flow on a quarterly basis, which could in turn lead to large adverse movements in the value of interests in our business.

The timing and receipt of carried interest from our investment funds are unpredictable and will contribute to the volatility of our cash flows. For example, with respect to our private equity funds, carried interest is distributed to the general partner of a private equity fund with a clawback or net loss sharing provision only after all of the following are met: (i) a realization event has occurred (e.g., sale of a portfolio company, dividend, etc.); (ii) the vehicle has achieved positive overall investment returns since its inception, in excess of performance hurdles where applicable; and (iii) with respect to investments with a fair value below cost, cost has been returned to fund investors in an amount sufficient to reduce remaining cost to the investments’ fair value. Carried interest payments from investments depend on our funds’ performance and opportunities for realizing gains, which may be limited. It takes a substantial period of time to identify attractive investment opportunities, to raise all the funds needed to make an investment and then to realize the cash value (or other proceeds) of an investment through a sale, public offering or other exit. To the extent an investment is not profitable, no carried interest will be received from our funds with respect to that investment and, to the extent such investment remains unprofitable, we will only be entitled to a management fee on that investment. Furthermore, certain vehicles and separately managed accounts may not provide for the payment of any carried interest at all. Even if an investment proves to be profitable, it may be several years before any profits can be realized in cash. We cannot predict when, or if, any realization of investments will occur. In addition, if finance providers, such as commercial and investment banks, make it difficult for potential purchasers to secure financing to purchase companies in our investment funds’ portfolio, it may decrease potential realization events and the potential to earn carried interest. A downturn in the equity markets would also make it more difficult to exit investments by selling equity securities. If we were to have a realization event in a particular quarter, the event may have a significant impact on our cash flows during the quarter that may not be replicated in subsequent quarters. A decline in realized or unrealized gains, or an increase in realized or unrealized losses, would adversely affect our investment income, which could further increase the volatility of our quarterly results.

The timing and receipt of carried interest also varies with the life cycle of certain of our funds. Our carry paying funds that have completed their investment periods and are able to realize mature investments, sometimes referred to as being in a harvesting period, are more likely to make larger distributions than our carry paying funds that are in their fund raising or investment periods that precede the harvesting period. During times when a significant portion of our assets under management is attributable to carry paying funds that are not in their harvesting periods, we may receive substantially lower carried interest distributions.

In addition, with respect to certain of the funds that we advise, such as hedge funds and fund of funds, we are entitled to incentive fees that are generally paid annually in June and December if the net asset value of a fund has increased over a certain pre‑determined hurdle rate or a specified high‑water mark. These funds generally also have “high‑water mark” provisions whereby if the funds have experienced losses in prior periods, we will not be able to earn incentive fees with respect to a fund investor’s account until the net asset value of the fund investor’s account exceeds the highest period end value on which incentive fees were previously paid. The incentive fees we earn are therefore dependent on the net asset value of these funds or

vehicles, which could lead to volatility in our quarterly results and cash flow. Fees, including incentive fees, from KFN have been eliminated upon the completion of the KFN merger on a segment basis.

A decline in the pace or size of investment by our funds, or a change in the terms governing transaction fees, management fees or monitoring fees would result in our receiving less revenue from fees.

The transaction and management or monitoring fees that we earn are driven in part by the pace at which our funds make investments and the size of those investments. Any decline in that pace or the size of investments would reduce our revenue from transaction and management or monitoring fees. Likewise, during an attractive selling environment, our funds may capitalize on increased opportunities to exit investments. Any increase in the pace at which our funds exit investments, if not offset by new commitments and investments, would reduce future management fees. Many factors could cause such a decline in the pace of investment or the transaction and management or monitoring fees we receive, including:

•	the inability of our investment professionals to identify attractive investment opportunities;

•	competition for such opportunities among other potential acquirers;

•	decreased availability of capital or financing on attractive terms;

•	our failure to consummate identified investment opportunities because of business, regulatory or legal complexities and adverse developments in the U.S. or global economy or financial markets;

•	terms we may agree with or provide to our fund investors or investors in separately managed accounts with respect to fees such as increasing the percentage of transaction or other fees we may share with our fund investors; and

•	new regulations, guidance or other actions provided or taken by regulatory authorities.

Our inability to raise additional or successor funds (or raise successor funds of a comparable size as our predecessor funds) could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Our current private equity funds and certain other funds and investment vehicles have a finite life and a finite amount of commitments from fund investors. Once a fund nears the end of its investment period, our success depends on our ability to raise additional or successor funds in order to keep making investments and, over the long term, earning management fees (although our funds and investment vehicles generally continue to earn management fees at a reduced fee rate after the expiration of their investment periods). Even if we are successful in raising successor funds, to the extent we are unable to raise successor funds of a comparable size to our predecessor funds or the extent that we are delayed in raising such a successor fund, our revenues may decrease as the investment period of our predecessor funds expire and associated fees decrease. For example, KKR North America Fund XI and European IV are smaller than their respective predecessor funds . The performance of our funds also impacts our ability to raise capital, and deterioration in the performance of our funds would result in challenges to future fundraising. The evolving preferences of our fund investors may necessitate that alternatives to the traditional investment fund structure, such as managed accounts, smaller funds and co‑investment vehicles, become a larger part of our business going forward. This could increase our cost of raising capital at the scale we have historically achieved. Furthermore, in order to raise capital for new strategies and products without drawing capital away from our existing products, we will need to seek new sources of capital such as individual investors.

To raise new funds and pursue new strategies, we have and expect to continue to use the capital from our balance sheet, which may decrease the liquidity available for other parts of our business. In addition if a new strategy or fund does not develop as anticipated and such assets are not ultimately transferred to a fund, we may be forced to realize losses on these retained assets. Institutional investors in funds that have suffered from decreasing returns, liquidity pressure, increased volatility or difficulty maintaining targeted asset allocations, may materially decrease or temporarily suspend making new fund investments. Such investors may elect to reduce their overall portfolio allocations to alternative investments such as private equity funds, resulting in a smaller overall pool of available capital in our industry. In addition, the asset allocation rules or regulations or investment policies to which such third‑party investors are subject, could inhibit or restrict the ability of third‑party investors to make investments in our investment funds. Coupled with a lack of distributions from their existing investment portfolios, many of these investors may have been left with disproportionately outsized remaining commitments to, and invested capital in, a number of investment funds, which may significantly limit their ability to make new commitments to third‑party managed investment funds such as those advised by us.

Fund investors may also seek to redeploy capital away from certain of our credit vehicles, hedge fund, fund of funds, registered investment products or other investment vehicles, which permit redemptions on relatively short notice in order to meet liquidity needs or invest in other asset classes. We believe that our ability to avoid excessive redemption levels primarily depends on our funds’ continued satisfactory performance, although redemptions may also be driven by other factors important to our fund investors, including their need for liquidity and compliance with investment mandates, even if our performance is superior. Investors' liquidity needs tend to be more pronounced during periods of market volatility, as at present. Any such redemptions would decrease our AUM and revenues. Investors may also deploy capital away from funds of funds if they deem this asset class’s fee structure unattractive relative to the fees of other alternative products.

In addition, the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd Frank Act, under what has become known as the “Volcker Rule,” broadly prohibits depository institution holding companies (including foreign banks with U.S. branches, agencies or commercial lending companies and certain insurance companies), insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries and controlled affiliates, or "banking entities," from investing in “covered funds,” including third party private equity funds like ours. Final regulations implementing the Volcker Rule were approved by the federal banking agencies, the SEC and the CFTC on December 10, 2013, although there is still some uncertainty regarding the implementation of the Volcker Rule and the final regulations and their practical implications. Although banking entities are expected to have until July 21, 2017 to conform their covered fund investments and relationships that were in place prior to December 31, 2013 to the requirements of the final regulations ( and may have until July 21, 2022 to conform investments in a private equity fund that qualifies as an "illiquid fund"), U.S. banking entities will be limited in their ability to undertake new contractual commitments to private equity funds like ours. Foreign banking entities may be able to continue to invest in private equity funds like ours under a Volcker Rule exemption for covered fund activities and investment that occur solely outside of the United States.

Banking entities have historically represented an important class of investors for our funds, with financial institutions constituting approximately 16% of our AUM as of December 31, 2015, and it is possible that other institutions will not be available to replace this traditional source of capital for our private equity funds. Furthermore, divestitures by banking entities of interests in private equity funds and hedge funds over the next several years to comply with the Volcker Rule may lead to lower prices in the secondary market for our fund interests, which could have adverse implications for our ability to raise funds from investors who may have considered the availability of secondary market liquidity as a factor in determining whether to invest. In addition to federal law, changes in state and local law may limit investment activities of state pension plans and insurance companies.

The number of funds raising capital varies from year to year, and in years where relatively few funds are raising capital, the growth of our AUM, FPAUM and associated fees may be significantly lower. For example, for the year ended December 31, 2015, our AUM increased to $119.5 billion of which $19.9 billion was attributable to new capital raised, while AUM as of December 31, 2014 on an adjusted basis was $107.1 billion of which $13.3 billion was attributable to new capital raised. We had several successful fundraises in 2015 for newer strategies such as European real estate, infrastructure, direct lending, mezzanine and special situations, there is no assurance that fundraises for other new strategies or successor funds will experience similar success in the future.

Our investors in future funds, including separately managed accounts, may negotiate to pay us lower management fees or reimburse us for fewer expenses and the economic terms of our future funds may be less favorable to us than those of our existing funds, which could adversely affect our revenues or profitability.

In connection with raising new funds or securing additional investments in existing funds, we negotiate terms for such funds and investments with investors. The outcome of such negotiations could result in our agreement to terms that are materially less favorable to us than the terms of prior funds we have advised or funds advised by our competitors. For example, such terms could restrict our ability to raise investment funds with investment objectives or strategies that compete with existing funds, reduce fee revenues we earn, reduce the percentage of profits on third‑party capital in which we share, include a performance hurdle that requires us to generate a specified return on investment prior to our right to receive carried interest or add expenses and obligations for us in managing the fund or increase our potential liabilities. For example our newer private equity funds, including North America Fund XI, Asian Fund II and European Fund IV, include a performance hurdle that requires us to generate a 7% return on investment prior to receiving our share of fund gains. Furthermore, as institutional investors increasingly consolidate their relationships with investment firms and competition becomes more acute, we may receive more of these requests to modify the terms in our new funds. Certain of our newer funds also include more favorable terms for fund investors that commit to early closes for our funds. Additionally, in certain funds, we have agreed to charge management fees based on invested capital or net asset value as opposed to charging management fees based on committed capital. In certain cases, we have provided “fee holidays” to certain investors in which we do not charge management fees for a fixed period of time (such as the first six months). Agreement to terms that are materially less favorable to us could result in a decrease in our profitability.

Certain institutional investors have also publicly criticized certain fund fee and expense structures, including monitoring fees and transaction and advisory fees. We have received and expect to continue to receive requests from a variety of fund investors and groups representing such investors to decrease fees and to modify our carried interest and incentive fee structures, which could result in a reduction or delay in the timing of receipt of the fees and carried interest and incentive fees we earn. The SEC has also recently focused on certain fund fees and expenses, including whether such fees and expenses were appropriately disclosed to limited partners, which may cause fund investor resistance to our receipt of fees and /expenses be reimbursed to us. In our newer flagship private equity funds, we have increased the percentage of transaction and monitoring fees that are credited against fund management fees to as much as 100% of the amount of the transaction and monitoring fee attributable to that fund. In September of 2009, the Institutional Limited Partners Association, or “ILPA,” published a set of Private Equity Principles, or the “Principles,” which were revised in January 2011. The Principles were developed in order to encourage discussion between limited partners and general partners regarding private equity fund partnership terms. Certain of the Principles call for enhanced alignment of interests between general partners and limited partners through modifications of some of the terms of fund arrangements, including proposed guidelines for fees and carried interest structures. We provided ILPA our endorsement of the Principles, representing an indication of our general support for the efforts of ILPA.

In addition, certain institutional investors, including sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds, have demonstrated an increased preference for alternatives to the traditional investment fund structure, such as managed accounts, specialized funds and co‑investment vehicles. We also have entered into strategic partnerships with individual investors whereby we manage that investor’s capital across a variety of our products on separately negotiated terms. There can be no assurance that such alternatives will be as profitable to us as the traditional investment fund structure, and the impact such a trend could have on our results of operations, if widely implemented, is unclear. Moreover, certain institutional investors are demonstrating a preference to in‑source their own investment professionals and to make direct investments in alternative assets without the assistance of investment advisers like us. Such institutional investors may become our competitors and could cease to be our clients.

Any agreement to or changes in terms less favorable to us could adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

The investment management business is intensely competitive, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We compete as an investment manager for both fund investors and investment opportunities. The investment management business is highly fragmented, with our competitors consisting primarily of sponsors of public and private investment funds, real estate development companies, business development companies, investment banks, commercial finance companies and operating companies acting as strategic buyers of businesses. We believe that competition for fund investors is based primarily on:

•	investment performance;

•	investor liquidity and willingness to invest;

•	investor perception of investment managers’ drive, focus and alignment of interest;

•	business reputation;

•	the duration of relationships with fund investors;

•	the quality of services provided to fund investors;

•	pricing;

•	fund terms (including fees); and

•	the relative attractiveness of the types of investments that have been or will be made.

We believe that competition for investment opportunities is based primarily on the pricing, terms and structure of a proposed investment and certainty of execution.

A number of factors serve to increase our competitive risks:

•	a number of our competitors in some of our businesses may have greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources and more personnel than we do, and, in the case of some asset classes, longer operating histories, more established relationships or greater experience;

•	fund investors may materially decrease their allocations in new funds due to their experiences following an economic downturn, the limited availability of capital, regulatory requirements or a desire to consolidate their relationships with investment firms;

•	some of our competitors may have better expertise or be regarded by fund investors as having better expertise in a specific asset class or geographic region than we do;

•	some of our competitors have agreed to terms on their investment funds or products that may be more favorable to fund investors than our funds or products, such as lower management fees, greater fee sharing, or performance hurdles for carried interest, and therefore we may be forced to match or otherwise revise our terms to be less favorable to us than they have been in the past;

•	some of our funds may not perform as well as competitors’ funds or other available investment products;

•	our competitors have raised or may raise significant amounts of capital, and many of them have similar investment objectives and strategies to our funds, which may create additional competition for investment opportunities and may reduce the size and duration of pricing inefficiencies that many alternative investment strategies seek to exploit;

•	some of these competitors may also have a lower cost of capital and access to funding sources that are not available to us, which may create competitive disadvantages for us with respect to investment opportunities;

•	some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances, different risk assessments or lower return thresholds, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments and to bid more aggressively than us for investments;

•	some of our competitors may be subject to less regulation or less regulatory scrutiny and accordingly may have more flexibility to undertake and execute certain businesses or investments than we do and/or bear less expense to comply with such regulations than we do;

•	there are relatively few barriers to entry impeding the formation of new funds, including a relatively low cost of entering these businesses, and the successful efforts of new entrants into our various lines of business, including major commercial and investment banks and other financial institutions, have resulted in increased competition;

•	some fund investors may prefer to invest with an investment manager that is not publicly traded, is smaller, or manages fewer investment products; and

•	other industry participants will from time to time seek to recruit our investment professionals and other employees away from us.

We may lose investment opportunities in the future if we do not match investment prices, structures and terms offered by competitors. Our competitors that are corporate buyers may be able to achieve synergistic cost savings in respect of an investment, which may provide them with a competitive advantage in bidding for an investment. Alternatively, we may experience decreased investment returns and increased risks of loss if we match investment prices, structures and terms offered by competitors. Moreover, as a result, if we are forced to compete with other investment firms on the basis of price, we may not be able to maintain our current fund fee, carried interest or other terms. There is a risk that fees and carried interest in the alternative investment management industry will decline, without regard to the historical performance of a manager. Fee or carried interest income reductions on existing or future funds, without corresponding decreases in our cost structure, would adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

In addition, if interest rates were to rise or if market conditions for competing investment products become or are favorable and such products begin to offer rates of return superior to those achieved by our funds, the attractiveness of our funds relative to investments in other investment products could decrease. This competitive pressure could adversely affect our ability to make successful investments and limit our ability to raise future funds, either of which would adversely impact our business, results of operations and cash flow.

Our structure involves complex provisions of U.S. federal income tax laws for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. These structures also are subject to potential legislative, judicial or administrative change and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.

The U.S. federal income tax treatment of our unitholders depends in some instances on determinations of fact and interpretations of complex provisions of U.S. federal income tax laws for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. The U.S. federal income tax rules are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, frequently resulting in revised interpretations of established concepts, statutory changes, revisions to regulations and other modifications and interpretations. The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of owning our common units may be modified by administrative, legislative or judicial interpretation at any time, and any such action may affect investments and commitments previously made. The maintenance of the structure and tax attributes of the KKR Group Partnerships, which comprise our businesses, requires significant monitoring and resources. Failure to maintain this structure could result in material adverse tax consequences. Our organizational documents and agreements give the Managing Partner broad authority to modify the amended and restated partnership agreement from time to time as the Managing Partner determines to be necessary or appropriate, without the consent of the unitholders, to address changes in U.S. federal, state and local income tax regulations, legislation or interpretation. In some circumstances, such revisions could have a material adverse impact on some or all unitholders.

The U.S. Congress has considered legislation that would have (i) in some cases after a ten‑year period, precluded us from qualifying as a partnership or required us to hold carried interest through taxable subsidiary corporations and (ii) taxed certain income and gains at increased rates. If any similar legislation were to be enacted and apply to us, the after‑tax income and gain related to our business, as well as the market price of our units, could be reduced.

In the past, a number of legislative and administrative proposals have been introduced and, in certain cases, have been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, that would have, in general, treated all or a portion of our carried interest as income subject to a tax rate that is higher than under current law. It is unclear when or whether the U.S. Congress will pass such legislation or what provisions will be included in any legislation, if enacted.

Some legislative and administrative proposals have provided that, for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment (or in some cases, beginning ten years after the date of enactment), income derived with respect to carried interest would not meet the qualifying income requirements under the publicly traded partnership rules. Therefore, if similar legislation is enacted, following such enactment (or such ten‑year period), we would be precluded from qualifying as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we were taxed as a U.S. corporation, our effective tax rate would increase significantly. The federal statutory rate for corporations is currently 35%. In addition, we could be subject to increased state and local taxes. Furthermore, you could be subject to tax on our conversion into a corporation.

States and other jurisdictions have also considered legislation to increase taxes with respect to carried interest. For example, New York has periodically considered legislation under which you could be subject to New York state income tax on income in respect of our common units as a result of certain activities of our affiliates in New York, although it is unclear when or whether such legislation will be enacted.

If the proposed legislation described above or any similar legislation were to be enacted and apply to us, the after‑tax income and gain related to our business, our ability to fund cash distributions, as well as the market price of our units, could be reduced.

Additional proposed changes in the U.S. and foreign taxation of businesses could adversely affect us.

The U.S. Congress, the Organization for Economic Co‑operation and Development (or, OECD) and other government agencies in jurisdictions in which we and our affiliates invest or do business have maintained a focus on issues related to the taxation of multinational companies. The OECD is contemplating changes to numerous long‑standing tax principles through its base erosion and profit shifting (or, BEPS) project, which is focused on a number of issues, including the distribution of profits between affiliated entities in different tax jurisdictions. Additionally, the Obama administration has announced other proposals for potential reform to the U.S. federal income tax rules for businesses, including reducing the deductibility of interest for corporations, reducing the top marginal rate on corporations and subjecting entities, like many of our entities, currently treated as partnerships for tax purposes to an entity‑level income tax similar to the corporate income tax. A number of European jurisdictions have enacted taxes on financial transactions, and the European Commission has proposed legislation to harmonize these taxes under the so-called "enhanced cooperation procedure", which provides for adoption of EU-level legislation applicable to some but not all EU Member States. Several of these proposals for reform, if enacted by the U.S. or by other countries in which we or our affiliates invest or do business, could adversely affect our investment returns and could reduce the

cash we have available for distributions to unitholders or for other uses by us. It is unclear what any actual legislation could provide, when it would be proposed or what its prospects for enactment could be.

We depend on our founders and other key personnel, the loss of whose services could have a material adverse effect on our business, results and financial condition.

We depend on the efforts, skills, reputations and business contacts of our employees, including our founders, Henry Kravis and George Roberts, and other key personnel, the information and deal flow they and others generate during the normal course of their activities and the synergies among the diverse fields of expertise and knowledge held by our professionals. Accordingly, our success depends on the continued service of these individuals, who are not obligated to remain employed with us. The loss of the services of any of them could have a material adverse effect on our revenues, net income and cash flows and could harm our ability to maintain or grow AUM in existing funds or raise additional funds in the future.

Our employees and other key personnel possess substantial experience and expertise and have strong business relationships with investors in our funds and other members of the business community. As a result, the loss of these personnel could jeopardize our relationships with investors in our funds and members of the business community and result in the reduction of AUM or fewer investment opportunities. For example, if any of our principals were to join or form a competing firm, our business, results and financial condition could suffer.

Furthermore, the agreements governing our committed capital funds generally provide that in the event certain “key persons” (for example, both of Messrs. Kravis and Roberts for our private equity funds, and, in the case of certain geographically or product focused funds, one or more of the executives focused on such funds) generally cease to actively manage a fund or be substantially involved in KKR activities, investors in the fund will be entitled to reduce, in whole or in part, their capital commitments available for further investments on an investor‑by‑investor basis. In the case of certain of our fully paid-up funds, investors may be permitted to terminate their investment in the event a "key persons" provision is triggered, which could possibly lead to a liquidation of those funds. In addition, the occurrence of such a "key person" event could cause us to agree to less favorable ongoing terms with respect to the affected fund. The occurrence of such an event would likely have a significant negative impact on our revenue, net income and cash flow.

If we cannot retain and motivate our principals and other key personnel and recruit, retain and motivate new employees and other key personnel, our business, results and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Our most important asset is our people, and our continued success is highly dependent upon the efforts of our employees and other key personnel, and to a substantial degree on our ability to retain and motivate our employees and other key personnel and to strategically recruit, retain and motivate new talented employees, including qualified investment professionals. However, we may not be successful in these efforts as the market for qualified investment professionals is extremely competitive. Our ability to recruit, retain and motivate our employees is dependent on our ability to offer highly attractive incentive opportunities. If previously proposed legislation regarding the increased taxation of carried interest were to be enacted, income and gains recognized with respect to carried interest would be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as ordinary income rather than as capital gain. Such legislation would materially increase the amount of taxes that we, our employees and other key personnel would be required to pay, thereby adversely affecting our ability to offer such attractive incentive opportunities. See “-Risks Related to U.S. Taxation”. Similarly, changes in the United Kingdom with respect to the taxation of carried interest, including the proposal to tax certain carried interest returns as income from April 6, 2016 would impact our ability to recruit, retain and motivate employees and key personnel in the United Kingdom. In addition, there have been proposed laws and regulations that sought to regulate the compensation of certain of our employees. See “-Extensive Regulation of our business affects our activities and creates the potential for significant liabilities and penalties.” The possibility of increased regulatory focus or legislative or regulatory changes could result in additional burdens on our business.” The loss of even a small number of our investment professionals could jeopardize the performance of our funds and other investment products, which would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Efforts to retain or attract employees, including our investment professionals, may result in significant additional expenses, which could adversely affect our profitability.

Many of our employees hold interests in our business through KKR Holdings. These individuals historically received financial benefits from our business in the form of distributions and amounts funded by KKR Holdings and through their direct and indirect participation in the value of KKR Group Partnership Units held by KKR Holdings. While all of our employees receive base salaries from us, annual cash bonuses for certain employees currently are borne by KKR Holdings from cash reserves based upon distributions on a portion of KKR Group Partnership Units held by KKR Holdings. In 2015, the amount of such annual cash bonuses paid by KKR Holdings L.P. was $74.6 million. Effective with the distribution to be paid on March 8, 2016, with respect to the quarter ending December 31, 2015, KKR has changed its distribution policy. Under the new distribution policy, KKR intends to make equal quarterly distributions to holders of its common units in an amount of $0.16 per common unit per quarter. To the extent that distributions are made on KKR Group Partnership Units underlying any unvested

KKR Holdings units, such amounts under the new distribution policy would be insufficient to fund annual cash bonus compensation. We, therefore, expect to pay an increasing portion and eventually all of the cash bonus payments from other sources, including cash from our operations and the carry pool. As a result, either our profit margins or our employee retention or both may be adversely impacted. There can be no assurance that the carry pool will have sufficient cash available to continue to make such cash payments in the future and fluctuations from the distributions generated from the carry pool, if not offset by compensation from other sources, could render our compensation less attractive. In any of these circumstances, a higher percentage of our revenue may be paid out in the form of cash compensation, which would be expected to have an adverse impact on our profit margins.

