Ares Management (ARES) 10-K2020 FY Annual report

(Address of principal executive office) (Zip Code)

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

PART I

Item 1.  Business

BUSINESS

Overview

2020 Highlights

Angeles, Chicago, London, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. In the U.S. and London, we pursue four principal transactions types: prudently leveraged control buyouts, growth equity, rescue/deleveraging capital and distressed buyouts/discounted debt accumulation. This flexible capital approach, together with the broad resources of the Ares platform, widens our universe of potential investment opportunities and allows us to remain active in different markets and to be highly selective in making investments across various market environments.

equity and real estate debt SMAs and a publicly traded commercial mortgage REIT, ACRE. The group’s activities are managed by dedicated equity and debt teams in the U.S. and Europe.

Product Offering

Operations Management Group

Organizational Structure

Structure and Operation of our Funds

Operations—Components of Consolidated Results of Operations—Revenues”)), subject to a fixed hurdle rate. We classify ARCC Part I Fees as management fees as they are predictable and recurring in nature, and not subject to contingent repayment. Management fees we receive from ARDC are generally paid monthly and proportionately increase or decrease based on the closed-end fund's total assets minus liabilities (other than liabilities relating to indebtedness). Management fees we receive from ACRE are generally paid quarterly based on ACRE’s stockholders’ equity. Our investment management agreements of our permanent capital vehicles must be reviewed or approved annually by their boards of directors (including a majority of its independent directors).

monitoring all regulatory and compliance matters that affect our activities. Our compliance policies and procedures address a variety of regulatory and compliance risks such as the handling of material non-public information, position reporting, personal securities trading, valuation of investments on a fund-specific basis, document retention, potential conflicts of interest and the allocation of investment opportunities.

investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). To maintain its RIC status under the Code, a RIC must timely distribute an amount equal to at least 90% of its investment company taxable income (as defined by the Code, which generally includes net ordinary income and net short term capital gains) to its stockholders. In addition, a RIC generally will be required to pay an excise tax equal to 4% on certain undistributed taxable income unless it distributes in a timely manner an amount at least equal to the sum of (i) 98% of its ordinary income recognized during a calendar year and (ii) 98.2% of its capital gain net income, as defined by the Code, recognized during the one-year period ending on October 31 of the calendar year and (iii) any income recognized, but not distributed, in preceding years. The taxable income on which a RIC pays excise tax is generally distributed to its stockholders in the next tax year. Depending on the level of taxable income earned in a tax year, a RIC may choose to carry forward such taxable income for distribution in the following year, and pay any applicable excise tax. In addition, as a business development company, ARCC must not acquire any assets other than “qualifying assets” specified in the Investment Company Act unless, at the time the acquisition is made, at least 70% of ARCC’s total assets are qualifying assets (with certain limited exceptions). Qualifying assets include investments in “eligible portfolio companies.” ARCC is also generally prohibited from issuing and selling its common stock at a price below net asset value per share and from incurring indebtedness (including for this purpose, preferred stock), if ARCC’s asset coverage, as calculated pursuant to the Investment Company Act, equals less than 150% after such incurrence.

Available Information

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Risk Factor Summary

Risks Related to Our Businesses

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a particularly severe impact on certain industries, including but not limited to the energy, hospitality, travel, retail and restaurant industries, which are industries in which some of our funds have made investments. Many of our funds’ portfolio companies in these industries have faced and are continuing to face operational and financial challenges resulting from the spread of COVID-19 and related governmental measures, such as the closure of stores, hotels, restaurants and other locations, restrictions on travel, quarantines or continued and re-introduced stay-at-home orders. As a result of these disruptions, the businesses, financial results and prospects of certain of these portfolio companies have already been severely affected and could continue to be so affected. This has caused and may in the future result in impairment and decrease in value of our funds’ investments, which may be material.

Additionally, due to stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, and other COVID-19 related responses, many of our staff cannot travel for in-person meetings and/or have been working remotely outside of their usual work location. This could create taxable presence or residency risks for our corporate entities, professionals, funds and portfolio companies, which risks could lead to increased tax liability and additional compliance complexities.

Regulatory oversight and enforcement may become more rigorous for the financial services industry and other regulated industries as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the financial markets, especially in the wake of the array of governmental financial assistance programs provided by state and national governments around the world. In addition, new laws or regulations that are passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic could adversely impact investment management firms. This may result in a more complex regulatory, tax and political environment, which could subject us to increased compliance costs and administrative burdens.

Difficult market and political conditions may adversely affect our businesses in many ways, including by reducing the value or hampering the performance of the investments made by our funds or reducing the ability of our funds to raise or deploy capital, each of which could materially reduce our revenue, earnings and cash flow and adversely affect our financial prospects and condition.

Our businesses are materially affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic and political conditions throughout the world, such as interest rates, the availability and cost of credit, inflation rates, economic uncertainty, changes in laws (including laws relating to our taxation, taxation of our investors and the possibility of changes to regulations applicable to alternative asset managers), trade policies, commodity prices, tariffs, currency exchange rates and controls and national and international political circumstances (including wars and other forms of conflict, terrorist acts, and security operations) and catastrophic events such as fires, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, other adverse weather and climate conditions and pandemics. These factors are outside of our control and may affect the level and volatility of securities prices and the liquidity and value of investments, and we may not be able to or may choose not to manage our exposure to these conditions.

Global financial markets have experienced heightened volatility in recent periods, including as a result of economic and political events in or affecting the world’s major economies. For example, the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU in January 2020 and subsequent ongoing uncertainty regarding the future relationship between the U.K. and the EU following the end of the Brexit transition period on December 31, 2020, hostilities in the Middle East region, recent U.S. presidential and congressional elections and resulting uncertainties regarding actual and potential shifts in U.S. and foreign, trade, economic and other policies, and concerns over increasing inflation and deflation, as well as interest rate volatility and fluctuations in oil and gas prices resulting from global production and demand levels, have precipitated market volatility.

In addition, numerous structural dynamics and persistent market trends have exacerbated volatility generally. Concerns over significant declines in the commodities markets, sluggish economic expansion in non-U.S. economies, including continued concerns over growth prospects in China and emerging markets, growing debt loads for certain countries and uncertainty about the consequences of the U.S. and other governments withdrawing monetary stimulus measures all highlight the fact that economic conditions remain unpredictable and volatile. In recent periods, trade tensions between the U.S. and China have

A number of factors have had and may continue to have an adverse impact on credit markets in particular. The weakness and the uncertainty regarding the stability of the oil and gas markets resulted in a tightening of credit across multiple sectors. In addition, although the Federal Reserve has recently lowered the federal funds rate following a period of numerous increases, changes in and uncertainty surrounding interest rates may have a material effect on our business, particularly with respect to the cost and availability of financing for significant acquisition and disposition transactions. Moreover, while conditions in the U.S. economy have generally improved since the credit crisis, many other economies continue to experience weakness, tighter credit conditions and a decreased availability of foreign capital. Since credit represents a significant portion of our business and ongoing strategy, any of the foregoing could have a material adverse impact on our business prospects and financial condition.

These and other conditions in the global financial markets and the global economy may result in adverse consequences for us and many of our funds, each of which could adversely affect the business of such funds, restrict such funds’ investment activities, impede such funds’ ability to effectively achieve their investment objectives and result in lower returns than we anticipated at the time certain of our investments were made. More specifically, these economic conditions could adversely affect our operating results by causing:

During periods of difficult market conditions or slowdowns (which may be across one or more industries, sectors or geographies), companies in which we invest may experience decreased revenues, financial losses, credit rating downgrades, difficulty in obtaining access to financing and increased funding costs. During such periods, these companies may also have difficulty in expanding their businesses and operations and be unable to meet their debt service obligations or other expenses as they become due, including expenses payable to us. Negative financial results in our funds’ portfolio companies may reduce the value of our portfolio companies, the net asset value of our funds and the investment returns for our funds, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and cash flow. In addition, such conditions would increase the risk of default with respect to credit-oriented or debt investments. Our funds may be adversely affected by reduced opportunities to exit and realize value from their investments, by lower than expected returns on investments made prior to the deterioration of the credit markets and by our inability to find suitable investments for the funds to effectively deploy capital, which could adversely affect our ability to raise new funds and thus adversely impact our prospects for future growth.

Political and regulatory conditions, including the effects of negative publicity surrounding the financial industry in general and proposed legislation, could adversely affect our businesses.

Changes in relevant tax laws, regulations or treaties or an adverse interpretation of these items by tax authorities may adversely affect our effective tax rate, tax liability and financial condition and results.