Moreover, in connection with the KPE Transaction, we made large grants of KKR Holdings units that vested in installments over a five year period commencing October 1, 2009 and that completely vested on October 1, 2014, subject to certain transfer restrictions. We have granted and expect to grant equity awards from our Equity Incentive Plan, which has caused dilution. While we evaluate the grant of equity awards from our Equity Incentive Plan to employees on an annual basis, the size of the grants, if any, is made at our discretion and is expected to be generally smaller in number of units than the grants of KKR Holdings units made on October 1, 2009 and with service‑based vesting periods generally of approximately three years from date of grant. As we increase the use of equity awards from our Equity Incentive Plan in the future, expense associated with equity based compensation may increase materially. For example, in 2016 we allocated equity awards relating to 13.3 million KKR & Co. L.P. common units, under the Equity Incentive Plan. In 2016 KKR Holdings granted 28.9 million KKR Holdings units to certain senior employees and non-employee operating consultants. Such grants are subject to price vesting conditions in addition to service-based vesting conditions, which may make such grants a less effective retention mechanism if the price vesting condition is not achieved. See "Executive Compensation--Compensation Discussion and Analysis--Compensation Elements--KKR Holdings Market Condition Awards" for the terms and conditions of such KKR Holdings units. The value of the KKR Holdings units and common units may drop in value or be volatile, which may make our equity less attractive to our employees. In July 2015, the SEC also proposed rules requiring companies to develop and enforce recovery policies that in the event of an accounting restatement, “claw back” from current and former executive officers incentive-based compensation they would not have received based on the restatement. If such rules are adopted as proposed and are deemed applicable to any component of our compensation, the effectiveness of our compensation as a retention mechanism may be further reduced. In addition, less carried interest from the carry pool may be allocated to certain of our employees, which may result in less cash payments to such employees. To the extent our equity incentive or carry pool programs are not effective, we may be limited in our ability to attract, retain and motivate talented employees and other key personnel and we may need to increase the level of cash compensation that we pay.

In addition, there is no guarantee that the confidentiality and restrictive covenant agreements to which our employees and other key personnel are subject, together with our other arrangements with them, will prevent them from leaving us, joining our competitors or otherwise competing with us. Depending on which entity is a party to these agreements and/or the laws applicable to them, we may not be able to enforce them or become subject to lawsuits or other claims, and certain of these agreements might be waived, modified or amended at any time without our consent. Even when enforceable, these agreements expire after a certain period of time, at which point each of our employees and other key personnel are in any event free to compete against us and solicit our fund investors and employees. See “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence-Confidentiality and Restrictive Covenant Agreements.”

We strive to maintain a work environment that reinforces our culture of collaboration, motivation and alignment of interests with fund investors. If we do not continue to develop and implement the right processes and tools to manage our changing enterprise and maintain our culture, our ability to compete successfully and achieve our business objectives could be impaired, which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Operational risks and data security breaches may disrupt our businesses, result in losses or limit our growth.

We rely heavily on our financial, accounting and other data processing systems. If any of these systems do not operate properly or are disabled, we could suffer financial loss, a disruption of our businesses, liability to our funds, regulatory intervention or reputational damage. In addition, we operate in businesses that are highly dependent on information systems and technology. For example, we face operational risk from errors made in the execution, confirmation or settlement of transactions. We also face operational risk from transactions not being properly recorded, evaluated or accounted for in our funds. In particular, our Public Markets business is highly dependent on our ability to process and evaluate, on a daily basis, transactions across markets and geographies in a time-sensitive, efficient and accurate manner. Our information systems and technology may not continue to be able to accommodate our growth, may not be suitable for new products and strategies and may be subject to security risks, and the cost of maintaining such systems may increase from our current level. Such a failure to accommodate growth, or an increase in costs related to such information systems, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, we depend on our principal offices in New York City, where most of our administrative personnel are

located, and technology and infrastructure concentrated in New York City and other offices for the continued operation of our business. We are also dependent on an increasingly concentrated group of third party vendors that we do not control for hosting solutions and technologies. A disaster or a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our businesses, including a disruption involving electronic communications or other services used by us, our vendors or third parties with whom we conduct business, or directly affecting our principal offices, could have a material adverse impact on our ability to continue to operate our business without interruption. Our business continuation or disaster recovery programs may not be sufficient to mitigate the harm that may result from such a disaster or disruption. In addition, insurance and other safeguards might only partially reimburse us for our losses, if at all.

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. We face various security threats on a regular basis, including ongoing cyber security threats to and attacks on our information technology infrastructure that are intended to gain access to our proprietary information, destroy data or disable, degrade or sabotage our systems. Although we take protective measures and endeavor to modify them as circumstances warrant, our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, theft, misuse, computer viruses or other malicious code, and other events that could have a security impact. We and our employees may be the target of fraudulent emails. The costs related to cyber or other security threats or disruptions may not be fully insured or indemnified by other means. In addition, cyber security has become a top priority for regulators around the world. If one or more of such events occur, this potentially could jeopardize our or our fund investors’ or counterparties’ confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, our fund investors’, our counterparties’ or third parties’ operations, which could result in significant losses, increased costs, disruption of our business, liability to our fund investors and other counter-parties, regulatory intervention or reputational damage. Finally, we rely on third party service providers for certain aspects of our business, including for certain information systems, technology, administration, tax and compliance matters. Any interruption or deterioration in the performance of these third parties could impair the quality of our and our funds’ operations and could impact our reputation and adversely affect our businesses and limit our ability to grow.

Our portfolio companies also rely on data processing systems and the secure processing, storage and transmission of information, including payment and health information. A disruption or compromise of these systems could have a material adverse effect on the value of these businesses. Our funds may invest in strategic assets having a national or regional profile or in infrastructure assets, the nature of which could expose them to a greater risk of being subject to a terrorist attack or security breach than other assets or businesses. Such an event may have adverse consequences on our investment or assets of the same type or may require portfolio companies to increase preventative security measures or expand insurance coverage.

Our organizational documents do not limit our ability to enter into new lines of businesses, and we may expand into new investment strategies, geographic markets and businesses, each of which may result in additional risks and uncertainties in our businesses.

We intend, to the extent that market conditions warrant, to seek to grow our businesses by increasing AUM in existing businesses, pursuing new investment strategies, including investment opportunities in new asset classes, developing new types of investment structures and products (such as managed accounts and structured products), and expanding into new geographic markets and businesses. We have in the past opened offices in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, and also developed a capital markets business in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific, which we intend to grow and diversify. We have also launched a number of new investment initiatives in areas such as real estate, energy, infrastructure, hedge funds and growth equity.

Our organic growth strategy focuses on providing resources to foster the development of new product offerings and business strategies by our investment professionals and launching successor and related products, such that our new strategies achieve a level of scale and profitability. Given our diverse platform, these initiatives could create conflicts of interests with existing products, increase our costs and expose us to new market risks, and legal and regulatory requirements. The success of our organic growth strategy will also depend on, among other things, our ability to correctly identify and create products that appeal to the limited partners of our funds and vehicles. While we have made significant expenditures to develop these new strategies and products, there is no assurance that they will achieve a satisfactory level of scale and profitability. We have and may continue to pursue growth through acquisitions of other investment management companies, acquisitions of critical business partners, strategic partnerships or other strategic initiatives, which may include entering into new lines of business. In addition, we expect opportunities will arise to acquire other alternative or traditional investment managers. For example, we have built and expanded our hedge fund solutions business with the acquisition of Prisma and expanded our European credit business with our acquisition of Avoca. We have also made minority investments in hedge fund managers, and we have entered into joint ventures with third parties to participate in new real estate investment strategies. To the extent we make strategic

investments or acquisitions, undertake other strategic initiatives or enter into a new line of business, we will face numerous risks and uncertainties, including risks associated with:

•	our ability to successfully negotiate and enter into beneficial arrangements with our counterparties;

•	the required investment of capital and other resources;

•	the incurrence of substantial transaction-related costs including non-recurring transaction-related costs;

•	delays or failure to complete an acquisition or other transaction in a timely manner or at all due to a failure to obtain shareholder or regulatory approvals or satisfy any other closing conditions, which may subject us to damages or require us to pay significant costs;

•	lawsuits challenging an acquisition or unfavorable judgments in such lawsuits, which may prevent the closing of the transaction, cause delays, or require us to incur substantial costs including in costs associated with the indemnification of directors;

•	the possibility that we have insufficient expertise to engage in such activities profitably or without incurring inappropriate amounts of risk or liability or have not appropriately planned for such activities;

•	the possibility of diversion of management’s time and attention from our core business;

•	the possibility of disruption of our ongoing business;

•	the failure to realize the anticipated benefits from an acquired business or strategic partnership in a timely manner, if at all;

•	combining, integrating or developing operational and management systems and controls including an acquired business’s internal controls and procedures;

•	integration of the businesses including the employees of an acquired business;

•	potential increase in concentration of the investors in our funds;

•	disagreements with joint venture partners or other stakeholders in strategic partnerships;

•	the additional business risks of the acquired business and the broadening of our geographic footprint, including the risks associated with conducting operations in foreign jurisdictions such as taxation;

•	properly managing conflicts of interests;

•	our ability to obtain requisite regulatory approvals and licenses without undue cost or delay and without being required to comply with material restrictions or material conditions that would be detrimental to us or to the combined organization; and

•	regulatory scrutiny or litigation exposure due to the activities of the third party hedge fund managers or joint venture partners.

Entry into certain lines of business may subject us to new laws and regulations with which we are not familiar, or from which we are currently exempt, and may lead to increased litigation and regulatory risk and costs. If a new business generates insufficient revenues or if we are unable to efficiently manage our expanded operations, our results of operations will be adversely affected. Our strategic initiatives include joint ventures or the acquisition of minority interests in third parties, in which case we will be subject to additional risks and uncertainties in that we may be dependent upon, and subject to liability, losses or reputational damage relating to, systems, controls and personnel that are not under our control.

We may not be successful in executing upon or managing the complexities of new investment strategies, markets and businesses, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our growth strategy is based, in part, on the expansion of our platform through selective investment in, and development or acquisition of, businesses and investment strategies complementary to our business. The expansion into new products and geographies has demanded greater management attention and dedication of resources to manage the increasing complexity of operations and regulatory compliance. This growth strategy involves a number of risks, including the risk that the expected

synergies from a newly developed product or strategic alliance will not be realized, that the expected results will not be achieved, that new strategies are not appropriately planned for or integrated into the firm, that the new strategies may conflict, detract from or compete against our existing businesses, that the investment process, controls and procedures that we have developed around our existing platform will prove insufficient or inadequate or that our information systems and technology, including related security systems, may prove to be inadequate. We have also entered into strategic partnerships and separately managed accounts, which lack the scale of our traditional funds and are more costly to administer. The prevalence of these accounts may also present conflicts and introduce complexity in the deployment of capital. The offering of investment products to retail investors, including any funds registered under the Investment Company Act, may result in increased compliance and litigation costs. We may also incur significant charges in connection with such investments, which ultimately may result in significant losses and costs. Such losses could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition, as well as do harm to our professional reputation.

If we are unable to syndicate the securities or indebtedness or realize returns on investments financed with our balance sheet assets, our liquidity, business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Our balance sheet assets provide us with a significant source of capital to grow and expand our business, increase our participation in our transactions and underwrite commitments in our capital markets business. Our balance sheet assets have provided a source of capital to underwrite loans, securities or other financial instruments, which we generally expect to syndicate to third parties. To the extent that we are unable to do so, we may be required to sell such investments at a significant loss or hold them indefinitely. If we are required to retain investments on our balance sheet for an extended period of time, the inability of our capital markets business to complete additional transactions would impair our results.

We generally have a larger balance sheet than many of our competitors, and consequently, the performance of these balance sheet assets has a greater impact on our results of operations. Our success in deploying our balance sheet and generating returns on this capital will depend among other things on the availability of suitable opportunities after giving priority in investment opportunities to our advised investment funds and accounts, the level of competition from other companies that may have greater financial resources and our ability to value potential development or acquisition opportunities accurately and negotiate acceptable terms for those opportunities. To the extent we are unsuccessful in deploying our balance sheet , our business and financial results may suffer. In addition, as our balance sheet has been a significant source of capital for new strategies, to the extent that such strategies are not successful or our balance sheet assets cease to provide adequate liquidity, we would be limited in our ability to seed new businesses or support our existing business as effectively as contemplated. See also “-If we are unable to consummate or successfully integrate additional development opportunities, acquisitions or joint ventures, we may not be able to implement our growth strategy successfully.”

Extensive regulation of our businesses affects our activities and creates the potential for significant liabilities and penalties. The possibility of increased regulatory focus or legislative or regulatory changes could adversely affect our business.

Our business is subject to extensive regulation, including periodic examinations, inquiries and investigations by governmental and self‑regulatory organizations in the jurisdictions in which we operate around the world. Many of these regulators, including U.S. federal and state and foreign government agencies and self‑regulatory organizations, are empowered to impose fines, suspensions of personnel or other sanctions, including censure, the issuance of cease‑and‑desist orders or the suspension or expulsion of applicable licenses and memberships; any of the foregoing may damage our relations with existing fund investors, may impair our ability to raise capital for successor funds, or may contravene provisions concerning compliance with law in agreements to which we are a party. Even if a sanction is not imposed or the sanction imposed against us or our personnel by a regulator were small in monetary amount, the adverse publicity relating to the regulatory activity or imposition of these sanctions could harm our reputation and cause us to lose existing fund investors or fail to gain new fund investors. In addition, actions by regulators against other investment managers can cause changes in business practices that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In particular, the private equity industry has come under increased regulatory and news media scrutiny with governmental officials and regulators, including the SEC, focusing on the private equity industry’s fees, allocation of expenses to funds, valuation practices, allocation of fund investment opportunities, and disclosures to fund investors. SEC focus areas have recently included the acceleration of monitoring fees, the allocation of broken-deal expenses, the disclosure, use and compensation of operating partners or consultants, outside business activities of firm principals and employees, group purchasing arrangements and general conflicts of interest disclosures.

Any changes in the regulatory framework applicable to our business, including the changes and potential changes described below, as well as adverse news media attention, may impose additional expenses or capital requirements on us, limit our fundraising for our investment products, result in limitations in the manner in which our business is conducted, have an adverse impact upon our financial condition, results of operations, reputation or prospects, impair employee retention or

recruitment and require substantial attention by senior management. It is impossible to determine the extent of the impact of any new laws, regulations, initiatives or regulatory guidance that may be proposed or may become law on our business or the markets in which we operate. If enacted, any new regulation or regulatory framework could negatively impact our funds and us in a number of ways, including increasing our costs and the cost for our funds of investing, borrowing, hedging or operating, increasing the funds’ or our regulatory operating costs, imposing additional burdens on the funds’ or our staff, and potentially requiring the disclosure of sensitive information. In addition, we may be adversely affected by changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules by these governmental authorities and self‑regulatory organizations. New laws or regulations could make compliance more difficult or more expensive, affect the manner in which we conduct business and divert significant management and operational resources and attention from our business. Moreover, we anticipate the potential for an increase in regulatory investigations and new or enhanced reporting requirements of the trading and other investment activities of alternative investment management funds and firms, including our funds and us. Such investigations and reporting obligations will likely impose additional expenses on us, may require the attention of senior management and increase the complexity of managing our business and may result in fines or other sanctions if we or any of our funds are deemed to have violated any law or regulations.

Regulation under the Dodd‑Frank Act. There have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals affecting the financial sector in the United States. In particular, the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd‑Frank Act, that President Obama signed into law on July 21, 2010, created a significant amount of new regulation. Among other things, the Dodd‑Frank Act:

•

established the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC, an inter‑agency body charged with, among other things, designating systemically important nonbank financial companies for heightened prudential supervision and making recommendations regarding the imposition of enhanced regulatory standards regarding capital, leverage, conflicts and other requirements for financial firms deemed to pose a systemic threat to U.S. financial stability;

•

requires private equity and hedge fund advisers to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act (as described elsewhere in this report, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. and its wholly‑owned subsidiaries KKR Credit Advisors (US) LLC and Prisma Capital Partners LP are registered with the SEC as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act), to maintain extensive records and to file reports if deemed necessary for purposes of systemic risk assessment by certain governmental bodies;

•	directs federal regulatory agencies to review and, in certain cases, prohibit compensation arrangements at financial institutions that give employees incentives to engage in conduct deemed to encourage inappropriate risk taking by covered financial institutions;

•	requires public companies to adopt and disclose policies requiring, in the event the company is required to issue an accounting restatement, the clawback of related incentive compensation from current and former executive officers;

•	restricts the ability of banking organizations to sponsor or invest in private equity and hedge funds;

•	granted the U.S. government resolution authority to liquidate or take emergency measures with regard to troubled financial institutions that fall outside the existing resolution authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC; and

•	created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Some of these provisions are subject to further rule making and to the discretion of regulatory bodies, such as the FSOC. For example, the following rulemakings have been enacted and the following notices of proposed rulemakings have been announced that may apply to us or our subsidiaries:

•

On April 3, 2012, the FSOC issued a final rule and interpretive guidance regarding the process by which it designates nonbank financial companies as systemically important. The rule and guidance detail a three‑stage review process, with the level of scrutiny increasing at each stage. During the first stage, the FSOC applies a broad set of uniform quantitative metrics to identify nonbank financial companies that warrant additional review. In this first stage, the FSOC considers whether a nonbank financial company has at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets and whether it meets other thresholds relating to credit default swaps outstanding, derivative liabilities, loans and bonds outstanding, a minimum leverage ratio of total consolidated assets to total equity of 15 to 1, and a short‑term debt ratio of debt (with maturities less than 12 months) to total consolidated assets of 10%. A company that meets both the asset test and at least one of the other thresholds will be subject to additional review in Stage 2. Although we have

more than $50 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2015, we believe we do not currently meet the Stage 1 criteria outlined above; however, those criteria as well as our business may evolve over time. Additional uncertainty is created because the FSOC retains authority to designate any nonbank financial company as systemically important, even if the company does not meet the Stage 1 criteria. The FSOC will consider in the future whether to establish “an additional set of metrics or thresholds tailored to evaluate hedge funds and private equity firms and their advisers.” The preamble to the final rule notes that less regulatory data is generally available for hedge funds and private equity firms, but indicates that, in developing any such additional metrics or thresholds, it intends to review financial disclosures that private fund advisers are required to file with the SEC and CFTC, as further described below.

•

In May 2014, the FSOC hosted a public conference devoted exclusively to the asset management industry to help inform the FSOC’s ongoing assessment of potential risks to U.S. financial stability. On December 18, 2014, the FSOC issued a notice seeking public comment on potential systemic risks from asset management products and activities, focusing in particular on (1) liquidity and redemption risks, (2) use of leverage, (3) operational functions, and (4) resolution‑related issues. According to such notice, the FSOC has not made any determination regarding the existence or nature of any potential risks to financial stability posed by the asset management industry.

•

If the FSOC were to determine that we were a systemically important nonbank financial company, we would be subject to a heightened degree of regulation, including more stringent standards relating to capital, leverage, liquidity, risk management, resolution planning, credit exposure reporting, and concentration limits, restrictions on acquisitions and annual stress testing by the Federal Reserve. There can be no assurance that nonbank financial firms such as us will not become subject to the aforementioned restrictions or other requirements for financial firms deemed to be systemically important to the financial stability of the U.S. economy.

•

The Dodd‑Frank Act, under what has become known as the “Volcker Rule,” broadly prohibits depository institution holding companies (including foreign banks with U.S. branches or agencies), insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries and controlled affiliates (or banking entities), from investing in third‑party private equity funds like ours. See “-Our inability to raise additional or successor funds (or raise successor funds of a comparable size as our predecessor funds) could have a material adverse impact on our business.”

•

On October 26, 2011, the SEC adopted a rule requiring certain advisers to private funds to periodically file reports on Form PF. Large private fund advisers including advisers with at least $1.5 billion in assets under management attributable to hedge funds and advisers with at least $2 billion in assets under management attributable to private equity funds are subject to more detailed and in certain cases more frequent reporting requirements. The information is to be used by the FSOC in monitoring risks to the U.S. financial system.

•

On March 2, 2011, the SEC issued for public comment a proposed a rule as part of a joint rule‑making effort with other federal regulatory agencies designed to prohibit certain incentive‑based compensation arrangements deemed to encourage inappropriate risk taking by covered financial institutions by providing "excessive" compensation, fees or benefits or that could lead to material losses. The proposed rule would cover financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $1 billion, including investment advisers and broker‑dealers, and provide heightened requirements for financial institutions with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion. The application of this rule to us could require us to substantially revise our compensation strategy and affect our ability to recruit and retain qualified employees.

•

The Dodd‑Frank Act amended the Exchange Act to compensate and protect whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information to the SEC and establishes a fund to be used to pay whistleblowers who will be entitled to receive a payment equal to between 10% and 30% of certain monetary sanctions imposed in a successful government action resulting from the information provided by the whistleblower.

As mandated by the Dodd‑Frank Act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, has proposed or adopted a series of rules to establish a comprehensive new regulatory framework for swaps. Under Title VII of the Dodd‑Frank Act, the CFTC has assumed regulatory authority over many types of swaps. As a result:

•

Operating pooled funds, or providing investment advice to clients that trade swaps is now a basis for registration with the CFTC, absent an applicable exemption. Also, although not mandated by the Dodd‑Frank Act, the CFTC in 2012 issued a final rule that rescinded an exemption from CFTC registration for commodity pool operators in connection with privately offered funds. Operating our funds in a manner consistent with one or more exemptions from registration with the CFTC may limit the activities of certain of our funds, and monitoring and analysis of these

exemptions requires management and operational resources and attention. Registration with the CFTC, if required, could impact our operations and add additional costs associated with ongoing compliance.

•

The Dodd‑Frank Act also imposes regulatory requirements on the trading of swaps, including requirements that most swaps be executed on an exchange or “swap execution facility” and cleared through a central clearing house. Although these requirements presently apply only to certain classes of interest rate and credit default swaps, the CFTC is expected to mandate central execution and clearing with respect to additional classes of swaps in the future.

•

The CFTC issued regulations with quantitative tests and thresholds to determine whether entities acting as “swap dealers” or “major swap participants” must register in the appropriate category and comply with capital, margin, record keeping, reporting and business conduct rules. Our funds could become subject to the requirement to register as major swap participants due to changes to the funds’ investment strategy or valuations, or revisions to the thresholds for registration.

•

The CFTC has proposed rules instituting position limits on certain physical commodity futures contracts that, if finalized as proposed, would limit positions in 28 agricultural, energy and metals commodities, including swaps, futures and options that are economically equivalent to those commodity contracts. If the proposed rules are adopted in substantially the form proposed and to the extent that we do not qualify for an exemption, we may be required to aggregate the positions of our various investment funds and the positions of our portfolio companies, which in turn may require us and our portfolio companies to limit our trading activities, and impact the ability of our investment funds to invest or remain invested in certain derivatives, or engage in otherwise profitable acquisitions in particular industries. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires SEC to establish position limits on security-based swaps, which rules could have a similar impact on our business.

•

The CFTC and banking regulators have adopted, and the SEC has proposed, rules regarding minimum margin and capital requirements for over‑the‑counter swaps. The imposition of these requirements could increase the cost of trading in the derivative markets, which could in turn make it more expensive and difficult for us or our funds to enter into swaps and other derivatives in the normal course of our business and reduce the effectiveness of the funds’ investment strategies. These rules could also adversely impact liquidity in derivatives markets, which could expose our funds to greater risks and reduce hedging opportunities in connection with their trading activities. The compliance dates for the CTFC and banking margin rules will be phased in between 2016 and 2020, depending on the aggregate notional amount of over-the-counter swaps traded by market participants and their affiliates.

Additionally, federal banking and housing agencies finalized rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Act's five percent risk retention requirement for originators of asset-backed securities. Although such rules will not become fully effective until December 24, 2016, they contain provisions may have an adverse effect on us and/or the holders of the notes issued by our CLOs, or on the primary or secondary market for CLO securities generally, including the level of liquidity and trading of CLO securities.

The implementation of any new regulations could increase the cost of trading in the commodities and derivative markets, which could in turn make it more expensive and difficult for us or our funds to enter into swaps and other derivatives in the normal course of our business. Moreover, these increased regulatory responsibilities and increased costs could reduce trading levels in the commodities and derivative markets by a number of market participants, which could in turn adversely impact liquidity in the markets and expose our funds to greater risks in connection with their trading activities.

EU‑Wide Regulations. The EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) entered into effect on July 22, 2013. The AIFMD establishes a comprehensive regulatory and supervisory framework for alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) managing and/or marketing alternative investment funds (AIFs) in the EU. The AIFMD imposes various substantive requirements on authorized AIFMs including rules on the structure of remuneration for certain personnel that are similar to those applicable under CRD III and IV (as defined below), a threshold for regulatory capital, reporting obligations in respect of controlled EU portfolio companies and increased transparency towards investors and regulators and allows authorized AIFMs to market AIFs to professional investors throughout the EU under an “EU passport”. The AIFMD also imposes a new, strict depositary regime.

The EU passport has been available to authorized EU AIFMs, since July 2013 but has yet to become available to non EU AIFMs. In the meantime (and until at least 2018), non‑EU AIFMs may continue to market within the EU under the private placement regimes (NPPRs) of the individual member states, where available, subject to complying with certain minimum requirements imposed by the AIFMD and any additional requirements that individual member states may impose. In 2015, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published advice in relation to the application of the EU passport to non-EU AIFMs and AIFs from certain jurisdictions and its opinion on the function of the EU passport for EU AIFMS and NPPRs.

Upon the effectiveness of any measures adopted by the EU Commission extending the EU passport to non-EU AIFMs and AIFs, the NPPRs allowing marketing by non-EU authorized AIFMs in certain member states will likely be further restricted, and NPPRs may become unavailable for marketing by non-EU authorized AIFMs in all member states as early as 2019. While our authorized EU AIFs continue to be marketed under an EU passport, the availability of the NPPRs and the uncertainty regarding the application of the EU passport to non EU AIFMs and AIFs may adversely impact the marketing of new strategies.

The AIFMD, the Level 2 Regulation and EU member state implementing measures could have an adverse effect on our businesses by, among other things, (i) imposing disclosure obligations and restrictions on distributions by EU portfolio companies of the funds we manage, (ii) potentially requiring changes in our compensation structures for key personnel, thereby potentially affecting our ability to recruit and retain these personnel, and (iii) generally increasing our compliance costs. Although a subsidiary of ours is registered as an Irish AIFM, we may not be able to benefit from the EU marketing passport for all of our funds under the AIFMD. In addition, there are areas of the AIFMD that are subject to legal uncertainty, including the scope of the legal structures qualifying as AIFs whose management and marketing requires authorization, and failure to comply even in areas where there is legal uncertainty can result in fines. Compliance with the AIFMD has also increased the cost and complexity of raising capital for our funds and consequently may also slow the pace of fundraising.

In July 2014, revisions to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (known as MiFID I), consisting of the revised directive, MiFID II, and a new related regulation, MiFIR, came into force; however, the date upon which they will apply to our business is uncertain. MiFID II and MiFIR further strengthen the EU regulatory framework for the provision of investment services and trading in financial instruments by introducing a number of substantial reforms in regards to transaction reporting, market structure, securities trading and conduct of business rules, including new harmonized rules for authorization of EU branches of third country firms looking to provide certain investment services in the EU. Work on the Level 2 measures on MiFID II is still under way, and the final delegated acts have not yet been adopted. The application of MiFID II and MiFIR will result in new regulatory burdens, including the requirement to trade certain derivatives on regulated trading venues. The increased regulatory burden could result in increased costs, and any failure to comply with the new requirements, even in areas where there is legal uncertainty, could result in fines.

On January 1, 2011, an amendment to the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD III) entered into force. Among other things, CRD III required EU member states to introduce stricter controls on remuneration for key employees and risk takers within specified credit institutions and investment firms. The CRD III was further amended by the Capital Requirements Directive IV and the Capital Requirements Regulation as discussed below, which introduced a limited number of additional remuneration requirements, including a cap on variable remuneration. Two of our subsidiaries (established in the UK and Ireland) are subject to the remuneration‑related requirements of CRD IV and similar requirements under the AIFMD. Additionally, the European Banking Authority has published final guidelines on sound remuneration policies under CRD IV which set out the requirements for remuneration policies, group application and proportionality, along with criteria for the allocation of remuneration as fixed and variable and details on the disclosures required under the Capital Requirements Regulation. These guidelines will apply from January 1, 2017. These measures required changes in our compensation structures for key personnel, thereby potentially affecting these subsidiaries’ ability to recruit and retain these personnel.

In 2010, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international body comprised of senior representatives of bank supervisory authorities and central banks from 27 countries, including the United States, finalized a comprehensive set of capital and liquidity standards, commonly referred to as “Basel III,” for internationally active banking organizations. These new standards, which are expected to be fully phased in by 2019, are expected to require banks to hold more capital, predominantly in the form of common equity, than under the current capital framework. In the EU, Basel III’s capital and liquidity standards have been implemented in a revision to CRD III and a new Capital Requirements Regulation, collectively referred to as CRD IV, which came into force on January 1, 2014. CRD IV replaced CRD III and created a single harmonized prudential rule book for banks, introducing new corporate governance rules and enhanced the powers of regulators. Like CRD III, CRD IV applies to specified credit institutions and investment firms. CRD IV has enhanced our financial reporting obligations and subjected us to new reporting requirements, which increases costs and the risk of non‑compliance.

In August 2012, the regulation on OTC Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories (also known as the European Market Infrastructure Regulation, or EMIR) became effective. EMIR applies to derivatives transactions in which one of the parties is established in the EU, and may in some circumstances apply to transactions between two non‑EU counterparties where these contracts have a direct, substantial and foreseeable effect within the EU. Certain of the requirements of EMIR came into force in March 2013, and other obligations will be phased in. In particular, EMIR imposes a requirement that certain “standardized” OTC derivatives contracts are centrally cleared. This requirement will be phased in based on the relevant entities' activities over a period from June 2016 to December 2018. Where OTC transactions are not subject to central clearing, techniques must be employed to monitor, measure and mitigate the operational and counterparty risks presented by the transaction. These risk mitigation techniques include trade confirmation, reconciliation processes, exchange of margin, and the daily mark to market of trades. Certain of these risk mitigation and reporting obligations are already in force. Initial margin

requirement for uncleared trades are expected to be phased in between September 1, 2016 and September 1, 2020. Variation margin requirements for uncleared trades are expected to be phased in between September 1, 2016, and March 1, 2017. The European Commission has not yet adopted an equivalence decision for the U.S., but “conditional” equivalence has been proposed in relation to certain parts of the CFTC and SEC regimes, whereby adherence to the relevant U.S. regimes as well as a number of additional stipulations would deemed equivalent to EMIR. Ongoing regulatory uncertainty regarding the interaction between U.S. and EU requirements for central clearing and related activities could result in duplicative regulatory obligations in the two jurisdictions and could increase our costs of compliance. The implementation of any new regulations could increase the cost of trading in the commodities and derivative markets, which could in turn make it more expensive and difficult for us or our funds to enter into swaps and other derivatives in the normal course of our business. Moreover, these increased regulatory responsibilities and increased costs could reduce trading levels in the commodities and derivative markets by a number of market participants, which could in turn adversely impact liquidity in the markets and expose our funds to greater risks in connection with their trading activities.

A number of other EU financial regulatory initiatives have the potential to adversely affect our business. Future acquisitions by KKR or our funds could lead to application of the EU’s Financial Conglomerates Directive, which introduced a prudential regime for financial conglomerates to address perceived risks associated with large cross‑sector businesses, and could increase the costs of investing in insurance companies and banks in the EU. Other recent EU financial regulatory initiatives include the Short Selling Regulation, which limits sovereign and naked short selling of government bonds and stocks, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which established a recovery and resolution framework for EU credit institutions and investment firms, a new regulation (CSDR) on central securities depositories (CSDs), which introduces common securities settlement standards across the EU and harmonizes the rules governing CSDs, and a new regulation on reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions (SFT Regulation), which requires all SFTs to be reported to trade repositories, places additional reporting requirements on investment managers, and introduces prior risk disclosures and written consent before assets are rehypothecated. The European Commission has also proposed a Money Market Funds (MMF) Regulation. The EU has adopted certain risk retention and due diligence requirements in respect of various types of EU-regulated investors that, among other things, restrict investors from taking positions in securitization. The implementation of these new requirements could increase our and our funds’ costs and the complexity of managing our business and could result in fines if we or any of our funds were deemed to have violated any of the new regulations.

Other regulations of the financial markets. Certain requirements imposed by regulators are designed primarily to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and are not designed to protect holders of interests in our business or our funds. Consequently, these regulations often serve to limit our activities. In addition to many of the regulations and proposed regulations described above under “-Regulation under the Dodd‑Frank Act,” and “-EU‑Wide Regulation,” U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies have issued leveraged lending guidance covering transactions characterized by a degree of financial leverage. Such guidance limits the amount or availability of debt financing and may increase the cost of financing we are able to obtain for our transactions and may cause the returns on our investments to suffer.

Regulators in the U.S. and abroad are also considering a variety of regulatory measures that could affect various non‑bank financial institutions that operate outside of the regulated banking system and the activities in which they engage. These reform measures are generally intended to mitigate against the kind of market disruptions that prevailed in 2008 and 2009 and that ultimately affected both banks and non‑banks. If these regulations are adopted, they could impose additional regulatory burdens and costs, including potentially imposing capital requirements, limiting financing and leverage and increasing costs, in each case causing the returns on our lending and credit investment activities to suffer. Certain of our businesses may also be directly subject to such new regulation, which could cause such businesses to limit or cease engaging in certain activities.

Certain of the funds and accounts we manage that engage in originating, lending and/or servicing loans, may consider investments that would subject us to state and federal regulation, borrower disclosure requirements, limits on fees and interest rates on some loans, state lender licensing requirements and other regulatory requirements in the conduct of their business. If our funds and accounts make these investments, they may also be subject to consumer disclosures and substantive requirements on consumer loan terms and other federal regulatory requirements applicable to consumer lending that are administered by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These state and federal regulatory programs are designed to protect borrowers.

State and federal regulators and other governmental entities have authority to bring administrative enforcement actions or litigation to enforce compliance with applicable lending or consumer protection laws, with remedies that can include fines and monetary penalties, restitution of borrowers, injunctions to conform to law, or limitation or revocation of licenses and other remedies and penalties. In addition, lenders and servicers may be subject to litigation brought by or on behalf of borrowers for violations of laws or unfair or deceptive practices. If we enter into transactions that subject us to these risks, failure to conform to applicable regulatory and legal requirements could be costly and have a detrimental impact on certain of our funds and accounts and ultimately on us

Portfolio Company Regulatory Environment. We are subject to certain laws, such as certain environmental laws, takeover laws, anti‑bribery and anti‑corruption laws, escheat or abandoned property laws, and antitrust laws, that may impose requirements on us and our portfolio companies as an affiliated group. As a result, we could become jointly and severally liable for all or part of fines imposed on our portfolio companies or be fined directly for violations committed by portfolio companies, and such fines imposed directly on us could be greater than those imposed on the portfolio company. Compliance with these laws or contracts could also require us to commit significant resources and capital towards information gathering and monitoring thereby increasing our operating costs. For example, on April 2, 2014, the European Commission announced that it had fined 11 producers of underground and submarine high voltage power cables a total of 302 million euro for participation in a ten‑year market and customer sharing cartel. Fines were also imposed on parent companies of the producers involved, including Goldman Sachs, the former parent company of one of the cartel members. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has proposed a rule requiring regional transmission organizations and independent systems operators to collect, report and keep updated substantial information concerning their ownership structure and corporate relationships, corporate officers, direct and indirect investors (including non-controlling and passive non-voting investors), and lending and other material contractual relationships. If such rules are adopted as proposed, we and certain of our portfolio companies may become subject to costly and burdensome data collection and reporting requirements.

In the United States, certain statutes may subject us or our funds to the liabilities of our portfolio companies. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also referred to as the Superfund, requires cleanup of sites from which there has been a release or threatened release of hazardous substances, and authorizes the EPA to take any necessary response action at Superfund sites, including ordering potentially responsible parties liable for the release to pay for such actions. Potentially responsible parties are broadly defined under CERCLA. In addition, we or certain of our investment funds could potentially be held liable under ERISA for the pension obligations of one or more of our portfolio companies if we or the investment fund were determined to be a “trade or business” under ERISA and deemed part of the same “controlled group” as the portfolio company under such rules, and the pension obligations of any particular portfolio company could be material. In a decision of a federal appellate court (Sun Capital Partners III LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund), a private equity firm was held to be engaged in a “trade or business” under ERISA.

Similarly, our portfolio companies may be subject to contractual obligations which may impose obligations or restrictions on their affiliates. The interpretation of such contractual provisions will depend on local laws. Given that we do not control all of our portfolio companies and that our portfolio companies generally operate independently of each other, there is a risk that we could contravene one or more of such laws, regulations and contractual arrangements due to limited access and opportunities to monitor compliance. In addition, compliance with these laws or contracts could require us to commit significant resources and capital towards information gathering and monitoring thereby increasing our operating costs.

Complex regulations may limit our ability to raise capital, increase the costs of our capital raising activities and may subject us to penalties.

We regularly rely on exemptions in the United States from various requirements of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Investment Company Act, the Commodity Exchange Act and the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA, in conducting our investment management activities. These exemptions are sometimes highly complex and may in certain circumstances depend on compliance by third parties whom we do not control. If for any reason these exemptions were to become unavailable to us, we could become subject to additional restrictive and costly registration requirements, regulatory action, or third party claims and our business could be materially and adversely affected. For example, in raising new funds, we typically rely on private placement exemptions from registration under the Securities Act, including Regulation D, which was recently amended to prohibit issuers (including our funds) from relying on certain of the exemptions from registration if the fund or any of its “covered persons” (including certain officers and directors, but also including certain third parties including, among others, promoters, placement agents and beneficial owners of 20% of outstanding voting securities of the fund) has been the subject of a “disqualifying event,” or a “bad actor,” which can include a variety of criminal, regulatory and civil matters. If any of the covered persons associated with our funds is subject to a disqualifying event, one or more of our funds could lose the ability to raise capital in a Rule 506 private offering for a significant period of time, which could significantly impair our ability to raise new funds, and, therefore, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if certain of our employees or any potential significant investor has been the subject of a disqualifying event, we could be required to reassign or terminate such an employee or we could be required to refuse the investment of such an investor, which could impair our relationships with investors, harm our reputation, or make it more difficult to raise new funds. See also “-Risks Related to Our Organizational Structure-If we were deemed to be an “investment company” subject to regulation under the Investment Company Act, applicable restrictions could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could have a material adverse effect on our business.”

We are and will become further subject to additional regulatory and compliance burdens as we expand our product offerings and investment platform to include retail investors. For example, funds in our Public Markets segment are registered under the Investment Company Act as management investment companies. These funds and KKR Credit Advisors (US) LLC, which serves as their investment adviser (or in the case of a BDC, as its sub‑adviser), are subject to the Investment Company Act and the rules thereunder, which, among other things, regulate the relationship between a registered investment company (or business development company) and its investment adviser and prohibit or severely restrict principal transactions and joint transactions. As our business expands we may be required to make additional registrations, including in jurisdictions outside the U.S. Compliance with these rules will increase our compliance costs and create potential for additional liabilities and penalties the management of which would divert management’s attention from our business and investments.

In June 2010, the SEC approved Rule 206(4)‑5 under the Advisers Act regarding “pay to play” practices by investment advisers involving campaign contributions and other payments to government clients and elected officials able to exert influence on such clients. Among other restrictions, the rule prohibits investment advisers from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years, subject to very limited exceptions, after the investment adviser, its senior executives or its personnel involved in soliciting investments from government entities make contributions to certain candidates and officials in position to influence the hiring of an investment adviser by such government client. Advisers are required to implement compliance policies designed, among other matters, to track contributions by certain of the adviser’s employees and engagements of third parties that solicit government entities and to keep certain records in order to enable the SEC to determine compliance with the rule. There has also been similar rule‑making on a state‑level regarding “pay to play” practices by investment advisers, including in California and New York, and FINRA has proposed its own set of regulations. Any failure on our part to comply with these rules could cause us to lose compensation for our advisory services or expose us to significant penalties and reputational damage.

Federal, state and foreign anti‑corruption and sanctions laws applicable to us and our portfolio companies creates the potential for significant liabilities and penalties and reputational harm.

We are also subject to a number of laws and regulations governing payments and contributions to political persons or other third parties, including restrictions imposed by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, as well as trade sanctions and export control laws administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of State. The FCPA is intended to prohibit bribery of foreign governments and their officials and political parties, and requires public companies in the United States to keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect those companies’ transactions. OFAC, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of State administer and enforce various export control laws and regulations, including economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign states, organizations and individuals. These laws and regulations relate to a number of aspects of our business, including servicing existing fund investors, finding new fund investors, and sourcing new investments, as well as activities by the portfolio companies in our investment portfolio or other controlled investments.

The Iran Threat Reduction and Syrian Human Rights Act of 2012 (“ITRA”) expanded the scope of U.S. sanctions against Iran and amended the Exchange Act. Specifically, Section 219 of the ITRA amended the Exchange Act to require public reporting companies to disclose in their annual or quarterly reports any dealings or transactions the company or its affiliates engaged in during the previous reporting period involving Iran or other individuals and entities targeted by certain OFAC sanctions. In some cases, ITRA requires companies to disclose these types of transactions even if they are permissible under U.S. law or are conducted outside of the United States by a foreign affiliate. We are required to separately file, concurrently with this annual report, a notice that such activities have been disclosed in this annual report. The SEC is required to post this notice of disclosure on its website and send the report to the U.S. President and certain U.S. Congressional committees. The U.S. President thereafter is required to initiate an investigation and, within 180 days of initiating such an investigation, to determine whether sanctions should be imposed. Disclosure of such activity, even if such activity is not subject to sanctions under applicable law, and any sanctions actually imposed on us or our affiliates as a result of these activities, could harm our reputation and have a negative impact on our business.

Similar laws in non‑U.S. jurisdictions, such as EU sanctions or the U.K. Bribery Act, as well as other applicable anti‑bribery, anti‑corruption, anti‑money laundering, or sanction or other export control laws in the U.S. and abroad, may also impose stricter or more onerous requirements than the FCPA, OFAC, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of State, and implementing them may disrupt our business or cause us to incur significantly more costs to comply with those laws. Different laws may also contain conflicting provisions, making compliance with all laws more difficult. If we fail to comply with these laws and regulations, we could be exposed to claims for damages, civil or criminal financial penalties, reputational harm, incarceration of our employees, restrictions on our operations and other liabilities, which could negatively affect our business, operating results and financial condition. In addition, we may be subject to successor liability for FCPA

violations or other acts of bribery, or violations of applicable sanctions or other export control laws committed by companies in which we or our funds invest or which we or our funds acquire.

We are subject to substantial litigation risks and may face significant liabilities and damage to our professional reputation as a result of litigation allegations and negative publicity.

The activities of our businesses, including the investment decisions we make and the activities of our employees in connection with our portfolio companies, may subject us and them to the risk of litigation by third parties, including fund investors dissatisfied with the performance or management of their funds, debt or equity holders of our portfolio companies, and a variety of other potential litigants. See the section entitled “Litigation” appearing in Note 17 “Commitments and Contingencies” of our financial statements included elsewhere in this report. By way of example, we, our funds and certain of our employees are each exposed to the risks of litigation relating to investment activities of our funds and actions taken by the officers and directors (some of whom may be KKR employees) of portfolio companies, such as the risk of shareholder litigation by other shareholders of public companies or holders of debt instruments of companies in which our funds have significant investments. We are also exposed to risks of litigation, investigation or negative publicity in the event of any transactions that are alleged not to have been properly addressed.

To the extent investors in our investment funds suffer losses resulting from fraud, gross negligence, willful misconduct or other similar misconduct, such investors may have remedies against us, our investment funds, our employees or our affiliates. Investors in our funds do not have legal remedies against us, the general partners of our funds, our funds, our employees or our affiliates solely based on their dissatisfaction with the investment performance of those funds. While the general partners and investment advisers to our investment funds, including their directors, officers, employees and affiliates, are generally indemnified to the fullest extent permitted by law with respect to their conduct in connection with the management of the business and affairs of our investment funds, such indemnity generally does not extend to actions determined to have involved fraud, gross negligence, willful misconduct or other similar misconduct.

In addition, we have formed and may continue to form funds targeting retail investors, which may subject us to additional risk of litigation and regulatory scrutiny. See-“Extensive regulation of our businesses affects our activities and creates the potential for significant liabilities and penalties. The possibility of increased regulatory focus or legislative or regulatory changes could adversely affect our business.”

If any civil or criminal lawsuits were brought against us and resulted in a finding of substantial legal liability or culpability, the lawsuit could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations or cause significant reputational harm to us, which could seriously impact our business. We depend to a large extent on our business relationships and our reputation for integrity and high caliber professional services to attract and retain fund investors and qualified professionals and to pursue investment opportunities for our funds. As a result, allegations of improper conduct by private litigants or regulators, whether the ultimate outcome is favorable or unfavorable to us, as well as negative publicity and press speculation about us, our investment activities or the private equity industry in general, whether or not valid, may harm our reputation, which may be more damaging to our business than to other types of businesses.

In addition, with a workforce composed of many highly paid professionals, we face the risk of litigation relating to claims for compensation or other damages, which may, individually or in the aggregate, be significant in amount. The cost of settling any such claims could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Misconduct of our employees or by our portfolio companies could harm us by impairing our ability to attract and retain clients and subjecting us to significant legal liability and reputational harm.

There is a risk that our principals and employees could engage in misconduct that adversely affects our business. We are subject to a number of obligations and standards arising from our business and our authority over the assets we manage. The violation of these obligations and standards by any of our employees would adversely affect our clients and us. We may also be adversely affected if there is misconduct by senior management of portfolio companies in which our funds invest, even though we may be unable to control or mitigate such misconduct. Our business often requires that we deal with confidential matters of great significance to companies in which we may invest. If our employees were improperly to use or disclose confidential information, we could suffer serious harm to our reputation, financial position and current and future business relationships, as well as face potentially significant litigation. It is not always possible to detect or deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in all cases. If any of our employees or the employees of portfolio companies were to engage in misconduct or were to be accused of such misconduct, our business and our reputation could be adversely affected.

Underwriting, syndicating and securities placement activities expose us to risks.

KKR Capital Markets LLC or KCM, a subsidiary of ours, may act as an underwriter, syndicator or placement agent in securities offerings, and our joint venture’s subsidiary, MCS Capital Markets LLC, may also act as an underwriter, syndicator or placement agent in securities offerings. We may incur losses and be subject to reputational harm to the extent that, for any reason, we are unable to sell securities or indebtedness we purchased or placed as an underwriter, syndicator or placement agent at the anticipated price levels. As an underwriter, syndicator or placement agent, we also may be subject to potential liability for material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses and other offering documents relating to offerings we underwrite, syndicate or place.

We are subject to risks in using prime brokers, custodians, administrators and other agents.

Certain of our investment funds and our principal activities depend on the services of prime brokers, custodians, administrators and other agents to carry out certain securities transactions.

In the event of the insolvency of a prime broker and/or custodian, our funds may not be able to recover equivalent assets in full as they will rank among the prime broker’s and custodian’s unsecured creditors in relation to assets which the prime broker or custodian borrows, lends or otherwise uses. In addition, our and our funds’ cash held with a prime broker or custodian may not be segregated from the prime broker’s or custodian’s own cash, and our funds therefore may rank as unsecured creditors in relation thereto. The inability to recover assets from the prime broker or custodian could have a material impact on the performance of our funds and our business, financial condition and results of operations. Counterparties have generally reacted to recent market volatility by tightening their underwriting standards and increasing their margin requirements for all categories of financing, which has the result of decreasing the overall amount of leverage available and increasing the costs of borrowing. Many of our funds have credit lines, and if a lender under one or more of these credit lines were to become insolvent, we may have difficulty replacing the credit line and one or more of our funds may face liquidity problems.