Any substantial changes in domestic or international corporate tax policies, regulations or guidance, enforcement activities or legislative initiatives may adversely affect our business, the amount of taxes we are required to pay and our financial condition and results of operations generally. Our effective tax rate and tax liability is based on the application of current income tax laws, regulations and treaties. These laws, regulations and treaties are complex, and the manner which they apply to us and our funds is sometimes open to interpretation. Significant management judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowance recorded against our net deferred tax assets. Although management believes its application of current laws, regulations and treaties to be correct and sustainable upon examination by the tax authorities, the tax authorities could challenge our interpretation resulting in additional tax liability or adjustment to our income tax provision that could increase our effective tax rate. For an overview of certain relevant U.S. tax laws and relevant foreign tax laws (and FATCA), see “-Risks Related to Taxation-Applicable U.S. and foreign tax law, regulations, or treaties, and changes in such tax laws, regulations or treaties or an adverse interpretation of these items by tax authorities could adversely affect our effective tax rate, tax liability, financial condition and results, ability to raise funds from certain foreign investors, increase our compliance or withholding tax costs and conflict with our contractual obligations.”

Our business depends in large part on our ability to raise capital from investors. If we were unable to raise such capital, we would be unable to collect management fees or deploy such capital into investments, which would materially reduce our revenues and cash flow and adversely affect our financial condition.

We depend on the members of the Executive Management Committee, senior professionals and other key personnel, and our ability to retain them and attract additional qualified personnel is critical to our success and our growth prospects.

Furthermore, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, investments must be held for more than three years, rather than the prior requirement of more than one year, for carried interest to be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as capital gain. The longer holding period requirement may result in some or all of our carried interest being treated as ordinary income, which would materially increase the amount of taxes that our employees and other key personnel would be required to pay. In January 2021, the IRS released final regulations (which generally retain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations published in August 2020, with certain significant revisions) implementing the carried interest provisions that were enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We are currently evaluating the potential tax impacts of such regulations, and the ultimate tax consequences of such regulations are uncertain. Although most proposals regarding the taxation of carried interest still require gain realization before applying ordinary income rates, legislation has been introduced that would assume a deemed annual return on carried interest and tax that amount annually, with a true-up once the assets are sold. In addition, following the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the tax treatment of carried interest has continued to be an area of focus for policymakers and government officials, which could result in a further regulatory action by federal or state governments. For example, certain states, including New York and California, have proposed legislation to levy additional state tax on carried interest. Tax authorities and legislators in other jurisdictions that Ares has investments or employees in could clarify, modify or challenge their treatment of carried interest. For example, the UK Office of Tax Simplification is currently reviewing the UK Capital Gains Tax Regime, and there is a risk that such review could result in a change to the taxation of carried interest with respect to our UK investment professionals. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic may increase these risks as international authorities consider methods to increase tax revenues due to increasing fiscal deficits. In addition, there have been proposed laws and regulations that sought to regulate the compensation of certain of our employees. All of these changes may materially increase the amount of taxes that our employees and other key personnel would be required to pay and as a result may impact our ability to recruit, retain and motivate employees and key personnel in the relevant jurisdictions or may require us in certain circumstances to consider alternative or modified incentive arrangements for such employees or key personnel. Our efforts to retain and attract investment professionals may also result in significant additional expenses, which could adversely affect our profitability or result in an increase in the portion of our performance income that we grant to our investment professionals. In the year ended December 31, 2020, we incurred equity compensation expenses of $123.0 million, and we expect these costs to continue to increase in the future as we increase the use of equity compensation awards to attract, retain and compensate employees.

Our failure to appropriately address conflicts of interest could damage our reputation and adversely affect our businesses.

Conflicts of interest may arise in our allocation of co-investment opportunities.

The investment management business is intensely competitive.

Poor performance of our funds would cause a decline in our revenue and results of operations, may obligate us to repay performance income previously paid to us and could adversely affect our ability to raise capital for future funds.

We derive revenues primarily from:

In addition, if any of our subsidiaries become the sponsor of any SPACs that are unable to successfully complete a business combination within the time limitation provided for such SPAC, we may lose the entirety of our investment. See “We have made a significant investment in a subsidiary that is the sponsor of a SPAC, and will suffer the loss of all of our investment if the SPAC does not complete business combination within two years.”

ARCC’s management fee comprises a significant portion of our management fees and a reduction in fees from ARCC could have an adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations.

We may not be able to maintain our current fee structure as a result of industry pressure from fund investors to reduce fees, which could have an adverse effect on our profit margins and results of operations.

In addition, we may not be able to maintain our current fee structure if we fail to grow the assets of our funds. This would limit our ability to earn additional management fees and performance income, and ultimately affect our operating results. Our fund investors and potential fund investors continually assess our funds’ performance independently and relative to market benchmarks and our competitors, and our ability to raise capital for existing and future funds and avoid excessive redemption levels depends on our funds’ performance. Accordingly, poor fund performance may deter future investment in our funds and thereby decrease the capital invested in our funds and, ultimately, our management fee income. In the face of poor fund performance, investors could demand lower fees or fee concessions for existing or future funds which would likewise decrease our revenue.

Rapid growth of our businesses, particularly outside the United States, may be difficult to sustain and may place significant demands on our administrative, operational and financial resources.

We may enter into new lines of business and expand into new investment strategies, geographic markets and businesses, each of which may result in additional risks, expenses and uncertainties in our businesses.

If we are unable to consummate or successfully integrate development opportunities, acquisitions or joint ventures, we may not be able to implement our growth strategy successfully.

Risk Related to Regulation

Extensive regulation affects our activities, increases the cost of doing business and creates the potential for significant liabilities and penalties that could adversely affect our businesses and results of operations.

In May 2020, our subsidiary Ares Management LLC consented to the entry of an administrative and cease-and-desist order (the “Order”) instituted by the SEC relating to the insufficient implementation and enforcement of Ares’ written policies and procedures regarding the prevention of misuse of potentially material nonpublic information (“MNPI”) in 2016 when Ares had an employee serving on the board of directors of a public company in which one of its clients was invested. The Order did not find any misuse of MNPI by Ares or its employees; however, the Order included cease and desist provisions and a censure, and payment of a civil penalty in the amount of $1.0 million.

Further, the SEC has highlighted valuation practices as one of its areas of focus in investment adviser examinations and has instituted enforcement actions against advisers for misleading investors about valuation. If the SEC were to investigate and find errors in our methodologies or procedures, we and/or members of our management could be subject to penalties and fines, which could harm our reputation and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Regulations impacting the insurance industry could adversely affect our business and our operations.

The insurance industry is subject to significant regulatory oversight, both in the U.S. and abroad. Regulatory authorities in many relevant jurisdictions have broad administrative, and in some cases discretionary, authority with respect to insurance companies and/or their investment advisors, which may include, among other things, the investments insurance companies may acquire and hold, marketing practices, affiliate transactions, reserve requirements, capital adequacy including insurance company licensing and examination, agent licensing, establishment of reserve requirements and solvency standards, premium rate regulation, admissibility of assets, policy form approval, unfair trade and claims practices, advertising, maintaining policyholder privacy, payment of dividends and distributions to shareholders, investments, review and/or approval of transactions with affiliates, reinsurance, acquisitions, mergers and other matters. Insurance regulatory authorities regularly review and update these and other requirements. Currently, there are proposals to increase the scope of regulation of insurance holding companies in the U.S., Bermuda and other jurisdictions. Changes in regulations impacting the insurance industry could adversely impact our expansion into the insurance industry, the prospects of our Bermuda insurance company subsidiary Aspida Life Re Ltd. (formerly known as F&G Reinsurance Ltd) and other investments we make in the insurance industry and limit our ability to raise capital for our funds from insurance companies, which could limit our ability to grow.

We may be the target or subject of, or may have indemnification obligations related to, litigation, enforcement investigations or regulatory scrutiny. Regulators and other authorities generally have the power to bring administrative or judicial proceedings against insurance companies, which could result in, among other things, suspension or revocation of licenses, cease and desist orders, fines, civil penalties, criminal penalties or other disciplinary action. To the extent AIS or another Ares business that offers products to insurance companies, or our subsidiary Aspida Life Re Ltd., is directly or indirectly involved in such regulatory actions, our reputation could be harmed, we may become liable for indemnification obligations and we could potentially be subject to enforcement actions, fines and penalties.