Default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect, foresee or evaluate. In addition, concerns about, or a default by, one large participant could lead to significant liquidity problems for other participants, which may in turn expose us to significant losses. We may not accurately anticipate the impact of market stress or counterparty financial condition, and as a result, we may not have taken sufficient action to reduce these risks effectively.

Compliance with applicable accounting requirements may materially strain our resources, materially increase our annual expenses and exposes us to other risks.

The SEC may require in the future that we report our financial results under International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, instead of under U.S. GAAP. IFRS is a set of accounting principles that has been gaining acceptance on a worldwide basis. These standards are published by the London‑ based International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) and are more focused on objectives and principles and less reliant on detailed rules than U.S. GAAP. Today, there remain significant and material differences in several key areas between U.S. GAAP and IFRS which would affect us if we were required to prepare financial statements in conformity with IFRS. Additionally, U.S. GAAP provides specific guidance in classes of accounting transactions for which equivalent guidance in IFRS does not exist. The adoption of IFRS is highly complex and would have an impact on many aspects and operations of KKR, including but not limited to financial accounting and reporting systems, internal controls, taxes, borrowing covenants and cash management. It is expected that a significant amount of time, internal and external resources and expenses over a multi‑year period would be required for this conversion.

Risks Related to the Assets We Manage

As an investment manager, we sponsor and manage funds that make investments worldwide on behalf of third‑party investors and, in connection with those activities, are required to deploy our own capital in those investments. The investments of these funds are subject to many risks and uncertainties which, to the extent they are material, are discussed below. In addition, we have balance sheet investments and manage those assets on our own behalf. These risks, as they apply to our balance sheet investments, may have a greater impact on our results and financial conditions as we directly bear the full risk of our balance sheet. As a result, the gains and losses on such assets are reflected in our net income and the risks set forth below relating to the assets that we manage will directly affect our operating performance.

The historical returns attributable to our funds, including those presented in this report, should not be considered as indicative of the future results of our funds, our balance sheet or of our future results or of any returns on our common units.

We have presented in this report certain information relating to our investment returns, such as net and gross IRRs, multiples of invested capital and realized and unrealized investment values for funds that we have sponsored and managed. The historical and potential future returns of the funds that we manage are not directly linked to returns on KKR Group Partnership Units.

Moreover, historical returns of our funds may not be indicative of the future results that you should expect from us, which could negatively impact the fees and incentive amounts received by us from such funds. In particular, the future results of our funds or balance sheet assets may differ significantly from their historical results including for the following reasons:

•	the rates of returns of our funds reflect unrealized gains as of the applicable valuation date that may never be realized, which may adversely affect the ultimate value realized from those funds’ investments;

•

the historical returns that we present in this report derive largely from the performance of our earlier private equity funds, whereas future fund returns will depend increasingly on the performance of our newer funds, which may have little or no investment track record, and in particular you will not benefit from any value that was created in our funds prior to the KPE Transaction to the extent such value has been realized and we may be required to repay excess amounts previously received in respect of carried interest in our funds if, upon liquidation of the fund, we have received carried interest distributions in excess of the amount to which we were entitled;

•	the future performance of our funds will be affected by macroeconomic factors, including negative factors arising from disruptions in the global financial markets that were not prevalent in the periods relevant to the historical return data included in this report;

•

in some historical periods, the rates of return of some of our funds have been positively influenced by a number of investments that experienced a substantial decrease in the average holding period of such investments and rapid and substantial increases in value following the dates on which those investments were made; the actual or expected length of holding periods related to investments is likely longer than such historical periods; those trends and rates of return may not be repeated in the future;

•	our newly established funds may generate lower returns during the period that they take to deploy their capital;

•	our funds’ returns have benefited from investment opportunities and general market conditions in certain historical periods that may not repeat themselves, and there can be no assurance that our current or future funds will be able to avail themselves of comparable investment opportunities or market conditions; and

•	we may create new funds and investment products in the future that reflect a different asset mix in terms of allocations among funds, investment strategies, geographic and industry exposure, vintage year and economic terms.

In addition, our historical rates of return reflect our historical cost structure, which has varied and may vary further in the future. Certain of our newer funds, for example, have lower fee structures and also have performance hurdles. Future returns will also be affected by the risks described elsewhere in this report, including risks of the industry sectors and businesses in which a particular fund invests and changes in laws. See “-Risks Related to our Business-Difficult market conditions can adversely affect our business in many ways, including by reducing the value or performance of the investments that we manage or by reducing the ability of our funds to raise or deploy capital, each of which could negatively impact our net income and cash flow and adversely affect our financial condition.”

Valuation methodologies for certain assets in our funds and on our balance sheet can be subjective and the fair value of assets established pursuant to such methodologies may never be realized, which could result in significant losses for our funds and us.

There are no readily ascertainable market prices for a substantial majority of illiquid investments of our investment funds, our finance vehicles or other assets on our balance sheet. When determining fair values of investments, we use the last reported market price as of the statement of financial condition date for investments that have readily observable market prices. When an investment does not have a readily available market price, the fair value of the investment represents the value, as determined by us in good faith, at which the investment could be sold in an orderly disposition over a reasonable period of time between

willing parties other than in a forced or liquidation sale. There is no single standard for determining fair value in good faith and in many cases fair value is best expressed as a range of fair values from which a single estimate may be derived. When making fair value determinations for our private equity investments, we typically use a market multiples approach that considers a specified financial measure (such as EBITDA) and/or a discounted cash flow analysis. Real asset investments in infrastructure, energy and real estate are valued using one or more of the discounted cash flow analysis, market comparables analysis and direct income capitalization, which in each case incorporates significant assumptions and judgments. Credit investments are valued using values obtained from dealers or market makers, and where these values are not available, credit investments are valued by us based on ranges of valuations determined by an independent valuation firm.

Each of these methodologies requires estimates of key inputs and significant assumptions and judgments. We also consider a range of additional factors that we deem relevant, including the applicability of a control premium or illiquidity discount, the presence of significant unconsolidated assets and liabilities, any favorable or unfavorable tax attributes, the method of likely exit, financial projections, estimates of assumed growth rates, terminal values, discount rates including risk free rates, capital structure, risk premiums and other factors, and determining these factors may involve a significant degree of our management’s judgment and the judgment of management of our portfolio companies.

Because valuations, and in particular valuations of investments for which market quotations are not readily available, are inherently uncertain, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on estimates, determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have resulted if a ready market had existed. Even if market quotations are available for our investments, such quotations may not reflect the value that we would actually be able to realize because of various factors, including possible illiquidity associated with a large ownership position, subsequent illiquidity in the market for a company’s securities, future market price volatility or the potential for a future loss in market value based on poor industry conditions or the market’s view of overall company and management performance. Our partners’ capital could be adversely affected if the values of investments that we record is materially higher than the values that are ultimately realized upon the disposal of the investments and changes in values attributed to investments from quarter to quarter may result in volatility in our AUM and such changes could materially affect the results of operations that we report from period to period. There can be no assurance that the investment values that we record from time to time will ultimately be realized and that we will be able to realize the investment values that are presented in this report.

Because there is significant uncertainty in the valuation of, or in the stability of the value of, illiquid investments, the fair values of investments reflected in an investment fund’s or finance vehicle’s net asset value, or NAV, do not necessarily reflect the prices that would actually be obtained by us on behalf of the fund or finance vehicle when such investments are realized. For example there may be liabilities such as unknown or uncertain tax exposures with respect to investments, especially those outside the United States, which may not be fully reflected in valuations. Realizations at values significantly lower than the values at which investments have been reflected in prior fund NAVs would result in losses for the applicable fund and the loss of potential carried interest and other fees. Also, if realizations of our investments produce values materially different than the carrying values reflected in prior fund NAVs, fund investors may lose confidence in us, which could in turn result in difficulty in raising capital for future funds.

In addition, because we value our entire portfolio only on a quarterly basis, subsequent events that may have a material impact on those valuations may not be reflected until the next quarterly valuation date.

Our investments are impacted by various economic conditions that are difficult to quantify or predict, and may have a significant impact on the valuation of our investments and, therefore, on the investment income we realize and our financial condition and results of operations.

Our investments are impacted by various economic conditions that are difficult to quantify or predict and may have a significant impact on the valuation of our investments and, therefore, on the investment income we realize and our financial condition and results of operations. For example,

•

Global equity markets, which may be volatile, significantly impact the valuation of our portfolio companies and, therefore, the investment income that we recognize. For our investments that are publicly listed and thus have readily observable market prices, global equity markets have a direct impact on valuation. For other investments, these markets have an indirect impact on valuation as we typically utilize market multiples (i.e. stock price of comparable companies divided by earnings or cash flow) as a critical input to ascertain fair value of our investments that do not have readily observable market prices. In addition, the valuation for any particular period may not be realized at the time of disposition. For example, because our private equity funds often hold very large amounts of the securities of their portfolio companies, the disposition of these securities often takes place over a long period of time, which can further expose us to volatility risk. In addition, the receptivity of equity markets to initial public offerings, or IPOs, as

well as subsequent secondary equity offerings by companies already public, impacts our ability to realize investment gains. Unfavorable market conditions, market volatility and other factors may also adversely impact the performance of our hedge fund businesses and our strategic partnerships with hedge fund asset managers and the level or pace of subscriptions or redemptions from the funds in these businesses.

•

Changes in credit markets can also impact valuations and may have offsetting results depending on the valuation methodology used. For example, we typically use a discounted cash flow analysis as one of the methodologies to ascertain the fair value of our investments that do not have readily observable market prices. If applicable interest rates rise, then the assumed cost of capital for those portfolio companies would be expected to increase under the discounted cash flow analysis, and this effect would negatively impact their valuations if not offset by other factors. Rising U.S. interest rates may also negatively impact certain foreign currencies that depend on foreign capital flows. Conversely, a fall in interest rates can positively impact valuations of certain portfolio companies if not offset by other factors. These impacts could be substantial depending upon the magnitude of the change in interest rates. In certain cases, the valuations obtained from the discounted cash flow analysis and the other primary methodology we use, the market multiples approach, may yield different and offsetting results. For example, the positive impact of falling interest rates on discounted cash flow valuations may offset the negative impact of the market multiples valuation approach and may result in less of a decline in value than for those investments that had a readily observable market price. Finally, low interest rates related to monetary stimulus and economic stagnation may also negatively impact expected returns on all investments, as the demand for relatively higher return assets increases and supply decreases.

•	Foreign exchange rates can materially impact the valuations of our investments that are denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. For example, U.S. dollar appreciation relative to other currencies is likely to cause a decrease in the dollar value of non‑U.S. investments to the extent unhedged.

•

Conditions in commodity markets impact the performance of our portfolio companies and other investments in a variety of ways, including through the direct or indirect impact on the cost of the inputs used in their operations as well as the pricing and profitability of the products or services that they sell. The price of commodities has historically been subject to substantial volatility, which among other things, could be driven by economic, monetary, political or weather related factors. If certain of our portfolio companies are unable to raise prices to offset increases in the cost of raw materials or other inputs, or if consumers defer purchases of or seek substitutes for the products of such portfolio companies, such portfolio companies could experience lower operating income which may in turn reduce the valuation of those portfolio companies. The value of energy real asset investments generally increase or decrease with the increase or decrease, respectively, of commodity prices. As we make additional investments in oil and gas companies and assets, the value of our portfolio and the investment income we realize may become increasingly sensitive to oil and gas prices. Apart from our energy real asset investments, a number of our other investments may be dependent to varying degrees on the energy sector through, for example, the provision of equipment and services used in energy exploration and production. These companies may benefit from an increase or suffer from a decline in commodity prices.

Changes in these factors can have a significant effect on the results of the valuation methodologies used to value our portfolio, and our reported fair values for these assets could vary materially if these factors from prior quarters were to change significantly. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Business Environment.”

Global and regional economic conditions have a substantial impact on the value of investments. See “-Risks Related to Our Business-Difficult market conditions can adversely affect our business in many ways, including by reducing the value or performance of the investments that we manage or by reducing the ability of our funds to raise or deploy capital, each of which could negatively impact our net income and cash flow and adversely affect our financial condition.”

Dependence on significant leverage in investments by our funds and our balance sheet assets could adversely affect our ability to achieve attractive rates of return on those investments.

Because many of our funds’ investments and our balance sheet assets often rely heavily on the use of leverage, our ability to achieve attractive rates of return will depend on our continued ability to access sufficient sources of indebtedness at attractive rates. For example, our credit funds use varying degrees of leverage when making investments. Similarly, in many private equity investments, indebtedness may constitute 70% or more of a portfolio company’s total debt and equity capitalization, including debt that may be incurred in connection with the investment, and a portfolio company’s indebtedness may also increase in recapitalization transactions subsequent to the company’s acquisition. The absence of available sources of sufficient debt financing for extended periods of time could therefore materially and adversely affect our funds and our

portfolio companies. Also, an increase in either the general levels of interest rates or in the risk spread demanded by sources of indebtedness such as we experienced during 2009 would make it more expensive to finance those investments. In addition, increases in interest rates could decrease the value of fixed‑rate debt investments that our balance sheet assets, finance vehicles or our funds make. Increases in interest rates could also make it more difficult to locate and consummate private equity and other investments because other potential buyers, including operating companies acting as strategic buyers, may be able to bid for an asset at a higher price due to a lower overall cost of capital or their ability to benefit from a higher amount of cost savings following the acquisition of the asset. In addition, a portion of the indebtedness used to finance private equity investments often includes high‑ yield debt securities issued in the capital markets. Capital markets are volatile, and there may be times when we might not be able to access those markets at attractive rates, or at all, when completing an investment.

Investments in highly leveraged entities are also inherently more sensitive to declines in revenues, increases in expenses and interest rates and adverse economic, market and industry developments. The incurrence of a significant amount of indebtedness by an entity could, among other things:

•	subject the entity to a number of restrictive covenants, terms and conditions, any violation of which would be viewed by creditors as an event of default and could materially impact our ability to realize value from our investment;

•	allow even moderate reductions in operating cash flow to render it unable to service its indebtedness;

•	give rise to an obligation to make mandatory prepayments of debt using excess cash flow, which might limit the entity’s ability to respond to changing industry conditions to the extent additional cash is needed for the response, to make unplanned but necessary capital expenditures or to take advantage of growth opportunities;

•	limit the entity’s ability to adjust to changing market conditions, thereby placing it at a competitive disadvantage compared to its competitors who have relatively less debt;

•	limit the entity’s ability to engage in strategic acquisitions that might be necessary to generate attractive returns or further growth; and

•	limit the entity’s ability to obtain additional financing or increase the cost of obtaining such financing, including for capital expenditures, working capital or other general corporate purposes.

A leveraged company’s income and equity also tend to increase or decrease at a greater rate than would otherwise be the case if money had not been borrowed. As a result, the risk of loss associated with a leveraged company is generally greater than for comparable companies with comparatively less debt. For example, leveraged companies could default on their debt obligations due to a decrease in revenues and cash flow precipitated by an economic downturn or by poor relative performance at such a company. Similarly, the leveraged nature of some of our investments in real assets increases the risk that a decline in the fair value of the underlying real asset will result in their abandonment or foreclosure. For example, if the property-level debt on a particular investment has reached its maturity and the underlying asset value has declined below its debt-level, we may, in absence of cooperation with the lender in regards to a partial debt-write-off, be forced to put the investment into liquidation.

When our existing portfolio investments reach the point when debt incurred to finance those investments matures in significant amounts and must be either repaid or refinanced, those investments may materially suffer if they have generated insufficient cash flow to repay maturing debt and there is insufficient capacity and availability in the financing markets to permit them to refinance maturing debt on satisfactory terms, or at all. If the financing for such purposes were to be unavailable or uneconomic when significant amounts of the debt incurred to finance our existing portfolio investments start to come due, these investments could be materially and adversely affected. In the event of default or potential default under applicable financing arrangements, one or more of our portfolio companies may go bankrupt, which could give rise to substantial investment losses, adverse claims or litigation against us or our employees and damage to our reputation.

Among the sectors particularly challenged by downturns in the global credit markets, including the downturn experienced from 2008 through 2010, are the CLO and leveraged finance markets. We have significant exposure to these markets through our CLO subsidiaries, which we principally acquired in the acquisitions of KFN and Avoca. As of December 31, 2015, we indirectly hold below investment grade corporate loans and securities with a $8.4 billion estimated fair market value through our CLO subsidiaries. Each of these subsidiaries is a special purpose company that issued to us and other investors notes secured by a pool of collateral consisting primarily of corporate leveraged loans. In most cases, our CLO holdings are deeply subordinated, representing the CLO subsidiary’s substantial leverage, which increases both the opportunity for higher returns as well as the magnitude of losses when compared to holders or investors that rank more senior to us in right of payment. These

loans and bonds also generally involve a higher degree of risk than investment grade rated debt including the risks described in the paragraphs above. Our CLO subsidiaries have historically experienced an increase in downgrades, depreciations in market value and defaults in respect of leveraged loans in their collateral during downturns in credit markets. The CLOs’ portfolio profile tests set limits on the amount of discounted obligations a CLO can hold. During any time that a CLO issuer exceeds such a limit, the ability of the CLO’s manager to sell assets and reinvest available principal proceeds into substitute assets is restricted. In such circumstances, CLOs may fail certain over‑collateralization tests, which would cause diversions of cash flows away from us as holders of the more junior CLO, which may impact our cash flows. The ability of the CLOs to make interest payments to the holders of the senior notes of those structures is highly dependent upon the performance of the CLO collateral. If the collateral in those structures were to experience a significant decrease in cash flow due to an increased default level, payment of all principal and interest outstanding may be accelerated as a result of an event of default or by holders of the senior notes. There can be no assurance that market conditions giving rise to these types of consequences will not occur, re‑occur, subsist or become more acute in the future. In July 2009, KFN surrendered for cancellation approximately $298.4 million in aggregate of notes issued to it by certain of its CLOs. The surrendered notes were cancelled and the obligations due under such notes were deemed extinguished. Because our CLO structures involve complex collateral and other arrangements, the documentation for such structures is complex, is subject to differing interpretations and involves legal risk. These CLOs have served as long‑term, non‑recourse financing for debt investments and as a way to minimize refinancing risk, minimize maturity risk and secure a fixed cost of funds over an underlying market interest rate. An inability to continue to utilize CLOs or other similar financing vehicles successfully could limit our ability to fund future investments, grow our business or fully execute our business strategy and our results of operations may be adversely affected.

Our CLO subsidiaries regularly use significant leverage to finance their assets. An inability by such subsidiaries to continue to raise or utilize leverage, to refinance or extend the maturities of their outstanding indebtedness or to maintain adequate levels of collateral under the terms of their collateralized loan obligations could limit their ability to grow their business, reinvest principal cash, distribute cash to us or fully execute their business strategy, and our results of operations may be adversely affected. If these subsidiaries are unable to maintain their operating results and access to capital resources, they could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations to meet debt service and other obligations. These CLO strategies and the value of the assets of such CLO subsidiaries are also sensitive to changes in interest rates because these strategies rely on borrowed money and because the value of the underlying portfolio loans can fall when interest rates rise. If interest rates on CLO borrowings increase and the interest rates on the portfolio do not also increase, the CLO strategy is unlikely to achieve its projected returns. Also, if interest rates increase in the future, our CLO portfolio will likely experience a reduction in value because it would hold assets receiving below market rates of interest.

Our hedge fund‑of‑funds, long/short credit fund, other credit‑ oriented funds and CLOs may choose to use leverage as part of their respective investment programs and regularly borrow a substantial amount of their capital. The use of leverage poses a significant degree of risk and enhances the possibility of a significant loss in the value of the investment portfolio. A fund may borrow money from time to time to purchase or carry securities or debt obligations or may enter into derivative transactions (such as total return swaps) with counterparties that have embedded leverage. The interest expense and other costs incurred in connection with such borrowing may not be recovered by appreciation in the securities purchased or carried and will be lost-and the timing and magnitude of such losses may be accelerated or exacerbated-in the event of a decline in the market value of such securities or debt obligations. Gains realized with borrowed funds may cause the fund’s net asset value to increase at a faster rate than would be the case without borrowings. However, if investment results fail to cover the cost of borrowings, the fund’s net asset value could also decrease faster than if there had been no borrowings.

Any of the foregoing circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

The due diligence process that we undertake in connection with our investments may not reveal all facts that may be relevant in connection with an investment.

Before making our investments, we conduct due diligence that we deem reasonable and appropriate based on the facts and circumstances applicable to each investment. The objective of the due diligence process is to identify attractive investment opportunities based on the facts and circumstances surrounding an investment, to identify possible risks associated with that investment and, in the case of private equity investments, to prepare a framework that may be used from the date of an acquisition to drive operational achievement and value creation. When conducting due diligence, we typically evaluate a number of important business, financial, tax, accounting, environmental and legal issues in determining whether or not to proceed with an investment. Outside consultants, legal advisors, accountants and investment banks are involved in the due diligence process in varying degrees depending on the type of investment. Nevertheless, when conducting due diligence and making an assessment regarding an investment, we rely on resources available to us, including information provided by the

target of the investment and, in some circumstances, third‑party investigations. The due diligence process may at times be subjective with respect to newly organized companies or carve-out transactions for which only limited information is available.

Instances of bribery, fraud, accounting irregularities and other improper, illegal or corrupt practices can be difficult to detect, and fraud and other deceptive practices can be widespread in certain jurisdictions. Several of our funds invest in emerging market countries that may not have established laws and regulations that are as stringent as in more developed nations, or where existing laws and regulations may not be consistently enforced. For example, our funds invest throughout jurisdictions that have material perceptions of corruption according to international rating standards (such as Transparency International and Corruption Perceptions Index) such as China, India, Indonesia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. Due diligence on investment opportunities in these jurisdictions is frequently more complicated because consistent and uniform commercial practices in such locations may not have developed. Bribery, fraud, accounting irregularities and corrupt practices can be especially difficult to detect in such locations.

The due diligence conducted for certain of our Public Markets strategies is limited to publicly available information. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that the due diligence investigation that we will carry out with respect to any investment opportunity will reveal or highlight all relevant facts (including fraud, bribery and other illegal activities and contingent liabilities) that may be necessary or helpful in evaluating such investment opportunity, including the existence of contingent liabilities. We also cannot be certain that our due diligence investigations will result in investments being successful or that the actual financial performance of an investment will not fall short of the financial projections we used when evaluating that investment.

When we conduct due diligence in making and monitoring investments in third party hedge funds, we rely on information supplied by third party hedge funds or by service providers to such third party hedge funds. The information we receive from them may not be accurate or complete and therefore we may not have all the relevant facts necessary to properly assess and monitor our funds’ investment in a particular hedge fund.

Our investment management activities involve investments in relatively high‑risk, illiquid assets, and we may fail to realize any profits from these activities for a considerable period of time or lose some or all of the capital invested.

Many of our funds and our balance sheet may hold investments in securities that are not publicly traded. In many cases, our funds or we may be prohibited by contract or by applicable securities laws from selling such securities at many points in time. Our funds or we will generally not be able to sell these securities publicly unless their sale is registered under applicable securities laws, or unless an exemption from such registration is available, and then only at such times when we do not possess material nonpublic information. The ability of many of our funds or us to dispose of investments is heavily dependent on the capital markets and in particular the public equity markets. For example, the ability to realize any value from an investment may depend upon the ability to complete an initial public offering of the portfolio company in which such investment is made. Even if the securities are publicly traded, large holdings of securities can often be disposed of only over a substantial length of time, exposing our investment returns to risks of downward movement in market prices during the intended disposition period. Moreover, because the investment strategy of many of our funds, particularly our private equity funds, often entails or having representation on our funds' public portfolio company boards, our funds may be restricted in their ability to effect such sales during certain time periods. As certain of our funds have a finite term, we could also be forced to dispose of investments sooner than otherwise desirable. Accordingly, under certain conditions, our funds may be forced to either sell securities at lower prices than they had expected to realize or defer sales that they had planned to make, potentially for a considerable period of time. Moreover, we may determine that we may be required to sell our balance sheet assets alongside our funds’ investments at such times. We have made and expect to continue to make significant capital investments in our current and future funds and other strategies. Contributing capital to these funds is risky, and we may lose some or all of the principal amount of our investments.

Our investments are subject to a number of inherent risks.