Insurance company investment portfolios are often subject to internal and regulatory requirements governing the categories and ratings of investment products they may acquire and hold. Many of the investment products we develop for, or other assets or investments we include in, insurance company portfolios will be rated and a ratings downgrade or any other negative action by a rating agency with respect to such products, assets or investments could make them less attractive and limit our ability to offer such products to, or invest or deploy capital on behalf of, insurers.

As the ultimate parent of the controlling entity of Aspida Life Re Ltd, a Bermuda Class E insurance company, we are considered its “shareholder controller” (as defined in the Bermuda Insurance Act) by the Bermuda Monetary Authority, or BMA. Aspida Life Re Ltd. is subject to regulation and supervision by the BMA, and compliance with all applicable Bermuda law and Bermuda insurance statutes and regulations, including but not limited to the Bermuda Insurance Act. Under the Bermuda Insurance Act, the BMA maintains supervision over the “controllers” of all registered insurers in Bermuda. For these purposes, a “controller” includes a shareholder controller (as defined in the Bermuda Insurance Act). The Bermuda Insurance Act imposes certain notice requirements upon any person that has become, or as a result of a disposition ceased to be, a shareholder controller, and failure to comply with such requirements is punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both. In addition, the BMA may file a notice of objection to any person or entity who has become a controller of any description where it appears that such person or entity is not, or is no longer, fit and proper to be a controller of the registered insurer, and such person or entity can be subject to fines or imprisonment or both. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals for us and could delay, deter or prevent an acquisition of controllers of Bermuda insurers.

It is unclear what methods of calculating a replacement benchmark will be established or adopted generally, and whether different industry bodies, such as the loan market and the derivatives market will adopt the same methodologies. Changes in the method of calculating LIBOR, or the replacement of LIBOR with an alternative rate or benchmark, may adversely affect interest rates and result in higher borrowing costs. If LIBOR ceases to exist, we, our investments funds and our portfolio companies may need to amend or restructure our existing LIBOR-based debt instruments and any related hedging arrangements that extend beyond 2021, which may be difficult, costly and time consuming and may result in adverse tax consequences. In addition, from time to time our funds invest in floating rate loans and investment securities whose interest rates are indexed to LIBOR. Uncertainty as to the nature of alternative reference rates and as to potential changes or other reforms to LIBOR, or any changes announced with respect to such reforms, may result in a sudden or prolonged increase or decrease in the reported LIBOR rates and the value of LIBOR-based loans and securities, including those of other issuers we or our funds currently own or may in the future own, and may impact the availability and cost of hedging instruments and borrowings, including potentially, an increase to our and our funds' interest expense and cost of capital. Any increased costs or reduced profits as a result of the foregoing may adversely affect our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition.

Certain of our subsidiaries operate outside the United States. In Luxembourg, Ares Management Luxembourg is subject to regulation by the CSSF. In the U.K., AML and AMUKL are subject to regulation by the FCA. AELM, which is not a subsidiary, but in which we are indirectly invested and which procures certain services from AML, is also subject to regulation by the FCA. In some circumstances, AML, AMUKL, AELM and other Ares entities are or become subject to U.K. or EU laws, for instance in relation to marketing our funds to investors in the EEA.

The U.K. exited the EU on January 31, 2020. The withdrawal agreement between the U.K. and the EU provided for a transitional period to allow for the terms of the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU to be negotiated, which ended on December 31, 2020. EEA passporting rights are no longer available to the relevant U.K. entities following the end of the transitional period. Various EU laws have been “on-shored” into domestic U.K. legislation and certain transitional regimes and deficiency-correction powers exist to ease the transition.

The U.K. and the EU announced, on December 24, 2020, that they have reached agreement on a new Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the “TCA”), which addresses the future relationship between the parties. Notwithstanding the TCA, there remains considerable uncertainty as to the nature of the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU (particularly in the sphere of financial services), creating continuing uncertainty as to the full extent to which the businesses of the U.K. Regulated Entities could be adversely affected by Brexit. See “-The U.K.’s exit from the EU (“Brexit”) could adversely affect our business and our operations.”

Despite the U.K.’s departure from the EU, new and existing EU legislation is expected to continue to impact our business in the U.K. (whether because its effect is preserved in the U.K. as a matter of domestic policy or because compliance with such legislation (whether in whole or part) is a necessary condition for market access into the EEA) and other EEA member states where we have operations. The following EU measures are of particular relevance to our business.