Our results are highly dependent on our continued ability to generate attractive returns from our investments. Investments made by our private equity, credit or other investments involve a number of significant risks inherent to private equity, credit and other investing, including the following:

•	companies in which investments are made may have limited financial resources and may be unable to meet their obligations under their securities, which may be accompanied by a deterioration in the value of their equity securities or any collateral or guarantees provided with respect to their debt;

•	companies in which investments are made are more likely to depend on the management talents and efforts of a small group of persons and, as a result, the death, disability, resignation or termination of one or more of those persons could have a material adverse impact on their business and prospects;

•	companies in which private equity investments are made may be businesses or divisions acquired from larger operating entities which may require a rebuilding or replacement of financial reporting, information technology, operational and other functions;

•	companies in which investments are made may from time to time be parties to litigation, may be engaged in rapidly changing businesses with products subject to a substantial risk of obsolescence and may require substantial additional capital to support their operations, finance expansion or maintain their competitive position;

•

instances of bribery, fraud and other deceptive practices committed by senior management of portfolio companies in which our funds or we invest may undermine our due diligence efforts with respect to such companies, and if such fraud is discovered, negatively affect the valuation of a fund’s investments as well as contribute to overall market volatility that can negatively impact a fund’s or our investment program;

•	our funds may make investments that they do not advantageously dispose of prior to the date the applicable fund is dissolved, either by expiration of such fund’s term or otherwise, resulting in a lower than expected return on the investments and, potentially, on the fund itself;

•

our portfolio companies generally have capital structures established on the basis of financial projections based primarily on management judgments and assumptions, and general economic conditions and other factors may cause actual performance to fall short of these financial projections, which could cause a substantial decrease in the value of our equity holdings in the portfolio company and cause our funds’ or our performance to fall short of our expectations;

•	executive officers, directors and employees of an equity sponsor may be named as defendants in litigation involving a company in which an investment is made or is being made, and we or our funds may indemnify such executive officers, directors or employees for liability relating to such litigation;

•

we advise funds that invest in businesses that operate in a variety of industries that are subject to extensive domestic and foreign regulation (including companies that supply services to governmental agencies), such as the telecommunications industry, the defense and government services industry, the healthcare industry and oil and gas industry, that may involve greater risk due to rapidly changing market and governmental conditions in those sectors;

•	our transactions involve complex tax structuring that could be challenged or disregarded, which may result in losing treaty benefits or would otherwise adversely impact our investments; and

•	significant failures of our portfolio companies to comply with laws and regulations applicable to them could affect the ability of our funds or us to invest in other companies in certain industries in the future and could harm our reputation;

Our investments in real assets such as real estate, infrastructure assets and energy may expose us to increased risks and liabilities and may expose our unitholders to adverse tax consequences.

Investments in real assets, which may include real estate, infrastructure assets, oil and gas properties and other energy assets, may expose us to increased risks and liabilities that are inherent in the ownership of real assets. For example,

•

Ownership of real assets in our funds or vehicles may increase our risk of liability under environmental laws that impose, regardless of fault, joint and several liability for the cost of remediating contamination and compensation for damages. In addition, changes in environmental laws or regulations or the environmental condition of an investment may create liabilities that did not exist at the time of acquisition that would not have been foreseen. Even in cases where we are indemnified by a seller with respect to an investment against liabilities arising out of violations of environmental laws and regulations, there can be no assurance as to the financial viability of the seller to satisfy such indemnities or our ability to achieve enforcement of such indemnities.

•	Ownership of real assets may also present additional risk of liability for personal and property injury or impose significant operating challenges and costs, for example with respect to compliance with zoning, environmental or other applicable laws.

•

Real asset investments may face construction risks, without limitation: (i) labor disputes, shortages of material and skilled labor, or work stoppages; (ii) slower than projected construction progress and the unavailability or late delivery of necessary equipment; (iii) less than optimal coordination with public utilities in the relocation of their facilities; (iv) adverse weather conditions and unexpected construction conditions; (v) accidents or the breakdown or failure of construction equipment or processes; (vi) catastrophic events such as explosions, fires, and terrorist activities, and other similar events and (vii) risks associated with holding direct or indirect interests in undeveloped land or underdeveloped real property. These risks could result in substantial unanticipated delays or expenses (which may exceed expected or forecasted budgets) and, under certain circumstances, could prevent completion of construction activities once undertaken. Certain real asset investments may remain in construction phases for a prolonged period and, accordingly, may not be cash generative for a prolonged period. Recourse against the contractor may be subject to liability caps or may be subject to default or insolvency on the part of the contractor.

•

The operation of real assets is exposed to potential unplanned interruptions caused by significant catastrophic or force majeure events. These risks could, among other effects, adversely impact the cash flows available from investments in real assets, cause personal injury or loss of life, damage property, or instigate disruptions of service. In addition, the cost of repairing or replacing damaged assets could be considerable. Repeated or prolonged service interruptions may result in permanent loss of customers, litigation, or penalties for regulatory or contractual non‑compliance. Force majeure events that are incapable of, or too costly to, cure may also have a permanent adverse effect on an investment.

•

The management of the business or operations of a real asset may be contracted to a third‑party management company unaffiliated with us. Although it would be possible to replace any such operator, the failure of such an operator to adequately perform its duties or to act in ways that are in the portfolio company’s best interest, or the breach by an operator of applicable agreements or laws, rules, and regulations, could have an adverse effect on the investment’s financial condition or results of operations. Real asset investments may involve the subcontracting of design and construction activities in respect of projects, and as a result our investments are subject to the risk that contractual provisions passing liabilities to a subcontractor could be ineffective, the subcontractor fails to perform services which it has agreed to provide and in cases where a single subcontractor provides services to various investments, the subcontractor becomes insolvent.

Without limiting the foregoing disclosure, we note that investments that we have made and will continue to make in the oil and gas industries may present specific environmental, safety and other inherent risks, and such investments are subject to stringent and complex foreign, federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations specific to oil and gas industries, for example governing controls, taxes, transportation of oil and natural gas, exploration and production, permitting, and various conservation laws and regulations applicable to oil and natural gas production and related operations in addition to regulations governing occupational health and safety, the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the imposition of remedial obligations and the issuance of orders enjoining some or all of our operations in affected areas. These laws and regulations may also restrict the rate of oil and natural gas production below the rate that would otherwise be possible and increase the cost of production thus reducing profitability. Our oil and gas investments are subject to other risks, such as:

•	The acquisition of oil and gas properties at appropriate prices.

•	Currently unforeseen environmental incidents may occur or past non‑ compliance with environmental laws or regulations may be discovered making it difficult to predict the future costs or impact of compliance.

•	The oil and gas industries present inherent risk of personal and property injury, for which we may not be fully insured.

•	The use of new technologies, including hydraulic fracturing.

•	Our estimated oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids reserve quantities and future production rates are based on many assumptions that may prove to be inaccurate. Any material inaccuracies in these reserve estimates or the underlying assumptions will materially affect the quantities and value of our reserves.

•

The performance of our energy investments depend on the skill, ability and decisions of third party operators. The success of our investment will depend on their exploitation, development, construction and drilling activities and the timing and cost of drilling, completing and operating wells. Failure of such operators to comply with applicable laws, rules and regulations could result in liabilities to us, reduce the value of our interest in the oil and natural gas properties, adversely affect our cash flows and results of operations.

•

If commodity prices decline and remain depressed for a prolonged period, a significant portion of our development projects may become uneconomic and cause write downs of the value of our oil and natural gas properties, which may reduce the value of our energy investments, have a negative impact on our ability to use these investments as collateral or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Investments in real estate are subject to the risks inherent in the ownership and operation of real estate and real estate related businesses and assets. These risks include those associated with the burdens of ownership of real property, general and local economic conditions, changes in supply of and demand for competing properties in an area (as a result, for instance, of overbuilding), fluctuations in the average occupancy, the financial resources of tenants, changes in building, environmental and other laws, energy and supply shortages, various uninsured or uninsurable risks, natural disasters, changes in government regulations (such as rent control), changes in real property tax rates, changes in interest rates, the reduced availability of mortgage funds which may render the sale or refinancing of properties difficult or impracticable, negative developments in the economy that depress travel activity, environmental liabilities, contingent liabilities on disposition of assets, terrorist attacks, war and other factors that are beyond our control.

•	The success of certain investments will depend on the ability to restructure and effect improvements in the operations of the applicable properties, and there is no assurance, we will be successful in identifying or implementing such restructuring programs and improvements.

•

If we acquire direct or indirect interests in undeveloped land or underdeveloped real property, which may often be non‑income producing, they will be subject to the risks normally associated with such assets and development activities, including risks relating to the availability and timely receipt of zoning and other regulatory or environmental approvals, the cost and timely completion of construction (including risks beyond the control of our fund, such as weather or labor conditions or material shortages) and the availability of both construction and permanent financing on favorable terms.

•	The strategy of our real estate funds may be based, in part, on the availability for purchase of assets at favorable prices, and upon the continuation or improvement of market conditions, or on the availability of refinancing. No assurance can be given that the real estate businesses or assets can be acquired or disposed of at favorable prices or that refinancing will be available.

•

Lenders in commercial real estate financing customarily will require a “bad boy” guarantee, which typically provides that the lender can recover losses from the guarantors for certain bad acts, such as fraud or intentional misrepresentation, intentional waste, willful misconduct, criminal acts, misappropriation of funds, voluntary incurrence of prohibited debt and environmental losses sustained by lender. For our acquisitions, “bad boy” guarantees would generally be extended by our funds, our balance sheet or a combination of both depending on the ownership of the relevant asset. In addition, “bad boy” guarantees typically provide that the loan will be a full personal recourse obligation of the guarantor, for certain actions, such as prohibited transfers of the collateral or changes of control and voluntary bankruptcy of the borrower. It is expected that commercial real estate financing arrangements generally will require “bad boy” guarantees and in the event that such a guarantee is called, a fund’s or our assets could be adversely affected. Moreover, “bad boy” guarantees could apply to actions of the joint venture partners associated with the investments, and in certain cases the acts of such joint venture partner could result in liability to our funds or us under such guarantees.

•

The acquisition, ownership and disposition of real properties carry certain specific litigation risks. Litigation may be commenced with respect to a property acquired in relation to activities that took place prior to the acquisition of such property. In addition, at the time of disposition, other potential buyers may bring claims related to the asset or for due diligence expenses or other damages. After the sale of a real estate asset, buyers may later sue our funds or us for losses associated with latent defects or other problems not uncovered in due diligence.

•

Our funds or we may be subject to certain risks associated with investments in particular assets. Real estate investment trusts (or REITs) be affected by changes in the value of their underlying properties and by defaults by borrowers or tenants. REITs depend on their ability to generate cash flow to make distributions and may be impacted by changes in tax laws or by a failure to qualify for tax‑free pass through income. Investments in real estate debt investments may be unsecured and subordinated to a substantial amount of indebtedness. Such debt investments may not be protected by financial covenants. Non‑performing real estate loans may require a substantial amount of workout negotiations and/or restructuring, which may entail, among other things, a substantial reduction in the interest rate and a substantial write-down of the principal of such loan. Investments in commercial mortgage loans are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss. In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by our fund or us, our fund or we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the

collateral and the principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral the principal and accrued interest of the loan. Investments in assets or businesses that are distressed may have little or no near term cash flow and involve a high degree of risk. Such investments subject to bankruptcy or insolvency could be subordinated or disallowed.

Infrastructure investments often involve an ongoing commitment to a municipal, state, federal or foreign government or regulatory agencies. The nature of these obligations exposes the owners of infrastructure investments to a higher level of regulatory control than typically imposed on other businesses. They may also rely on complex government licenses, concessions, leases or contracts, which may be difficult to obtain or maintain. Revenues for such investments may rely on contractual agreements for the provision of services with a limited number of counterparties, and are consequently subject to counterparty default risk. The operations and cash flow of infrastructure investments are also more sensitive to inflation and, in certain cases, commodity price risk. Furthermore, services provided by infrastructure investments may be subject to rate regulations by government entities that determines or limits prices that may be charged. Similarly, users of applicable services or government entities in response to such users may react negatively to any adjustments in rates reducing the profitability of such infrastructure investments.

In addition, investments in real assets may cause adverse tax consequences for certain non‑U.S. unitholders regarding income effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business and the imposition of certain tax withholding. Please see “-Risks Related to U.S. Taxation-Non‑ U.S. persons face unique U.S. tax issues from owning our common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them”. Moreover, investments in real assets may also require all our unitholders to file tax returns and pay taxes in various state and local jurisdictions in the U.S. and abroad where these real assets are located. Please see “Risks Related to U.S. Taxation-Holders of our common units may be subject to state, local and foreign taxes and return filing requirements as a result of owning such common units”.

Certain of our funds and CLOs and our firm through our principal assets hold high‑yield, below investment grade or unrated debt, or securities of companies that are experiencing significant financial or business difficulties, which generally entail greater risk, and if those losses are realized, it could adversely affect our results of operations, and our cash available for distribution to unitholders.

Certain of our funds and CLOs in our Public Markets segment and our firm through our principal assets invest in below investment grade or unrated debt, including corporate loans and bonds, each of which generally involves a higher degree of risk than investment grade rated debt, and may be less liquid. Issuers of high yield or unrated debt may be highly leveraged, and their relatively high debt‑to‑equity ratios create increased risks that their operations might not generate sufficient cash flow to service their debt obligations. As a result, high yield or unrated debt is often less liquid than investment grade rated debt. Also, investments may be made in loans and other forms of debt that are not marketable securities and therefore are not liquid. In the absence of appropriate hedging measures, changes in interest rates generally will also cause the value of debt investments to vary inversely to such changes. The obligor of a debt security or instrument may not be able or willing to pay interest or to repay principal when due in accordance with the terms of the associated agreement and collateral may not be available or sufficient to cover such liabilities. Commercial bank lenders and other creditors may be able to contest payments to the holders of other debt obligations of the same obligor in the event of default under their commercial bank loan agreements. Sub‑participation interests in syndicated debt may be subject to certain risks as a result of having no direct contractual relationship with underlying borrowers. Debt securities and instruments may be rated below investment grade by recognized rating agencies or unrated and face ongoing uncertainties and exposure to adverse business, financial or economic conditions and the issuer’s failure to make timely interest and principal payments.

Certain of our investment funds, especially in our special situations strategy, and our firm through principal assets may hold interests in business enterprises involved in work‑outs, liquidations, reorganizations, bankruptcies and similar transactions and may purchase high risk receivables. An investment in such business enterprises entails the risk that the transaction in which such business enterprise is involved either will be unsuccessful, will take considerable time or will result in a distribution of cash or a new security the value of which will be less than the purchase price to the fund of the security or other financial instrument in respect of which such distribution is received. In addition, if an anticipated transaction does not in fact occur, we or the fund may be required to sell the investment at a loss. Investments in troubled companies may also be adversely affected by U.S. federal and state and non‑U.S. laws relating to, among other things, fraudulent conveyances, voidable preferences, lender liability and a bankruptcy court’s discretionary power to disallow, subordinate or disenfranchise particular claims. Investments in securities and private claims of troubled companies made in connection with an attempt to influence a restructuring proposal or plan of reorganization in a bankruptcy case may also involve substantial litigation, which has the potential to adversely impact us or unrelated funds or portfolio companies. Because there is substantial uncertainty concerning the outcome of transactions involving financially troubled companies, there is a potential risk of loss of the entire investment in

such company. Such investments involve a substantial degree of risk, and a decline in value of the assets would have a material adverse effect on our financial performance.

Our investment in Nephila is exposed to natural catastrophe and weather risk.

Our investment in Nephila, an investment manager focused on investing in natural catastrophe and weather risk, is exposed to a risk of reduced revenues resulting from natural disasters. Because catastrophic loss events are by their nature unpredictable, historical results of operations of Nephila may not be indicative of its future results of operations. As a result of the occurrence of one or more major catastrophes in any given period, the expected returns from this investment may fall short of our expectations.

We often pursue investment opportunities that involve business, regulatory, legal or other complexities.

As an element of our investment style, we often pursue complex investment opportunities. This can often take the form of substantial business, regulatory or legal complexity that would deter other investment managers. Our tolerance for complexity presents risks, as such transactions can be more difficult, expensive and time consuming to finance and execute; it can be more difficult to manage or realize value from the assets acquired in such transactions; and such transactions sometimes entail a higher level of regulatory scrutiny, the application of complex tax laws or a greater risk of contingent liabilities. Our transactions involve complex tax structures that are costly to establish, monitor and maintain, and as we pursue a larger number of transactions across multiple assets classes and in multiple jurisdictions, such costs will increase and the risk that a tax matter is overlooked or inadequately or inconsistently addressed will increase. Consequently, we may fail to achieve the desired tax benefit or otherwise decrease the returns of our investments or damage the reputation of our firm. Changes in law and regulation and in the enforcement of existing law and regulation, such as antitrust laws and tax laws, also adds complexity and risk to our business. Further, we, directly or through our funds, may acquire an investment that is subject to contingent liabilities, which could be unknown to us at the time of acquisition or, if they are known to us, we may not accurately assess or protect against the risks that they present. Acquired contingent liabilities could thus result in unforeseen losses for us or our funds. In addition, in connection with the disposition of an investment in a portfolio company, we or a fund may be required to make representations about the business and financial affairs of such portfolio company typical of those made in connection with the sale of a business. We or a fund may also be required to indemnify the purchasers of such investment to the extent that any such representations are inaccurate. These arrangements may result in the incurrence of contingent liabilities by us or a fund, even after the disposition of an investment. Any of these risks could harm the performance of us or our funds.

Our private equity investments are typically among the largest in the industry, which involves certain complexities and risks that are not encountered in small‑ and medium‑sized investments.

Our private equity funds make investments in companies with relatively large capitalizations, which involves certain complexities and risks that are not encountered in small‑ and medium‑sized investments. For example, larger transactions may be more difficult to finance and exiting larger deals may present incremental challenges. In addition, larger transactions may pose greater challenges in implementing changes in the company’s management, culture, finances or operations, and may entail greater scrutiny by regulators, interest groups and other third parties. These constituencies may be more active in opposing some larger investments by certain private equity firms.

In some transactions, the amount of equity capital that is required to complete a large capitalization private equity transaction may be significant and are required to be structured as a consortium transaction. A consortium transaction involves an equity investment in which two or more other private equity firms serve together or collectively as equity sponsors. While we have sought to limit where possible the amount of consortium transactions in which we have been involved, we have participated in a significant number of those transactions. Consortium transactions generally entail a reduced level of control by our firm over the investment because governance rights must be shared with the other consortium investors. Accordingly, we may not be able to control decisions relating to a consortium investment, including decisions relating to the management and operation of the company and the timing and nature of any exit, which could result in the risks described in “-Our funds have made investments in companies that we do not control, exposing us to the risk of decisions made by others with which we may not agree.” Any of these factors could increase the risk that our larger investments could be less successful. The consequences to our investment funds of an unsuccessful larger investment could be more severe given the size of the investment. Moreover, we have significant co‑investments in such large investments, and as a result the poor performance of any such large investment may have a material adverse impact on our financial results. See “-We and certain of our funds may make a limited number of investments, or investments that are concentrated in certain geographic regions or asset types, which could negatively affect our performance or the performance of our funds to the extent those concentrated investments perform poorly” and “-Because we hold interests in some of our portfolio companies both through our management of private equity

funds as well as through separate investments in those funds and direct co‑investments, fluctuation in the fair values of these portfolio companies may have a disproportionate impact on the investment income earned by us.”

We and our funds have made investments in companies that we do not control, exposing us to the risk of decisions made by others with which we may not agree.

We and our funds and accounts hold investments that include debt instruments and equity securities of companies that we do not control, and such investments may comprise an increasing part of our business. Such instruments and securities may be acquired by our funds and accounts through trading activities or through purchases of securities from the issuer or we may purchase such instruments and securities on a principal basis. In addition, our funds and accounts may acquire minority equity interests, particularly when making private equity investments in Asia or sponsoring investments as part of a large investor consortium or through many of our Public Markets funds, and may also dispose of a portion of their majority equity investments in portfolio companies over time in a manner that results in the funds or accounts retaining a minority investment. We and our funds, including our newer private equity funds, have made certain minority investments in publicly traded companies. We have also increasingly made minority investments in companies including hedge fund managers with our balance sheet assets. Transactions made by companies we do not control could be viewed as unwanted, damage our reputation, and consequently impair our ability to source transactions in the future. Those investments will be subject to the risk that the company in which the investment is made may make business, financial or management decisions with which we do not agree or that the majority stakeholders or the management of the company may take risks or otherwise act in a manner that does not serve our interests. These companies may be subject to complex regulatory requirements and instances of non-compliance by them may subject us to reputational harm or in certain cases, liability. We are also reliant on the systems and processes of these companies including for financial information and valuations of our investments in or with them, including hedge fund managers and their funds, but we do not control the decisions and judgments made during such processes. Our investments in hedge fund managers through our stakes and seeding business may subject us to additional regulatory complexities or scrutiny if we are deemed to control the company for regulatory purposes, despite our minority interest. These asset managers may also be dependent on their founders and other key persons, and the loss of these key personnel could adversely impact our investment. If any of the foregoing were to occur, the value of the investments held by our funds or accounts or by us could decrease and our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow could be adversely affected.

We make investments in companies that are based outside of the United States, which may expose us to additional risks not typically associated with investing in companies that are based in the United States.

Many of our funds, vehicles and accounts invest or have the flexibility to invest a significant portion of their assets in the equity, debt, loans or other securities of issuers that are based outside of the United States. A substantial amount of these investments consist of private equity investments made by our private equity funds. For example, as of December 31, 2015, approximately 49% of the unrealized value of the investments of those funds and accounts was attributable to foreign investments. Investing in companies that are based or have significant operations in countries outside of the United States and, in particular, in emerging markets such as China and India, Eastern Europe, countries in south and southeast Asia, Brazil, Latin America and Africa, involves risks and considerations that are not typically associated with investments in companies established in the United States. These risks may include the following:

•	the possibility of exchange control regulations, restrictions on repatriation of profit on investments or of capital invested, political and social instability, nationalization or expropriation of assets;

•	the imposition of non‑U.S. taxes and changes in tax law;

•	differences in the legal and regulatory environment, for example the recognition of information barriers, or enhanced legal and regulatory compliance;

•	greater levels of corruption and potential exposure to the FCPA and other laws that prohibit improper payments or offers of payments to foreign governments, their officials and other third parties;

•	violations of sanctions regimes;

•	limitations on borrowings to be used to fund acquisitions or dividends;

•	limitations on permissible counterparties in our transactions or consolidation rules that effectively restrict the types of businesses in which we may invest;

•	political risks generally, including political hostility to investments by foreign or private equity investors;

•	less liquid markets;

•	reliance on a more limited number of commodity inputs, service providers and/or distribution mechanisms;

•	adverse fluctuations in currency exchange rates and costs associated with conversion of investment principal and income from one currency into another;

•	higher rates of inflation;

•	less available current information about an issuer;

•	higher transaction costs;

•	less government supervision of exchanges, brokers and issuers;

•	less developed bankruptcy and other laws;

•	greater application of concepts like equitable subordination, which may, in bankruptcy or insolvency, result in the subordination of debt or other senior interests held by our investment funds, vehicles or accounts in companies in which our investment funds, vehicles or accounts also hold equity interests;

•	difficulty in enforcing contractual obligations;

•	lack of uniform accounting, auditing and financial reporting standards;

•	less stringent requirements relating to fiduciary duties;

•	fewer investor protections; and

•	greater price volatility.

As a result of the complexity of and lack of clear laws, precedent or authority with respect to the application of various income tax laws to our structures, the application of rules governing how transactions and structures should be reported is also subject to differing interpretations. In particular, certain jurisdictions have either proposed or adopted rules that seek to limit the amount of interest that may be deductible where the lender and the borrower are related parties (or where third party borrowings have been guaranteed by a related party) and in some cases, without regard to whether the lender is a related party, or may seek to interpret existing rules in a more restrictive manner. In addition, the tax authorities of certain countries have sought to disallow tax deductions for transaction and certain other costs at the portfolio company level either on the basis that the entity claiming the deduction does not benefit from the costs incurred or on other grounds. These measures will most likely adversely affect portfolio companies in those jurisdictions in which our investment funds have investments, and limit the benefits of additional investments in those countries. Our business is also subject to the risk that similar measures might be introduced in other countries in which our investment funds currently have investments or plan to invest in the future, or that other legislative or regulatory measures that negatively affect their respective portfolio investments might be promulgated in any of the countries in which they invest.