On January 1, 2019, the new EU Securitisation Regulation (the “Securitisation Regulation”) came into effect and applies to securitizations issued after that date. Among other things, the Securitisation Regulation includes requirements in relation to transparency and risk retention and restricts AIFMs from investing in securitizations which do not comply with its provisions (“non-compliant securitizations”). The Securitisation Regulation also imposes an obligation on AIFMs to divest where they hold an interest in a non-compliant securitization. It is currently unclear if the Regulation applies to AIFMs domiciled outside the EEA but marketing one or more alternative investment funds in the EEA under a national private placement regime. This lack of clarity may hamper our ability to raise capital for some of our non-EEA funds from investors in the EEA or subject such fund raising to additional risks, including, if application of the Securitisation Regulation to non-EEA AIFMs is confirmed, that their funds that market in the EEA could be required to divest of interests in non-compliant securitizations at sub-optimal prices. The U.K. has on-shored the Securitisation Regulation and therefore similar requirements continue to apply in the U.K. notwithstanding Brexit.

The EU Regulation on over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories (the “European Market Infrastructure Regulation” or “EMIR”) requires the mandatory clearing of certain OTC derivatives through central counterparties, creates additional risk mitigation requirements (including, in particular, margining requirements) in respect of certain OTC derivative transactions that are not cleared by a central counterparty and imposes reporting and record keeping requirements in respect of most derivative transactions. The requirements are similar to, but not the same as, those in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. The U.K. has on-shored EMIR and a similar but not identical set of rules therefore now apply in the U.K. notwithstanding Brexit. Certain cross-border arrangements (such as those where an Ares European fund enters into derivatives transactions with a U.K. counterparty, transacts on a U.K. trading venue or clears its derivatives through a U.K. clearing house) may be impacted. Compliance with the relevant requirements in the EU and the U.K. (as applicable) is likely to continue to increase the burdens and costs of doing business.     

A new EU Regulation on the prudential requirements of investment firms (Regulation (EU) 2019/2033) and its accompanying Directive (Directive (EU) 2019/2034) (together, “IFR/IFD”) have now been finalized and are expected to take effect on June 26, 2021. IFR/IFD will introduce a bespoke prudential regime for most MiFID investment firms to replace the one that currently applies under the fourth Capital Requirements Directive and the Capital Requirements Regulation. IFR/IFD represents a complete overhaul of “prudential” regulation in the EU. Depending on how EU member states implement IFR/IFD, certain aspects of these rules may also apply AIFMs that have been authorized to provide investment services via a MiFID “top-up” permission, such as Ares Management Luxembourg. The U.K. has confirmed that it will be implementing its own version of IFR/IFD, the Investment Firm Prudential Regulation (the “IFPR”), which was initially expected to take effect from June 2021 in line with IFR/IFD but is now expected to take effect from January 1, 2022. The IFPR will apply to Ares Management Limited and Ares European Loan Management LLP as U.K. MiFID investment firms. The extent to which the IFPR will apply to Ares Management UK Limited, as a U.K. AIFM with a MiFID “top-up” permission, is as yet unclear and further clarity on this point is expected to emerge in future FCA consultations on the new regime. The new prudential regimes are expected to result in higher regulatory capital requirements for some affected firms and new, more onerous remuneration rules, as well as re-cut and extended internal governance, disclosure, reporting, liquidity, and group “prudential” consolidation requirements (among other things), each of which could have a material impact on Ares’ European operations, although there are transitional provisions allowing firms to increase their capital during an initial period following the new regimes coming into force.

Our U.K., other European and Asian operations and our investment activities worldwide are subject to a variety of regulatory regimes that vary by country. In the EU, examples of further legislation include proposals for further changes to or reviews of the extent and interpretation of pay regulation, including under IFR/IFD (which may have an impact on the retention and recruitment of key personnel), proposals for enhanced regulation of loan origination, credit servicing and new reporting requirements in relation to securities financing transactions. In the U.K., there have been additional changes (effective since December 2019) to the rules concerning the approval of certain Ares professionals in the U.K. to work in the regulated financial services sector. Assessing the impact and implementing these new rules may create additional compliance burden and cost for us. In addition, we regularly rely on exemptions from various requirements of the regulations of certain foreign countries in conducting our asset management activities.