In addition, certain countries such as Australia, China, India, Japan, Brazil and South Korea, where we have made investments, have sought to tax investment gains derived by nonresident investors, including private equity funds, from the disposition of the equity in companies operating in those countries. In some cases this development is the result of new legislation or changes in the interpretation of existing legislation and local authority assertions that investors have a local taxable presence or are holding companies for trading purposes rather than for capital purposes, or are not otherwise entitled to treaty benefits.

Further, the tax authorities in certain countries, such as Australia, Belgium, China, India, Japan, Denmark, Germany, and South Korea have sought to deny the benefits of income tax treaties or EU Directives with respect to withholding taxes on interest and dividends and capital gains, of nonresident entities. Benefits of income tax treaties or EU Directives could be denied under each country's general anti-avoidance rules or on the basis that the entity benefiting from such treaty or Directive

is not the owner of the income, is a mere conduit inserted primarily to access treaty benefits or Directives, or otherwise lacks substance.

These various proposals and initiatives could result in an increase in taxes paid by our funds and/or increased tax withholding with respect to our investors.

In July 2013, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD") published its Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting ("BEPS"). The OECD released its final reports in October 2015 describing measures for a reform of the international tax rules to be implemented by the member states by the end of 2016. The BEPS project looks at various different ways in which domestic tax rules around the world, and the bilateral double tax treaties that govern the interplay between them, could be amended to address issues such as "double non-taxation" or "profit shifting". Among measures published by the OECD, there are specific Actions to prevent treaty abuse, the deductibility of interest expense and neutralizing the effects of certain hybrid mismatch arrangements which are potentially very relevant to some of our structures and could have an adverse tax impact on our funds, investors and/or our portfolio companies.

As a result of the complexity of our structures, foreign jurisdictions may seek to tax an additional portion of the fee income associated with our management advisory activity. Foreign jurisdictions may assert that an additional amount of fee income is subject to local tax, potentially reducing our profits associated with such income, although this risk may be mitigated by the availability of foreign tax credits. We or our funds may also inadvertently establish a taxable presence in a jurisdiction because of activities conducted there. Compliance with tax laws and structures in these jurisdictions and the costs of adapting to changes in tax policies require significant oversight and cost.

Although we expect that most of the capital commitments of our funds, vehicles and accounts will be denominated in U.S. dollars, our investments and capital commitments that are denominated in a foreign currency, such as euro, will be subject to the risk that the value of a particular currency will change in relation to one or more other currencies. Among the factors that may affect currency values are trade balances, the ability of countries to pay their national debt, levels of short‑term interest rates, differences in relative values of similar assets in different currencies, long‑term opportunities for investment and capital appreciation and political developments. We may employ hedging techniques to minimize these risks, but we can offer no assurance that such strategies will be effective or even available at all. If we engage in hedging transactions, we may be exposed to additional risks associated with such transactions. See “-Risk management activities may adversely affect the return on our investments.” Furthermore, we or our funds have and expect to continue to invest in European companies and companies that have operations that may be affected by the Eurozone economy. While concerns about sovereign defaults and the possibility that one or more countries might leave the European Union or the Eurozone are unresolved, such an event or austerity and other measures introduced in order to limit or contain these issues, could have a material adverse effect on investments by our funds in European companies. Legal uncertainty about the funding of euro denominated obligations following any break up of or exits from the Eurozone could also materially adversely affect a fund.

Third party investors in our funds with commitment‑based structures may not satisfy their contractual obligation to fund capital calls when requested by us, which could adversely affect a fund’s operations and performance.

Investors in certain of our funds make capital commitments to those funds that the funds are entitled to call from those investors at any time during prescribed periods. We depend on fund investors fulfilling their commitments when we call capital from them in order for such funds to consummate investments and otherwise pay their obligations (for example, management fees) when due. Any fund investor that did not fund a capital call would generally be subject to several possible penalties, including having a significant amount of existing investment forfeited in that fund. However, the impact of the penalty is directly correlated to the amount of capital previously invested by the investor in the fund and if an investor has invested little or no capital, for instance early in the life of the fund, then the forfeiture penalty may not be as meaningful. Investors may in the future also negotiate for lesser or reduced penalties at the outset of the fund, thereby inhibiting our ability to enforce the funding of a capital call. If our fund investors were to fail to satisfy a significant amount of capital calls for any particular fund or funds, the operation and performance of those funds could be materially and adversely affected.

Our equity investments and many of our debt investments often rank junior to investments made by others, exposing us to greater risk of losing our investment.

In many cases, the companies in which we or our funds invest have, or are permitted to have, outstanding indebtedness or equity securities that rank senior to our or our fund’s investment. By their terms, such instruments may provide that their holders are entitled to receive payments of distributions, interest or principal on or before the dates on which payments are to be made in respect of our investment. Also, in the event of insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of a company in which an investment is made, holders of securities ranking senior to our investment would typically be entitled to

receive payment in full before distributions could be made in respect of its investment. In addition, debt investments made by us or our funds in our portfolio companies may be equitably subordinated to the debt investments made by third parties in our portfolio companies. After repaying senior security holders, the company may not have any remaining assets to use for repaying amounts owed in respect of our investment. To the extent that any assets remain, holders of claims that rank equally with our investment would be entitled to share on an equal and ratable basis in distributions that are made out of those assets. Also, during periods of financial distress or following an insolvency, the ability of us or our funds to influence a company’s affairs and to take actions to protect an investment may be substantially less than that of the senior creditors.

Risk management activities may adversely affect the return on our investments.

When managing exposure to market risks, we employ hedging strategies or certain forms of derivative instruments to limit our exposure to changes in the relative values of investments that may result from market developments, including changes in prevailing interest rates and currency exchange rates. The scope of risk management activities undertaken by us is selective and varies based on the level and volatility of interest rates, prevailing foreign currency exchange rates, the types of investments that are made and other changing market conditions. The use of hedging transactions and other derivative instruments to reduce the effects of a decline in the value of a position does not eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the value of the position or prevent losses if the value of the position declines. However, such activities can establish other positions designed to gain from those same developments, thereby offsetting the decline in the value of the position. Such transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the value of a position increases. Moreover, it may not be possible to limit the exposure to a market development that is so generally anticipated that a hedging or other derivative transaction cannot be entered into at an acceptable price.

The success of any hedging or other derivative transactions that we enter into generally will depend on our ability to correctly predict market changes. As a result, while we may enter into such transactions in order to reduce our exposure to market risks, unanticipated market changes may result in poorer overall investment performance than if the hedging or other derivative transaction had not been executed. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in connection with hedging activities and price movements in a position being hedged may vary. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not seek or be successful in establishing a perfect correlation between the instruments used in hedging or other derivative transactions and the positions being hedged. An imperfect correlation could prevent us from achieving the intended result and could give rise to a loss. In addition, it may not be possible to fully or perfectly limit our exposure against all changes in the value of its investments, because the value of investments is likely to fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, some of which will be beyond our control or ability to hedge.

While hedging arrangements may reduce certain risks, such arrangements themselves may entail certain other risks. These arrangements may require the posting of cash collateral, including at a time when a fund has insufficient cash or illiquid assets such that the posting of the cash is either impossible or requires the sale of assets at prices that do not reflect their underlying value. Moreover, these hedging arrangements may generate significant transaction costs, including potential tax costs, that reduce the returns generated by a fund. The CFTC has proposed or adopted regulations governing swaps and security‑ based swaps, which may limit our trading activities and our ability to implement effective hedging strategies or increase the costs of compliance. See “Risks Related to Our Business-Extensive regulation of our businesses affects our activities and creates the potential for significant liabilities and penalties. The possibility of increased regulatory focus or legislative or regulatory changes could result in additional burdens on our business.”

The assets of our funds and our firm through our principal assets may make a limited number of investments, or investments that are concentrated in certain issuers, geographic regions or asset types, which could negatively affect our performance or the performance of our funds to the extent those concentrated assets perform poorly.

The governing agreements of our funds contain only limited investment restrictions and only limited requirements as to diversification of fund investments, either by geographic region or asset type. Our private equity funds generally permit up to 20% of the fund to be invested in a single company. Similarly, subject to certain concentration limits, our balance sheet may hold significant exposures to certain issuers, industries or asset classes. As of December 31, 2015, investments in private equity, CLOs, alternative credit, energy and real estate each represent more than 5% of our investments on a consolidated segment basis. During periods of difficult market conditions or slowdowns in these sectors or geographic regions, decreased revenues, difficulty in obtaining access to financing and increased funding costs may be exacerbated by this concentration of investments, which would result in lower investment returns. Because a significant portion of a fund’s capital may be invested in a single investment or portfolio company, a loss with respect to such investment or portfolio company could have a significant adverse impact on such fund’s capital. Accordingly, a lack of diversification on the part of a fund could adversely affect a fund’s performance and therefore, our financial condition and results of operations. Where our balance sheet has a significant exposure to an issuer, industry or asset class, as was the case with energy investments beginning in late 2014 through and into

2016, losses may have an even greater impact on our financial condition and results of operations, as we would directly bear the full extent of such losses.

Because we hold interests in some of our portfolio companies both through our management of private equity funds as well as through separate investments in those funds and direct co‑investments, fluctuation in the fair values of these portfolio companies may have a disproportionate impact on the investment income earned by us.

We hold interests in some of our portfolio companies through our management of private equity and other funds, as well as through separate investments in those funds and co‑investments in certain portfolio companies of such funds. As of December 31, 2015, we hold significant aggregate investments in each of First Data Corporation and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. (the company resulting from Walgreen’s acquisition of Alliance Boots GmbH), which each represent more than 5% of our investments on a consolidated segment basis. As a result of our disproportionate investment in these companies, or any other portfolio companies for which similar investments are held in the future, any fluctuation in the fair values of these portfolio companies may have a disproportionate impact on the investment income earned by us as compared to other portfolio companies.

Our business activities may give rise to a conflict of interest with our funds.

As we have expanded and as we continue to expand the number and scope of our businesses, we increasingly confront potential conflicts of interest relating to investment activities among our various funds and also our own account. For example,

•	In pursuing the interest of our fund investors, we may take actions that could reduce our AUM or our profits that we could otherwise realize in the short term.

•	We may be required to allocate investment opportunities among investment vehicles that may have overlapping investment objectives, including vehicles that may have different fee structures, and among KKR co‑investment vehicles (including vehicles in which KKR employees may investment) and third party co‑investors.

•

We may, on behalf of our funds or KKR itself, buy, sell, hold or otherwise deal with securities or other investments that may be purchased, sold or held by our other funds or that are otherwise issued by a portfolio company in which our funds invest. Conflicts of interest may arise between a fund, on one hand, and KKR on the other or among our funds including but not limited to those relating to the purchase or sale of investments, the structuring of, or exercise of rights with respect to investment transactions and the advice we provide to our funds. For example we may sell an investment at a different time or for different consideration than our funds.

•	We may invest on behalf of our fund or for our own account in a portfolio company of one fund that is a competitor, service provider, supplier, customer, or other counterparty with respect to a portfolio company of another fund.

•	We may structure an investment in a manner that may be attractive to fund investors or to KKR Holdings L.P., from a tax perspective but that may require corporate taxation to unitholders.

•	A decision to acquire material non‑public information about a company while pursuing an investment opportunity for a particular fund or our own account may result in our having to restrict the ability of other funds to take any action.

•

Our fiduciary obligations to our fund investors may preclude us from pursuing attractive proprietary investment opportunities, in particular as we enter into strategic relationships with broad investment mandates similar to the investments we make with our balance sheet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we also allocate certain investments, which we believe are not suitable for our funds to our balance sheet.

•	Conflicts may arise in allocating investments, time, services, expenses or resources among the investment activities of our funds, KKR, other KKR‑affiliated entities and the employees of KKR.

•	Our principals have made personal investments in a variety of our investment funds, which may result in conflicts of interest among investors of our funds or unitholders regarding investment decisions for these funds.

•

The general partner’s entitlement to receive carried interest from many of our funds may create an incentive for that general partner to make riskier and more speculative investments on behalf of a fund than would be the case in the absence of such an arrangement. In addition, for our funds that pay carried interest based on accrued rather than realized gains, the amount of carried interest to which the general partner is entitled and the timing of its receipt of carried interest will depend on the valuation by the general partner of the fund’s investment.

•	From time to time, one of our funds may seek to effect a purchase or sale of an investment with one or more of our other funds in a so‑called “cross transaction”.

•	The investors in our investment vehicles are based in a wide variety of jurisdictions and take a wide variety of forms, and consequently have diverging interests among themselves from a regulatory, tax or legal perspective or with respect to investment policies and target risk/return profiles.

•	We or our affiliates, including our capital markets business, may receive fees or other compensation in connection with specific transactions or different clients that may give rise to conflicts. The decision to take on an opportunity in one of our businesses may, as a practical matter, also limit the ability of one or our other businesses to take advantage of other related opportunities.

In addition, our funds and accounts also invest in a broad range of asset classes throughout the corporate capital structure. These investments include investments in corporate loans and debt securities, preferred equity securities and common equity securities. In certain cases, we may manage separate funds or accounts that invest in different parts of the same company’s capital structure. For example, our credit funds may invest in different classes of the same company’s debt and may make debt investments in a company that is owned by one of our private equity funds. In those cases, the interests of our funds may not always be aligned, which could create actual or potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts. For example, one of our private equity funds could have an interest in pursuing an acquisition, divestiture or other transaction that, in its judgment, could enhance the value of the private equity investment, even though the proposed transaction would subject one of our credit fund’s debt investments to additional or increased risks. Finally, our ability to effectively implement a public securities strategy may be limited to the extent that contractual obligations entered into in the ordinary course of our private equity business impose restrictions on our engaging in transactions that we may be interested in otherwise pursuing.

We may also cause different investment funds to invest in a single portfolio company, for example where the fund that made an initial investment no longer has capital available to invest. Conflicts may also arise where we make balance sheet investments for our own account or permit employees to invest alongside our investment vehicles or our balance sheet for their own account. In certain cases, we may require that a transaction or investment be approved by fund investors or their advisory committees, be approved by an independent valuation expert, be subject to a fairness opinion, be based on arms‑length pricing data or be calculated in accordance with a formula provided for in a fund’s governing documents prior to the completion of the relevant transaction to address potential conflicts of interest. Such instances include principal transactions where we or our affiliates warehouse an investment in a portfolio company for the benefit of one or more of our funds or accounts pending the contribution of committed capital by the investors in such funds or accounts, follow‑on investments by a fund other than a fund which made an initial investment in a company or transactions in which we arrange for one of our funds or accounts to buy a security from, or sell a security to, another one of our funds or accounts.

Appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult and we could suffer reputational damage or potential liability if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with conflicts as they arise. Regulatory scrutiny of, or litigation in connection with, conflicts of interest could have a material adverse effect on our reputation which could in turn materially adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including as a result of an inability to raise additional funds and a reluctance of counterparties to do business with us.

Investors in certain of our Public Markets funds may redeem their investments in these funds with minimal notice.

Investors in our funds of funds along with those in our long/short credit strategy and other investment vehicles may generally submit redemptions to redeem their investments on a quarterly or monthly basis following the expiration of a specified period of time or in certain cases capital may be withdrawn earlier subject to a fee, in each case subject to the applicable fund’s specific redemption provisions. For certain KKR Prisma funds managed as part of a single investor’s mandate the length of time to redeem an investment may vary and will depend on the liquidity constraints of each KKR Prisma fund’s underlying hedge fund portfolio. Factors which could result in investors leaving our funds include changes in interest rates that make other investments more attractive, changes in investor perception regarding our focus or alignment of interest, unhappiness with a fund’s performance or investment strategy, changes in our reputation, departures or changes in responsibilities of key investment professionals, performance and liquidity needs of fund investors. In a declining market or period of economic disruption or uncertainty, the pace of redemptions and consequent reduction in our AUM could accelerate. The decrease in revenues that would result from significant redemptions from our funds of funds or other similar investment vehicles could have a material adverse effect on our business, revenues, net income and cash flows.

A portion of assets invested in our fund of hedge funds strategy are managed through separately managed accounts or entities structured for investment by one investor or related investors whereby we earn management and incentive fees, and we

intend to continue to seek additional separately managed account or single entity mandates. The investment management agreements we enter into in connection with managing separately managed accounts or entities on behalf of certain clients may be terminated by such clients on as little as 30 days’ prior written notice, or less in certain prescribed circumstances. In addition, the boards of directors of certain funds we manage could terminate our advisory engagement of those companies, on as little as 30 days’ prior written notice. Similarly, we provide subadvisory services to other investment advisors and managers. Such investment advisors and managers could terminate our subadvisory agreements on as little as 30 days’ prior written notice. In the case of any such terminations, the management and incentive fees we earn in connection with managing such account or company would immediately cease, which could result in a significant adverse impact on our revenues.

In addition, certain funds in our Public Markets business are registered under the Investment Company Act as management investment companies. These funds and KKR Credit Advisors (US) LLC, which serves as their investment adviser (or, in the case of the business development company, as its sub‑adviser), are subject to the Investment Company Act and the rules thereunder. One of these funds is a New York Stock Exchange‑listed closed‑end fund. In addition, the management fees we are paid for managing investment companies will generally be subject to contractual rights the company’s board of directors (or, in the case of the business development company we manage, the investment adviser) has to terminate our management of an account on as short as 60 days’ prior notice. Termination of these agreements would reduce the fees we earn from the relevant funds, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our funds of funds may be subject to risks related to the limited rights it has to withdraw, transfer or otherwise liquidate its investments.

A fund of funds is subject to risks related to the limited rights it has to withdraw, transfer or otherwise liquidate its investments from the underlying hedge funds or other funds in which it invests. Hedge funds, including those in which our fund of funds are invested and the hedge funds we offer to our fund investors, may make investments or hold trading positions in markets that are volatile and which may become illiquid. Timely divestiture or sale of trading positions can be impaired by decreased trading volume, increased price volatility, concentrated trading positions, limitations on the ability to transfer positions in highly specialized or structured transactions to which they may be a party, and changes in industry and government regulations. It may be impossible or costly for hedge funds to liquidate positions rapidly in order to meet margin calls, withdrawal requests or otherwise, particularly if there are other market participants seeking to dispose of similar assets at the same time or the relevant market is otherwise moving against a position or in the event of trading halts or daily price movement limits on the market or otherwise.

Moreover, these risks may be exacerbated for funds of funds such as those we manage. For example, if one of our funds of funds were to invest a significant portion of its assets in two or more hedge funds that each had illiquid positions in the same issuer, the illiquidity risk for our funds of hedge funds would be compounded. In 2008 many hedge funds experienced significant declines in value. In many cases, these declines in value were both provoked and exacerbated by margin calls and forced selling of assets, often at distressed prices. Moreover, certain funds of funds were invested in hedge funds that halted redemptions in the face of illiquidity and other issues, which precluded those funds of funds from receiving their capital back on request. There can be no guarantee that such a situation would not recur, particularly in times of market distress.

Terms of the governing documents may also limit a fund of funds’ ability to withdraw, transfer or otherwise liquidate their investments in underlying portfolio funds. Under the terms of the governing documents of the relevant portfolio funds or other investments, the ability of a fund of funds or account to redeem any amount invested therein may be subject to certain restrictions and conditions, including restrictions on the redemption of capital for an initial period, restrictions on the amount of redemptions and the frequency with which redemptions can be made, and investment minimums that must be maintained. Additionally, portfolio funds typically reserve the right to reduce (“gate”) or suspend redemptions, to set aside (“side pocket”) capital that cannot be redeemed for so long as an event or circumstance has not occurred or ceased to exist, respectively, and to satisfy redemptions by making distributions in‑kind, under certain circumstances. The ability of our funds of funds or accounts to redeem portfolio fund interests may be adversely affected to varying degrees by such restrictions depending on, among other things, the length of any restricted periods imposed by the portfolio fund, the amount and timing of a requested redemption in relation to the time remaining of any restricted periods imposed by portfolio funds, the aggregate amount of redemption requests, the next regularly scheduled redemption dates of such portfolio funds, the imposition of “gates” or suspensions, the use of “side pockets”, the decision by a portfolio fund to satisfy redemptions in‑kind, and the satisfaction of other conditions.

Investments by our fund of funds, other hedge funds and similar investment vehicles and strategic partnerships with hedge fund managers are subject to numerous additional risks.

Investments by one or more hedge funds and investment vehicles with similar characteristics that we currently advise or may organize in the future are subject to numerous additional risks including the following:

•	Generally, there are few limitations on the execution of investment strategies of a hedge fund or fund of funds, which are subject to the sole discretion of the management company or the general partner of such funds.

•

Hedge funds may engage in short selling, which is subject to theoretically unlimited loss, in that the price of the underlying security could theoretically increase without limit, thus increasing the cost of buying those securities to cover the short position. There can be no assurance that the security necessary to cover a short position will be available for purchase. Purchasing securities to close out the short position can itself cause the prices of the securities to rise further, thereby exacerbating the loss.

•

We may enter into credit default swaps (or CDS) as investments or hedges. CDS involve greater risks than investing in the reference obligation directly. In addition to general market risks, CDS are subject to risks related to changes in interest rates, credit spreads, credit quality and expected recovery rates of the underlying credit instrument. A CDS is a contract in which the protection “buyer” is generally obligated to pay the protection “seller” an upfront or a periodic stream of payments over the term of the contract provided that no credit event, such as a default, on a reference obligation has occurred. If a credit event occurs, the seller generally must pay the buyer the “par value” (full notional value) of the swap in exchange for an equal face amount of deliverable obligations of the issuer (also known as the reference entity) of the underlying credit instrument referenced in the CDS, or, if the swap is cash settled, the seller may be required to deliver the related net cash amount. The protection buyer will lose its investment and recover nothing should no event of default occur. If an event of default were to occur, the value of the reference obligation received by the protection seller (if any), coupled with the periodic payments previously received, may be less than the full notional value it pays to the buyer, resulting in a loss of value to the seller. If we act as the protection seller in respect of a CDS contract, we would be exposed to many of the same risks of leverage described herein since if an event of default occurs the seller must pay the buyer the full notional value of the reference obligation.

•

Hedge funds and investment vehicles with similar characteristics are exposed to the risk that a counterparty will not settle a transaction in accordance with its terms and conditions because of a dispute over the terms of the contract (whether or not bona fide) or because of a credit or liquidity problem, thus causing the fund to suffer a loss. Counterparty risk is accentuated for contracts with longer maturities where events may intervene to prevent settlement, or where the fund has concentrated its transactions with a single or small group of counterparties. Generally, hedge funds and investment vehicles with similar characteristics are not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of their transactions with one counterparty. Moreover, the fund’s internal consideration of the creditworthiness of their counterparties may prove insufficient. The absence of a regulated market to facilitate settlement may increase the potential for losses.

•

Credit risk may arise through a default by one of several large institutions that are dependent on one another to meet their liquidity or operational needs, so that a default by one institution causes a series of defaults by the other institutions. This systemic risk may adversely affect the financial intermediaries (such as clearing agencies, clearing houses, banks, securities firms and exchanges) with which the hedge funds and investment vehicles with similar characteristics interact on a daily basis.

•

The efficacy of investment and trading strategies depend largely on the ability to establish and maintain an overall market position in a combination of financial instruments. A hedge fund’s trading orders may not be executed in a timely and efficient manner due to various circumstances, including systems failures or human error. In such event, the funds might only be able to acquire some but not all of the components of the position, or if the overall position were to need adjustment, the funds might not be able to make such adjustment. As a result, the funds would not be able to achieve the market position selected by the management company or general partner of such funds, and might incur a loss in liquidating their position.

•

These funds may make investments that they do not advantageously dispose of prior to the date the applicable fund is dissolved, either by expiration of such fund’s term or otherwise. Although we generally expect that investments will be disposed of prior to dissolution or be suitable for in-kind distribution at dissolution, and the general partners of the funds have a limited ability to extend the term of the fund with the consent of fund investors or the advisory board of the fund, as applicable, our funds may have to sell, distribute or otherwise dispose of investments at a disadvantageous

time as a result of dissolution. This would result in a lower than expected return on the investments and, perhaps, on the fund itself.

•

These funds may rely on computer programs, internal infrastructure and services, quantitative models (both proprietary models and those supplied by third parties) and information and data provided by third parties to trade, clear and settle securities and other transactions, among other activities, that are critical to the oversight of certain funds’ activities. If any such models, information or data prove to be incorrect or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon could expose the funds to potential risks. Any hedging based on faulty models, information or data may prove to be unsuccessful and adversely impact a fund’s profits.

•

Hedge fund investments are also subject to risks relating to investments in commodities, futures, options and other derivatives, the prices of which are highly volatile and may be subject to the theoretically unlimited risk of loss in certain circumstances, including if the fund writes a call option. Price movements of commodities, futures and options contracts and payments pursuant to swap agreements are influenced by, among other things, interest rates, changing supply and demand relationships, trade, fiscal, monetary and exchange control programs and policies of governments and national and international political and economic events and policies. The value of futures, options and swap agreements also depends upon the price of the commodities underlying them. In addition, hedge funds’ assets are subject to the risk of the failure of any of the exchanges on which their positions trade or of their clearinghouses or counterparties. Most U.S. commodities exchanges limit fluctuations in certain commodity interest prices during a single day by imposing “daily price fluctuation limits” or “daily limits,” the existence of which may reduce liquidity or effectively curtail trading in particular markets. Our fund of hedge fund business may also be subject to and may subject our firm to extensive regulations, including those of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the regulations described under “-Risks Related to Our Business-Extensive regulation of our businesses affects our activities and creates the potential for significant liabilities and penalties. The possibility of increased regulatory focus or legislative or regulatory changes could result in additional burdens on our business”.

The hedge fund managers with which we have strategic partnerships are subject to the risks above. To the extent the financial condition of these hedge fund managers is adversely affected by these risks, our revenues, AUM and FPAUM may decline.

Risks Related to Our Common Units

As a limited partnership, we qualify for some exemptions from the corporate governance and other requirements of the NYSE.

We are a limited partnership and, as a result, qualify for exceptions from certain corporate governance and other requirements of the rules of the NYSE. Pursuant to these exceptions, limited partnerships may elect, and we have elected, not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of the NYSE, including the requirements: (i) that the listed company have a nominating and corporate governance committee that is composed entirely of independent directors; (ii) that the listed company have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors and (iii) that the compensation committee be required to consider certain independence factors when engaging compensation consultants, legal counsel and other committee advisers. In addition, as a limited partnership, we are not required to obtain unitholder approval for (a) the issuance of common units to certain related parties where the number of common units exceeds one percent of the outstanding common units or voting power, (b) the issuance of common units that equals or exceeds 20% of the outstanding common units or voting power, or (c) a change of control transaction, and we are not required to hold annual unitholder meetings. Accordingly, you do not have the same protections afforded to equity holders of entities that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE.

Our founders are able to determine or influence the outcome of any matter that may be submitted for a vote of our limited partners.

Very few matters are required to be submitted to a vote of our unitholders, and generally such matters require a majority or more of all the outstanding voting units. As of February 22, 2016, KKR Holdings owns 361,346,588 KKR Group Partnership Units, or 44% of the outstanding KKR Group Partnership Units. Depending upon the number of units actually voted, we believe our senior employees should generally have sufficient voting power to substantially influence matters subject to a majority or more of all outstanding voting units. Matters that require a vote of a majority of all outstanding voting units include a merger or consolidation of our business, a sale of all or substantially all of our assets and amendments to our partnership agreement that may be material to holders of our common units. In addition, our limited partnership agreement contains provisions that require a majority vote of all outstanding voting units to make certain amendments to our partnership agreement that would materially and adversely affect all holders of our common units or a particular class of holders of common units, and since approximately 44% of our voting units, as of February 22, 2016, are controlled by KKR Holdings, we believe KKR

Holdings should generally have the ability to substantially influence amendments that could materially and adversely affect the holders of our common units either as a whole or as a particular class.

The voting rights of holders of our common units are further restricted by provisions in our limited partnership agreement stating that any of our common units held by a person that beneficially owns 20% or more of any class of our common units then outstanding (other than our Managing Partner or its affiliates, or a direct or subsequently approved transferee of our Managing Partner or its affiliates) cannot be voted on any matter. Our limited partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of the holders of our common units to call meetings, to acquire information about our operations, and to influence the manner or direction of our management. Our limited partnership agreement does not restrict our Managing Partner’s ability to take actions that may result in our partnership being treated as an entity taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal (and applicable state) income tax purposes. Furthermore, holders of our common units would not be entitled to dissenters’ rights of appraisal under our limited partnership agreement or applicable Delaware law in the event of a merger or consolidation, a sale of substantially all of our assets or any other transaction or event.

Our limited partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce or eliminate duties (including fiduciary duties) of our Managing Partner and limit remedies available to unitholders for actions that might otherwise constitute a breach of duty. It will be difficult for unitholders to successfully challenge a resolution of a conflict of interest by our Managing Partner or by its conflicts committee.

Our limited partnership agreement contains provisions that require holders of our common units to waive or consent to conduct by our Managing Partner and its affiliates that might otherwise raise issues about compliance with fiduciary duties or applicable law. For example, our limited partnership agreement provides that when our Managing Partner is acting in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our Managing Partner, it may act without any fiduciary obligations to holders of our common units, whatsoever. When our Managing Partner, in its capacity as our general partner, or our conflicts committee is permitted to or required to make a decision in its “sole discretion” or “discretion” or that it deems “necessary or appropriate” or “necessary or advisable,” then our Managing Partner or the conflicts committee will be entitled to consider only such interests and factors as it desires, including its own interests, and will have no duty or obligation (fiduciary or otherwise) to give any consideration to any interest of or factors affecting us or any holder of our common units and will not be subject to any different standards imposed by our limited partnership agreement, the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, which is referred to as the Delaware Limited Partnership Act, or under any other law, rule or regulation or in equity. These standards reduce the obligations to which our Managing Partner would otherwise be held. See also “-We are a Delaware limited partnership, and there are provisions in our limited partnership agreement regarding exculpation and indemnification of our officers and directors that differ from the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) in a manner that may be less protective of the interests of our common unitholders.”

The above modifications of fiduciary duties are expressly permitted by Delaware law. Hence, we and holders of our common units will only have recourse and be able to seek remedies against our Managing Partner if our Managing Partner breaches its obligations pursuant to our limited partnership agreement. Unless our Managing Partner breaches its obligations pursuant to our limited partnership agreement, we and holders of our common units will not have any recourse against our Managing Partner even if our Managing Partner were to act in a manner that was inconsistent with traditional fiduciary duties. Furthermore, even if there has been a breach of the obligations set forth in our limited partnership agreement, our limited partnership agreement provides that our Managing Partner and its officers and directors will not be liable to us or holders of our common units, for errors of judgment or for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non‑appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that our Managing Partner or its officers and directors acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct. These provisions are detrimental to the holders of our common units because they restrict the remedies available to unitholders for actions that without such limitations might constitute breaches of duty including fiduciary duties.

Whenever a potential conflict of interest exists between us and our Managing Partner, our Managing Partner may resolve such conflict of interest. If our Managing Partner determines that its resolution of the conflict of interest is on terms no less favorable to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties or is fair and reasonable to us, taking into account the totality of the relationships between us and our Managing Partner, then it will be presumed that in making this determination, our Managing Partner acted in good faith. A holder of our common units seeking to challenge this resolution of the conflict of interest would bear the burden of overcoming such presumption. This is different from the situation with Delaware corporations, where a conflict resolution by an interested party would be presumed to be unfair and the interested party would have the burden of demonstrating that the resolution was fair.

Also, if our Managing Partner obtains the approval of the conflicts committee of our Managing Partner, the resolution will be conclusively deemed to be fair and reasonable to us and not a breach by our Managing Partner of any duties it may owe to us or holders of our common units. This is different from the situation with Delaware corporations, where a conflict resolution by a committee consisting solely of independent directors may, in certain circumstances, merely shift the burden of

demonstrating unfairness to the plaintiff. If you purchase, receive or otherwise hold a common unit, you will be treated as having consented to the provisions set forth in our limited partnership agreement, including provisions regarding conflicts of interest situations that, in the absence of such provisions, might be considered a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law. As a result, unitholders will, as a practical matter, not be able to successfully challenge an informed decision by the conflicts committee.

We have also agreed to indemnify our Managing Partner and any of its affiliates and any member, partner, tax matters partner, officer, director, employee agent, fiduciary or trustee of our partnership, our Managing Partner or any of our affiliates and certain other specified persons, to the fullest extent permitted by law, against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, joint or several, expenses (including legal fees and expenses), judgments, fines, penalties, interest, settlements or other amounts incurred by our Managing Partner or these other persons. We have agreed to provide this indemnification unless there has been a final and non‑appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that these persons acted in bad faith or engaged in fraud or willful misconduct. We have also agreed to provide this indemnification for criminal proceedings.

Our Managing Partner may exercise its right to call and purchase common units as provided in our limited partnership agreement or assign this right to one of its affiliates or to us. Our Managing Partner may use its own discretion, free of fiduciary duty restrictions, in determining whether to exercise this right. As a result, a unitholder may have his common units purchased from him at an undesirable time or price. For additional information, see our limited partnership agreement filed as an exhibit to this annual report.

Any claims, suits, actions or proceedings concerning the matters described above or any other matter arising out of or relating in any way to the limited partnership agreement may only be brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, if such court does not have subject matter jurisdiction thereof, any other court in the State of Delaware with subject matter jurisdiction.

The market price and trading volume of our common units may be volatile, which could result in rapid and substantial losses for our common unitholders.

The market price of our common units may be highly volatile, could be subject to wide fluctuations and could decline significantly in the future. In addition, the trading volume in our common units may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. If the market price of our common units declines significantly, you may be unable to sell your common units at an attractive price, if at all. Some of the factors that could negatively affect the price of our common units or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common units include:

•	variations in our quarterly operating results or distributions, which may be substantial;

•	our policy of taking a long‑term perspective on making investment, operational and strategic decisions, which is expected to result in significant and unpredictable variations in our quarterly returns;

•	failure to meet analysts’ earnings estimates;

•	publication of research reports about us or the investment management industry or the failure of securities analysts to cover our common units sufficiently;

•	additions or departures of our principals and other key management personnel;

•	adverse market reaction to any indebtedness we may incur or securities we may issue in the future;

•	changes in market valuations of similar companies;

•	speculation in the press or investment community;

•	changes or proposed changes in laws or regulations or differing interpretations thereof affecting our business or enforcement of these laws and regulations, or announcements relating to these matters;

•	a lack of liquidity in the trading of our common units;

•	adverse publicity about the investment management or private equity industry generally or individual scandals, specifically; and

•	general market and economic conditions.

An investment in our common units is not an investment in any of our funds, and the assets and revenues of our funds are not directly available to us.

Our common units are only securities of KKR & Co. L.P., the holding company of the KKR business. While our historical consolidated and combined financial information includes financial information, including assets and revenues, of certain funds on a consolidated basis, and our future financial information will continue to consolidate certain of these funds, such assets and revenues are available to the fund and not to us except to a limited extent through management fees, carried interest or other incentive income, distributions and other proceeds arising from agreements with funds, as discussed in more detail in this report.

Our common unit price may decline due to the large number of common units eligible for future sale, for exchange, and issuable pursuant to our equity incentive plan and acquisitions.

The market price of our common units could decline as a result of sales of a large number of common units in the market or the perception that such sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell common units in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. As of February 22, 2016, we have 457,834,875 common units outstanding, which amount excludes common units beneficially owned by KKR Holdings in the form of KKR Group Partnership Units discussed below and common units available for future issuance under the KKR & Co. L.P. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, which we refer to as our Equity Incentive Plan.

As of February 22, 2016, KKR Holdings owns 361,346,588 KKR Group Partnership Units that may be exchanged, on a quarterly basis, for our common units on a one‑for‑one basis, subject to customary conversion rate adjustments for splits, unit distributions and reclassifications. Except for interests held by our founders and certain interests held by other principals that were vested upon grant, interests in KKR Holdings that are held by our principals are subject to service, performance and/or price-based vesting at the time of grant and, following such vesting, additional restrictions in certain cases on exchanges. During 2015, 3,100,780 previously unvested units in KKR Holdings vested. The market price of our common units could decline as a result of the exchange or the perception that an exchange may occur of a large number of KKR Group Partnership Units for our common units. These exchanges, or the possibility that these exchanges may occur, also might make it more difficult for holders of our common units to sell our common units in the future at a time and at a price that they deem appropriate.

In addition, we will continue to issue additional common units pursuant to our Equity Incentive Plan. The total number of common units which may be issued under our Equity Incentive Plan is equivalent to 15% of the number of fully exchanged and diluted common units outstanding as of the beginning of the year. The amount may be increased each year to the extent that we issue additional equity. As of February 19, 2016, KKR may issue common units registered on KKR's registration statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-171601) for this purpose and may also issue 24.6 million common units under the Equity Incentive Plan that were not registered on KKR’s registration statement on Form S‑8. In addition previously issued awards that were canceled or are canceled in the future, or in certain cases, withheld in respect of tax withholding obligations, are or will become available for further grant under the terms of the Equity Incentive Plan. See “Executive Compensation-KKR & Co. L.P. Equity Incentive Plan”. In addition, our limited partnership agreement authorizes us to issue an unlimited number of additional partnership securities and options, rights, warrants and appreciation rights relating to partnership securities for the consideration and on the terms and conditions established by our Managing Partner in its sole discretion without the approval of our unitholders. In accordance with the Delaware Limited Partnership Act and the provisions of our partnership agreement, we may also issue additional partner interests that have designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties that are different from, and may be senior to, those applicable to our common units. Similarly, the partnership agreements of the KKR Group Partnerships authorize the general partners of the KKR Group Partnerships to issue an unlimited number of additional securities of the KKR Group Partnerships with such designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties that are different from, and may be senior to, those applicable to the KKR Group Partnerships Units, and which may be exchangeable for KKR Group Partnership Units. In the past, we have issued and sold common units of KKR & Co. L.P. to generate cash proceeds to pay withholding taxes, social benefit payments or similar payments payable by us in respect of awards granted pursuant to the Equity Incentive Plan or the amount of cash delivered in respect of awards granted pursuant to the Equity Incentive Plan that are settled in cash instead of common units. As of February 19, 2016, we may issue up to 0.8 million common units as registered on our registration statement on Form S-3 (no. 333-196059) in respect of such withholding taxes and cash settled equity awards.

We have used and in the future may continue to use common units as consideration in acquisitions and strategic investments. For example, in connection with KKR’s acquisition of KFN, KKR issued approximately 104.3 million common units of KKR & Co. L.P., in connection with KKR’s acquisition of Avoca, we issued securities exchangeable into 4.9 million common units and in connection with KKR's acquisition of Marshall Wace, we issued approximately 7.3 million common units. In addition, in connection with the Prisma and Nephila transactions, we may make certain contingent payments in the form of common units. If our valuations of these transactions are not accurate or if the value of these acquisitions and investments is not realized, our distributions per common unit and the value of our common units may decline.

Risks Related to Our Organizational Structure

Potential conflicts of interest may arise among our Managing Partner, our affiliates and us. Our Managing Partner and our affiliates have limited fiduciary duties to us and the holders of KKR Group Partnership Units, which may permit them to favor their own interests to our detriment and that of the holders of KKR Group Partnership Units.

Our Managing Partner, which is our general partner, will manage the business and affairs of our business, and will be governed by a board of directors that is co‑chaired by our founders, who also serve as our Co‑Chief Executive Officers. Conflicts of interest may arise among our Managing Partner and its affiliates, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our Managing Partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over us and our unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following:

•

Our Managing Partner indirectly through its holding of controlling entities determines the amount and timing of the KKR Group Partnership’s investments and dispositions, cash expenditures, including those relating to compensation, indebtedness, issuances of additional partner interests, tax liabilities and amounts of reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is available for distribution to holders of KKR Group Partnership Units;

•

Our Managing Partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than us in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of limiting its duties, including fiduciary duties, to us. For example, our affiliates that serve as the general partners of our funds or as broker‑dealers have fiduciary and/or contractual obligations to our fund investors or other third parties. Such obligations may cause such affiliates to regularly take actions with respect to the allocation of investments among our investment funds (including funds that have different fee structures), the purchase or sale of investments in our investment funds, the structuring of investment transactions for those funds and the advice and services we provide that comply with these fiduciary and contractual obligations but that might adversely affect our near‑term results of operations or cash flow. Our Managing Partner will have no obligation to intervene in, or to notify us of, such actions by such affiliates;

•

Because certain of our principals indirectly hold their KKR Group Partnership Units through KKR Holdings L.P. and its subsidiaries, which are not subject to corporate income taxation and we hold some of the KKR Group Partnership Units through one or more wholly‑owned subsidiaries that are taxable as a corporation, conflicts may arise between our principals and us relating to the selection and structuring of investments or transactions, declaring distributions and other matters; without limiting the foregoing, certain investments made by us or through our funds may be determined to be held through KKR Management Holdings L.P., which would result in less taxation to our principals who are limited partners in KKR Holdings as compared to our unitholders;

•

Our Managing Partner, including its directors and officers, has limited its and their liability and reduced or eliminated its and their duties, including fiduciary duties, under our partnership agreement to the fullest extent permitted by law, while also restricting the remedies available to holders of common units for actions that, without these limitations, might constitute breaches of duty, including fiduciary duties. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify our Managing Partner, including its directors and officers, and our Managing Partner’s affiliates to the fullest extent permitted by law, except with respect to conduct involving bad faith, fraud or willful misconduct;

•

Our partnership agreement does not restrict our Managing Partner from paying us or our affiliates for any services rendered, or from entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf, so long as the terms of any such additional contractual arrangements are fair and reasonable to us as determined under our partnership agreement. Neither our limited partnership agreement nor any of the other agreements, contracts and arrangements between us on the one hand, and our Managing Partner and its affiliates on the other, are or will be the result of arm’s‑length negotiations. The conflicts committee will be responsible for, among other things, enforcing our rights and those of our unitholders under certain agreements against KKR Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries and designees, a general partner or limited partner of KKR Holdings, or a person who holds a partnership or equity interest in the foregoing entities;

•	Our Managing Partner and its affiliates will have no obligation to permit us to use any facilities or assets of our Managing Partner and its affiliates, except as may be provided in contracts entered into specifically dealing with such use. There will not be any obligation of our Managing Partner and its affiliates to enter into any contracts of this kind.

•	Our Managing Partner determines how much debt we incur and that decision may adversely affect any credit ratings we receive;

•	Our Managing Partner determines which costs incurred by it and its affiliates are reimbursable by us;

•

Other than as set forth in the confidentiality and restrictive covenant agreements, which in certain cases may only be agreements between our principals and KKR Holdings and which may not be enforceable by us or otherwise waived, modified or amended, affiliates of our Managing Partner and existing and former personnel employed by our Managing Partner are not prohibited from engaging in other businesses or activities, including those that might be in direct competition with us;

•	Our Managing Partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to the KKR Group Partnerships by us and our affiliates; and

•	Our Managing Partner or our Managing Partner conflicts committee decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for us.

See “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.”

Certain actions by our Managing Partner’s board of directors require the approval of the Class A shares of our Managing Partner, all of which are held by our senior employees.

All of our Managing Partner’s outstanding Class A shares are held by our senior employees. Although the affirmative vote of a majority of the directors of our Managing Partner is required for any action to be taken by our Managing Partner’s board of directors, certain specified actions approved by our Managing Partner’s board of directors will also require the approval of a majority of the Class A shares of our Managing Partner. These actions consist of the following:

•	the entry into a debt financing arrangement by us in an amount in excess of 10% of our existing long‑term indebtedness (other than the entry into certain intercompany debt financing arrangements);

•

the issuance by our partnership or our subsidiaries of any securities that would (i) represent, after such issuance, or upon conversion, exchange or exercise, as the case may be, at least 5% on a fully diluted, as converted, exchanged or exercised basis, of any class of our or their equity securities or (ii) have designations, preferences, rights, priorities or powers that are more favorable than those of KKR Group Partnership Units;

•	the adoption by us of a shareholder rights plan;

•	the amendment of our limited partnership agreement or the limited partnership agreements of the KKR Group Partnerships;

•	the exchange or disposition of all or substantially all of our assets or the assets of any KKR Group Partnership;

•	the merger, sale or other combination of the partnership or any KKR Group Partnership with or into any other person;

•	the transfer, mortgage, pledge, hypothecation or grant of a security interest in all or substantially all of the assets of the KKR Group Partnerships;

•	the appointment or removal of a Chief Executive Officer or a Co‑Chief Executive Officer of our Managing Partner or our partnership;

•	the termination of the employment of any of our officers or the officers of any of our subsidiaries or the termination of the association of a partner with any of our subsidiaries, in each case, without cause;

•	the liquidation or dissolution of the partnership, our Managing Partner or any KKR Group Partnership; and

•	the withdrawal, removal or substitution of our Managing Partner as our general partner or any person as the general partner of a KKR Group Partnership, or the transfer of beneficial ownership of all or any part of a general partner interest in our partnership or a KKR Group Partnership to any person other than one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries.

In addition, holders representing a majority of the Class A shares of our Managing Partner have the authority to unilaterally appoint our Managing Partner’s directors and also have the ability to appoint the officers of our Managing Partner. Messrs. Kravis and Roberts, as the designated members of our Managing Partner, represent a majority of the total voting power of the outstanding Class A shares, when they act together. However, neither of them controls the voting of the Class A shares, when acting alone.

Our common unitholders do not elect our Managing Partner or vote on our Managing Partner’s directors and have limited ability to influence decisions regarding our business.

Our common unitholders do not elect our Managing Partner or its board of directors and, unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business and therefore limited ability to influence decisions regarding our business. Furthermore, if our common unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our Managing Partner, they have no ability to remove our Managing Partner, with or without cause.

The control of our Managing Partner may be transferred to a third party without our consent.

Our Managing Partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or consolidation or in a transfer of all or substantially all of its assets without our consent or the consent of our common unitholders. Furthermore, the members of our Managing Partner may sell or transfer all or part of their limited liability company interests in our Managing Partner without our approval, subject to certain restrictions. A new general partner may not be willing or able to form new funds and could form funds that have investment objectives and governing terms that differ materially from those of our current funds. A new owner could also have a different investment philosophy, employ investment professionals who are less experienced, be unsuccessful in identifying investment opportunities or have a track record that is not as successful as our track record. If any of the foregoing were to occur, we could experience difficulty in making new investments, and the value of our existing investments, our business, our results of operations and our financial condition could materially suffer.

We intend to pay periodic distributions to the holders of our common units, but our ability to do so may be limited by our holding company structure and contractual restrictions.

We intend to pay cash distributions on a quarterly basis. We are a holding company and have no material assets other than the KKR Group Partnership Units that we hold through wholly‑owned subsidiaries and have no independent means of generating income. Accordingly, we intend to cause the KKR Group Partnerships to make distributions on the KKR Group Partnership Units, including KKR Group Partnership Units that we directly or indirectly hold, in order to provide us with sufficient amounts to fund distributions we may declare. If the KKR Group Partnerships make such distributions, other holders of KKR Group Partnership Units, including KKR Holdings, will be entitled to receive equivalent distributions pro rata based on their KKR Group Partnership Units.

The declaration and payment of any future distributions will be at the sole discretion of our Managing Partner, which may change our distribution policy at any time. Our Managing Partner will take into account general economic and business conditions, our strategic plans and prospects, our business and investment opportunities, our financial condition and operating results, compensation expense, working capital requirements and anticipated cash needs, debt and contractual restrictions and obligations (including payment obligations pursuant to the tax receivable agreement), legal, tax and regulatory restrictions, restrictions or other implications on the payment of distributions by us to the holders of KKR Group Partnership Units or by our subsidiaries to us and such other factors as our Managing Partner may deem relevant. Under the Delaware Limited Partnership Act, we may not make a distribution to a partner if after the distribution all our liabilities, other than liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and liabilities for which the recourse of creditors is limited to specific property of the partnership, would exceed the fair value of our assets. If we were to make such an impermissible distribution, any limited partner who received a distribution and knew at the time of the distribution that the distribution was in violation of the Delaware Limited Partnership Act would be liable to us for the amount of the distribution for three years. Furthermore, by paying cash distributions rather than investing that cash in our businesses, we risk slowing the pace of our growth, or not having a sufficient amount of cash to fund our operations, new investments or unanticipated capital expenditures, should the need arise.

Our ability to characterize such distributions as capital gains or qualified dividend income may be limited, and you should expect that some or all of such distributions may be regarded as ordinary income.

We will be required to pay our principals for most of the benefits relating to any additional tax depreciation or amortization deductions we may claim as a result of the tax basis step‑up we receive in connection with subsequent exchanges of our common units and related transactions.

We and one or more of our intermediate holding companies are required to acquire KKR Group Partnership Units from time to time pursuant to our exchange agreement with KKR Holdings. To the extent this occurs, the exchanges are expected to result in an increase in one of our intermediate holding company’s share of the tax basis of the tangible and intangible assets of KKR Management Holdings L.P., primarily attributable to a portion of the goodwill inherent in our business, that would not otherwise have been available. This increase in tax basis may increase (for tax purposes) depreciation and amortization and therefore reduce the amount of income tax our intermediate holding companies would otherwise be required to pay in the future. This increase in tax basis may also decrease gain (or increase loss) on future dispositions of certain capital assets to the extent tax basis is allocated to those capital assets.

We are party to a tax receivable agreement with KKR Holdings requiring our intermediate holding company to pay to KKR Holdings or transferees of its KKR Group Partnership Units 85% of the amount of cash savings, if any, in U.S. federal, state and local income tax that the intermediate holding companies actually realize as a result of this increase in tax basis, as well as 85% of the amount of any such savings the intermediate holding companies actually realize as a result of increases in tax basis that arise due to future payments under the agreement. A termination of the agreement or a change of control could give rise to similar payments based on tax savings that we would be deemed to realize in connection with such events. This payment obligation will be an obligation of our intermediate holding companies and not of either KKR Group Partnership. In the event that any of our current or future subsidiaries become taxable as corporations and acquire KKR Group Partnership Units in the future, or if we become taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we expect that each such entity will become subject to a tax receivable agreement with substantially similar terms. While the actual increase in tax basis, as well as the amount and timing of any payments under this agreement, will vary depending upon a number of factors, including the timing of exchanges, the price of our common units at the time of the exchange, the extent to which such exchanges are taxable and the amount and timing of our taxable income, we expect that as a result of the size of the increases in the tax basis of the tangible and intangible assets of the KKR Group Partnerships, the payments that we may be required to make to our existing owners will be substantial. The payments under the tax receivable agreement are not conditioned upon our existing owners’ continued ownership of us. We may need to incur debt to finance payments under the tax receivable agreement to the extent our cash resources are insufficient to meet our obligations under the tax receivable agreement as a result of timing discrepancies or otherwise. In particular, our intermediate holding companies’ obligations under the tax receivable agreement would be effectively accelerated in the event of an early termination of the tax receivable agreement by our intermediate holding companies or in the event of certain mergers, asset sales and other forms of business combinations or other changes of control. In these situations, our obligations under the tax receivable agreement could have a substantial negative impact on our liquidity.

Payments under the tax receivable agreement will be based upon the tax reporting positions that our Managing Partner will determine. We are not aware of any issue that would cause the IRS to challenge a tax basis increase. However, neither KKR Holdings nor its transferees will reimburse us for any payments previously made under the tax receivable agreement if such tax basis increase, or the tax benefits we claim arising from such increase, is successfully challenged by the IRS. As a result, in certain circumstances, payments to KKR Holdings or its transferees under the tax receivable agreement could be in excess of the intermediate holding companies’ cash tax savings. The intermediate holding companies’ ability to achieve benefits from any tax basis increase, and the payments to be made under this agreement, will depend upon a number of factors, as discussed above, including the timing and amount of our future income.

If we were deemed to be an “investment company” subject to regulation under the Investment Company Act, applicable restrictions could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

A person will generally be deemed to be an “investment company” for purposes of the Investment Company Act if:

•	it is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities; or

•	absent an applicable exemption, it owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis.

We believe that we are engaged primarily in the business of providing investment management services and not in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. We regard ourselves as an investment management firm and do not

propose to engage primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Accordingly, we do not believe that we are an “orthodox” investment company as defined in Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act and described in the first bullet point above.

With regard to the provision described in the second bullet point above, we have no material assets other than our equity interests in subsidiaries, which in turn have no material assets other than equity interests, directly or indirectly, in the KKR Group Partnerships. Through these interests, we indirectly are the sole general partners of the KKR Group Partnerships and indirectly are vested with all management and control over the KKR Group Partnerships. We do not believe our equity interests in our subsidiaries are investment securities, and we believe that the capital interests of the general partners of our funds in their respective funds are neither securities nor investment securities. Accordingly, based on our determination, less than 40% of the partnership’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis are comprised of assets that could be considered investment securities. However, our subsidiaries have a significant number of investment securities, and we expect to make investments in other investment securities from time to time. We monitor these holdings regularly to confirm our continued compliance with the 40% test described in the second bullet point above. The need to comply with this 40% test may cause us to restrict our business and subsidiaries with respect to the assets in which we can invest and/or the types of securities we may issue, sell investment securities, including on unfavorable terms, acquire assets or businesses that could change the nature of our business or potentially take other actions which may be viewed as adverse by the holders of our common units, in order to ensure conformity with exceptions provided by, and rules and regulations promulgated under, the Investment Company Act.

With respect to our subsidiary KFN, we believe it is not and does not propose to be primarily engaged in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities, and we do not believe that KFN has held itself out as such. KFN conducts its operations primarily through its majority‑owned subsidiaries, each of which is either outside of the definition of an investment company as defined in the Investment Company Act or excepted from such definition under the Investment Company Act. KFN monitors its holdings regularly to confirm its continued compliance with the 40% test described in the second bullet point above, and restricts its subsidiaries with respect to the assets in which each of them can invest and/or the types of securities each of them may issue in order to ensure conformity with exceptions provided by, and rules and regulations promulgated under, the Investment Company Act. If the SEC were to disagree with KFN’s treatment of one or more of its subsidiaries as being excepted from the Investment Company Act, with its determination that one or more of its other holdings are not investment securities for purposes of the 40% test, or with its determinations as to the nature of its business or the manner in which it holds itself out, KFN and/or one or more of its subsidiaries could be required either (i) to change substantially the manner in which it conducts its operations to avoid being subject to the Investment Company Act or (ii) to register as an investment company. Either of these would likely have a material adverse effect on KFN, its ability to service its indebtedness and to make distributions on its shares, and on the market price of its shares and securities, and could thereby materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Investment Company Act and the rules thereunder contain detailed parameters for the organization and operation of investment companies. Among other things, the Investment Company Act and the rules thereunder limit or prohibit transactions with affiliates, impose limitations on the issuance of debt and equity securities, generally prohibit the issuance of options and impose certain governance requirements. We intend to conduct our operations so that we will not be deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act. If anything were to happen which would cause the partnership to be deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act, requirements imposed by the Investment Company Act, including limitations on our capital structure, ability to transact business with affiliates and ability to compensate key employees, would make it impractical for us to continue our business as currently conducted, impair the agreements and arrangements between and among the partnership, the KKR Group Partnerships and KKR Holdings, or any combination thereof, and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we may be required to limit the amount of investments that we make as a principal, potentially divest of our investments or otherwise conduct our business in a manner that does not subject us to the registration and other requirements of the Investment Company Act.

On August 31, 2011 the SEC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding Rule 3a‑7 and a concept release seeking information on Section 3(c)(5)(C), two provisions with which KKR’s subsidiaries, including KFN, must comply under the 40% test described above. Among the issues for which the SEC has requested comment is whether Rule 3a‑7 should be modified so that parent companies of subsidiaries that rely on Rule 3a‑7 should treat their interests in such subsidiaries as investment securities for purposes of the 40% test. The SEC is also seeking information about the nature of entities that invest in mortgages and mortgage‑related pools and how the SEC staff’s interpretive positions in connection with Section 3(c)(5)(C) affect these entities. Any guidance or action from the SEC or its staff, including changes that the SEC may ultimately propose and adopt to the way Rule 3a‑7 applies to entities or new or modified interpretive positions related to

Section 3(c)(5)(C), could further inhibit KKR’s ability, or the ability of any of its subsidiaries, including KFN, to pursue its current or future operating strategies, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

We are a Delaware limited partnership, and there are certain provisions in our limited partnership agreement regarding exculpation and indemnification of our officers and directors that differ from the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) in a manner that may be less protective of the interests of our common unitholders.

Our limited partnership agreement provides that to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law our directors or officers will not be liable to us. However, under the DGCL, a director or officer would be liable to us for (i) breach of duty of loyalty to us or our shareholders, (ii) intentional misconduct or knowing violations of the law that are not done in good faith, (iii) improper redemption of shares or declaration of dividend, or (iv) a transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit. In addition, our limited partnership agreement provides that we indemnify our directors and officers for acts or omissions to the fullest extent provided by law. However, under the DGCL, a corporation can only indemnify directors and officers for acts or omissions if the director or officer acted in good faith, in a manner he reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation, and, in criminal action, if the officer or director had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful. Accordingly, our limited partnership agreement may be less protective of the interests of our common unitholders, when compared to the DGCL, insofar as it relates to the exculpation and indemnification of our officers and directors. See also “-Our limited partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce or eliminate duties (including fiduciary duties) of our limited partner and limit remedies available for unitholders for actions that might otherwise constitute a breach of duty. It will be difficult for unitholders to successfully challenge a resolution of a conflict of interest by our Managing Partner or by its conflicts committee.”

Risks Related to U.S. Taxation

If we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax or state tax purposes, then our distributions to you would be substantially reduced and the value of our common units could be adversely affected.

The value of your investment in us depends in part on our being treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which requires that 90% or more of our gross income for every taxable year consist of qualifying income, as defined in Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and that our partnership not be registered under the Investment Company Act. Qualifying income generally includes dividends, interest, capital gains from the sale or other disposition of stocks and securities, gain from the sale or other disposition of real property, real property rents, income and gains from energy and oil and gas investments and certain other forms of investment income. We intend to structure our investments so as to satisfy these requirements, including by generally holding investments that generate non‑qualifying income through one or more subsidiaries that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Nonetheless, we may not meet these requirements, may not correctly identify investments that should be owned through corporate subsidiaries, or current law may change so as to cause, in any of these events, us to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise subject us to U.S. federal income tax. We have not requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the IRS, on this or any other matter affecting us.

If we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would pay U.S. federal, state and local income tax on our taxable income at the applicable tax rates. Distributions to you would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and no income, gains, losses, deductions or credits would otherwise flow through to you. Because a tax would be imposed upon us as a corporation, our distributions to you would be substantially reduced which could cause a reduction in the value of our common units.

Our unitholders may be subject to U.S. federal income tax on their share of our taxable income, regardless of whether they receive any cash distributions, and they may recognize income in excess of cash distributions.

As long as 90% of our gross income for each taxable year constitutes qualifying income as defined in Section 7704 of the Code and we are not registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act on a continuing basis, and assuming there is no change in law, we will be treated, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as a partnership and not as an association or a publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation. Accordingly, each unitholder will be required to take into account its allocable share of our items of income, gain, loss and deduction. Distributions to a unitholder will generally be taxable to the unitholder for U.S. federal income tax purposes only to the extent the amount distributed exceeds the unitholder's tax basis in the unit. That treatment contrasts with the treatment of a shareholder in a corporation. For example, a shareholder in a corporation who receives a distribution of earnings from the corporation will generally report the distribution as dividend income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In contrast, a holder of our units who receives a distribution of earnings from us will not report the distribution as dividend income (and will treat the distribution as taxable only to the extent the amount

distributed exceeds the unitholder's tax basis in the units), but will instead report the holder's allocable share of items of our income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, a unitholder may be subject to U.S. federal, state, local and possibly, in some cases, foreign income taxation on its allocable share of our items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit (including its allocable share of those items of any entity in which we invest that is treated as a partnership or is otherwise subject to tax on a flow through basis) for each of our taxable years ending with or within the unitholder’s taxable year, regardless of whether or not such unitholder receives cash distributions. See “-Risks Related to Our Business-The U.S. Congress has considered legislation that would have (i) in some cases after a ten‑year period, precluded us from qualifying as a partnership or required us to hold carried interest through taxable subsidiary corporations and (ii) taxed certain income and gains at increased rates. If any similar legislation were to be enacted and apply to us, the after‑tax income and gain related to our business, as well as the market price of our units, could be reduced.”

You should not expect to receive cash distributions equal to your allocable share of our net taxable income, because, among other things, we currently have a fixed distribution policy. In addition, certain of our holdings, including holdings, if any, in controlled foreign corporations, or a CFCs, passive foreign investment companies, or a PFICs, or entities treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes, may produce taxable income prior to the receipt of cash relating to such income, and holders of our common units that are U.S. taxpayers may be required to take such income into account in determining their taxable income. In the event of an inadvertent termination of the partnership status for which the IRS has granted limited relief, each holder of our common units may be obligated to make such adjustments as the IRS may require to maintain our status as a partnership. Such adjustments may require the holders of our common units to recognize additional amounts in income during the years in which they hold such units. In addition, because of our methods of allocating income and gain among holders of our common units, you may be taxed on amounts that accrued economically before you became a unitholder.

We can make no assurances that our cash distributions to you will be sufficient to cover your tax liability arising from your investment in us in any given year, quarter or other period. We are under no obligation to make any distribution, and we generally do not make annual tax distributions. In addition, in certain circumstances, we may not be able to make any distributions or will only be making distributions in amounts less than your tax liability attributable to your investment in us. To the extent taxable income is allocated to you in excess of the cash distributions made, the excess amount would typically be applied to increase the tax basis of your investment in us under applicable U.S. federal tax laws. Furthermore, when we make cash distributions, we anticipate making cash distributions on a quarterly basis while allocating taxable income on a monthly basis. As a result, if you dispose of your common units, you may be allocated taxable income during the time you held your common units without receiving any cash distributions corresponding to that period. Moreover, when an investment is realized at the end of a fiscal quarter, taxable income allocable to such realization is generally made during the same taxable period, but the distribution, if any, generated by such realization may not be paid until a later period. Accordingly, you should ensure that you have sufficient cash flow from sources other than our cash distributions to pay for all of your tax liabilities.

Our interests in certain of our businesses will be held through intermediate holding companies, which will be treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes; such corporations may be liable for significant taxes and may create other adverse tax consequences, which could potentially adversely affect the value of our common units.

In light of the publicly traded partnership rules under U.S. federal income tax laws and other requirements, we will hold our interest in certain of our businesses through intermediate holding companies, which will be treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The intermediate holding companies organized in the United States or otherwise subject to regular U.S. federal income taxation will be liable for U.S. federal income taxes at regular rates on all of their taxable income as well as applicable state, local and other taxes. These taxes would reduce the amount of distributions available to be made on our common units. In addition, these taxes could be increased if the IRS were to successfully reallocate deductions or income of the related entities conducting our business.

Changes in U.S. tax law could adversely affect our ability to raise funds from certain foreign investors.

Under legislation known as the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, U.S. withholding agents and all entities in a broadly defined class of foreign financial institutions, or FFIs, are required to comply with a complicated and expansive reporting regime or be subject to a 30% United States withholding tax on certain U.S. payments (and beginning in 2019, a 30% withholding tax on gross proceeds from the sale of U.S. stocks and securities) and non‑U.S. entities which are not FFIs are required to either certify they have no substantial U.S. beneficial ownership or to report certain information with respect to their substantial U.S. beneficial ownership or be subject to a 30% U.S. withholding tax on certain U.S. payments (and beginning in 2019, a 30% withholding tax on gross proceeds from the sale of U.S. stocks and securities). The reporting

obligations imposed under FATCA and related intergovernmental require FFIs to enter into agreements with the IRS and other jurisdictions to obtain and disclose information about certain fund investors to the IRS. In addition, the administrative and economic costs of compliance with FATCA may discourage some foreign investors from investing in U.S. funds, which could adversely affect our ability to raise funds from these investors.

We may hold or acquire certain investments through an entity classified as a PFIC or CFC for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Certain of our investments may be in foreign corporations or may be acquired through a foreign subsidiary that would be classified as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Such an entity may be PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In addition, we may hold certain investments in foreign corporations that are treated as CFCs. Unitholders may experience adverse U.S. tax consequences as a result of holding an indirect interest in a PFIC or CFC. These investments may produce taxable income prior to the receipt of cash relating to such income, and unitholders that are U.S. taxpayers will be required to take such income into account in determining their gross income subject to tax. In addition, all or a portion of gain on the sale of a CFC may be taxable at ordinary income rates. Further, with respect to gain on the sale of and excess distributions from a PFIC for which an election for current inclusions is not made, such income would be taxable at ordinary income rates and be subject to an additional tax charge equivalent to an interest charge on the deferral of income inclusions from that PFIC.

Tax gain or loss on disposition of our common units could be more or less than expected.

If you sell your common units, you will recognize a gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and your adjusted tax basis allocated to those common units. Prior distributions to you in excess of the total net taxable income allocated to you will have decreased the tax basis in your common units. Therefore, such excess distributions will increase your taxable gain, or decrease your taxable loss, when the common units are sold and may result in a taxable gain even if the sale price is less than the original cost. A portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be ordinary income to you.

Unitholders may be allocated taxable gain on the disposition of certain assets, even if they did not share in the economic appreciation inherent in such assets.

We and our intermediate holding companies will be allocated taxable gains and losses recognized by the KKR Group Partnerships based upon our percentage ownership in each KKR Group Partnership. Our share of such taxable gains and losses generally will be allocated pro rata to our unitholders. In some circumstances, under the U.S. federal income tax rules affecting partners and partnerships, the taxable gain or loss allocated to a unitholder may not correspond to that unitholder’s share of the economic appreciation or depreciation in the particular asset. This is primarily an issue of the timing of the payment of tax, rather than a net increase in tax liability, because the gain or loss allocation would generally be expected to be offset as a unitholder sells units.

Non‑U.S. persons face unique U.S. tax issues from owning our common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

We expect that a portion of our income will be treated as income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or ECI, with respect to non-U.S. unitholders, including by reason of investments in certain U.S. real property holding corporations, real estate investment trusts (or REITS), real estate assets and energy assets. To the extent our income is treated as ECI, non‑U.S. unitholders generally would be subject to withholding tax on their allocable share of such income, would be required to file a U.S. federal income tax return for such year reporting their allocable share of income effectively connected with such trade or business and any other income treated as ECI, and would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular U.S. tax rates on any such income (state and local income taxes and filings may also apply in that event). Non‑U.S. unitholders that are corporations may also be subject to a 30% branch profits tax (potentially reduced under an applicable treaty) on their actual or deemed distributions of such income. In addition, distributions to non‑U.S. unitholders that are attributable to profits on the sale of a U.S. real property interest may also be subject to 30% withholding tax. Also, non‑U.S. unitholders may be subject to 30% withholding on allocations of our income that are U.S. source fixed or determinable annual or periodic income under the Code, unless an exemption from or a reduced rate of such withholding applies (under an applicable treaty of the Code) and certain tax status information is provided. Finally, if we are treated as being engaged in a U.S. trade or business, a portion of any gain recognized by non‑U.S. unitholders on the sale or exchange of common units may be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as ECI, and hence such non‑U.S. unitholders could be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the sale or exchange of common units.

Tax‑exempt entities and tax-exempt or tax-deferred accounts face unique tax issues from owning common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Generally, a tax‑exempt partner of a partnership would be treated as earning unrelated business taxable income, or UBTI, if the partnership regularly engages in a trade or business that is unrelated to the exempt function of the tax‑exempt partner, if the partnership derives income from debt financed property or if the partner interest itself is debt‑financed. As a result of our ownership of real estate assets and energy assets and incurrence of acquisition indebtedness we will derive income that constitutes UBTI. Consequently, a holder of common units that is a tax‑exempt entity (including an individual retirement account, or IRA, or a 401(k) plan participant) will likely be subject to unrelated business income tax to the extent that its allocable share of our income consists of UBTI and thus may be subject to U.S. federal income taxes and U.S. federal income tax reporting with respect to such income. In addition, a tax‑exempt investor may be subject to unrelated business income tax on a sale of their common units.

We cannot match transferors and transferees of common units, and we will therefore adopt certain income tax accounting conventions that may not conform with all aspects of applicable tax requirements. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the value of our common units.

Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common units, we have adopted depreciation, amortization and other tax accounting positions that may not conform with all aspects of existing Treasury regulations. A successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to our unitholders. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the amount of gain on the sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of our common units or result in audits of and adjustments to our unitholders’ tax returns.

In addition, our taxable income and losses are determined and apportioned among unitholders using conventions we regard as consistent with applicable law. As a result, if you transfer your common units, you may be allocated income, gain, loss and deduction realized by us after the date of transfer. Similarly, a transferee may be allocated income, gain, loss and deduction realized by us prior to the date of the transferee’s acquisition of our common units. A transferee may also bear the cost of withholding tax imposed with respect to income allocated to a transferor through a reduction in the cash distributed to the transferee.

The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profit interests will result in the termination of our partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

We will be considered to have been terminated for U.S. federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in our capital and profits within a 12‑month period. A termination of our partnership would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for all unitholders and may make it more likely that we are unable to meet the qualifying income requirements necessary to maintain our status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Holders of our common units may be subject to state, local and foreign taxes and return filing requirements as a result of owning such units.

In addition to U.S. federal income taxes, holders of our common units may be subject to other taxes, including state, local and foreign taxes, and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we do business or own property now or in the future, even if the holders of our common units do not reside in any of those jurisdictions. Holders of our common units may be required to file state and local income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these jurisdictions in the U.S. and abroad. Further, holders of our common units may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. It is the responsibility of each unitholder to file all U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax returns that may be required of such unitholder. In addition our investments in real assets may expose unitholders to additional adverse tax consequences. See “-Our investments in real assets such as real estate and energy may expose us to increased risks and liabilities and may expose our unitholders to adverse tax consequences.”

Certain U.S. holders of common units are subject to additional tax on “net investment income.”

U.S. holders that are individuals, estates or trusts are subject to a Medicare tax of 3.8% on “net investment income” (or undistributed “net investment income,” in the case of estates and trusts) for each taxable year, with such tax applying to the lesser of such income or the excess of such person’s adjusted gross income (with certain adjustments) over a specified amount. Net investment income includes net income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents and net gain attributable to the disposition of investment property. It is anticipated that net income and gain attributable to an investment in our common units will be included in a U.S. holder’s “net investment income” subject to this Medicare tax.

We may not be able to furnish to each unitholder specific tax information within 90 days after the close of each calendar year, which means that holders of common units who are U.S. taxpayers should anticipate the need to file annually a request for an extension of the due date of their income tax return.

As a publicly traded partnership, our operating results, including distributions of income, dividends, gains, losses or deductions, and adjustments to carrying basis, will be reported on Schedule K‑1 and distributed to each unitholder annually. It may require longer than 90 days after the end of our fiscal year to obtain the requisite information from all lower‑tier entities so that Schedule K‑1s may be prepared for the unitholders. For this reason, holders of common units who are U.S. taxpayers should anticipate the need to file annually with the IRS (and certain states) a request for an extension past April 15 or the otherwise applicable due date of their income tax return for the taxable year.

We may be liable for adjustments to our tax returns as a result of recently enacted legislation.

Legislation was recently enacted that significantly changes the rules for U.S. federal income tax audits of partnerships. Such audits will continue to be conducted at a partnership level, but with respect to tax returns for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, unless a partnership qualifies for and affirmatively elects an alternative procedure, any adjustments to the amount of tax due (including interest and penalties) will be payable by the partnership. Under the elective alternative procedure, a partnership would issue information returns to persons who were partners in the audited year, who would then be required to take the adjustments into account in calculating their own tax liability, and the partnership would not be liable for the adjustments. If a partnership elects the alternative procedure for a given adjustment, the amount of taxes for which its partners would be liable would be increased by any applicable penalties and a special interest charge. There can be no assurance that we will be eligible to make such an election or that we will, in fact, make such an election for any given adjustment. If we do not or are not able to make such an elections, then (1) our then-current unitholders, in the aggregate, could indirectly bear income tax liabilities in excess of the aggregate amount of taxes that would have been due had we elected the alternative procedure, and (2) a given unitholder may indirectly bear taxes attributable to income allocable to other unitholders or former unitholders, including taxes (as well as interest and penalties) with respect to periods prior to such holder's ownership of common units. Amounts available for distribution to our unitholders may be reduced as a result of our obligation to pay any taxes associated with an adjustment, Many issues and overall effect of this new legislation on us are uncertain, and unitholders should consult their own tax advisors regarding all aspects of this legislation as it affects their particular circumstances.