A new package of measures which will amend the existing regimes governing the cross-border distribution of collective investment funds in the EU (the “CBD Directive” and the “CBD Regulation”) came into force on August 1, 2019. The changes are largely expected to take effect from August 2, 2021. The CBD Directive and CBD Regulation amend the existing rules on the distribution of investment funds under AIFMD and The Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive (2009/65/EC). The CBD Directive amends the existing regimes for the cross-border marketing of funds and the CBD Regulation introduces new standardized requirements for cross-border fund distribution in the EU. The key changes include a new harmonized “pre-marketing” regime under AIFMD, more transparency and principles for calculating supervisory fees, new procedures for the de-notification of marketing including restrictions on pre-marketing successor funds, regulation of marketing communication as well as additional regulation in relation to reverse solicitation, with further changes expected to follow. The new regulations have the potential to hamper our ability to raise capital from EEA investors and increase the cost of doing so.

In March 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a new directive governing credit servicers, credit purchasers and the recovery of collateral in connection with loans (the “Credit Servicers and Purchasers Directive” or “CSPD”). The policy aim behind CSPD is the development of a well-functioning secondary market for non-performing loans. The original European Commission legislative proposal contemplated most national law provisions transposing CSPD coming into effect from January 1, 2021. However, this original proposal is still working its way through the legislative process and it is therefore currently unclear when CSPD will be published, let alone scheduled for implementation.

As proposed by the European Commission, the CSPD would apply to, among others, “credit servicers” and “credit purchasers” and would impose a number of new requirements relating to licensing, conduct of business and provision of information.

The definition of “credit servicer” in the Commission proposal is sufficiently broad that it could be construed to include asset managers. However, the proposal limits the scope of the requirements for credit servicers and credit purchasers to the servicing or purchasing of credit agreements originally issued by a credit institution established in the EU or its subsidiaries established in the EU. This means that the servicing of loans originally advanced by credit funds (rather than, for example, an EU bank) will fall outside the scope of the CSPD as currently proposed. Asset managers are unlikely to act as principal credit purchasers. However, they may purchase in-scope credit agreements as agent on behalf of the funds or segregated managed accounts for whom they are acting and therefore may in practice be required to discharge the associated obligations on behalf of underlying clients. Compliance with these rules could involve a material cost to our business.

On June 30, 2020, the National People’s Congress of China passed a national security law (the “National Security Law”), which criminalizes certain offenses including secession, subversion of the Chinese government, terrorism and collusion with foreign entities. The National Security Law also applies to non-permanent residents. Although the extra-territorial reach of the National Security Law remains unclear, there is a risk that the application of the National Security Law to conduct outside Hong Kong by non-permanent residents of Hong Kong could limit the activities of or negatively affect the Company, our investment funds and/or portfolio companies. The National Security Law has been condemned by the United States, the United Kingdom and several EU countries. The United States and other countries may take action against China, its leaders and leaders of Hong Kong, which may include the imposition of sanctions. Escalation of tensions resulting from the National Security Law, including conflict between China and other countries, protests and other government measures, as well as other economic, social or political unrest in the future, could adversely impact the security and stability of the region and may have a material adverse effect on countries in which the Company, our investment funds and portfolio companies or any of their respective personnel or assets are located. In addition, any downturn in Hong Kong’s economy could adversely affect the financial performance of the Company and our investments, or could have a significant impact on the industries in which the Company participates, and may adversely affect the operations of the Company, its investment funds and portfolio companies, including the retention of investment and other key professionals located in Hong Kong.

Business development companies may issue and sell common stock at a price below net asset value per share only in limited circumstances, one of which is after obtaining stockholder approval for such issuance in accordance with the Investment Company Act. ARCC’s stockholders have, in the past, approved such issuances so that during the subsequent 12-month period, ARCC may, in one or more public or private offerings of its common stock, sell or otherwise issue shares of its common stock at a price below the then-current net asset value per share, subject to certain conditions including parameters on the amount of shares sold, approval of the sale by the directors and a requirement that the sale price be not less than approximately the market price of the shares of its common stock at specified times, less the expenses of the sale. ARCC may ask its stockholders for additional approvals from year to year. There can be no assurance that such approvals will be obtained.

The publicly traded investment vehicles that we manage are subject to regulatory complexities that limit the way in which they do business and may subject them to a higher level of regulatory scrutiny.

Failure to comply with “pay to play” regulations implemented by the SEC and certain states, and changes to the “pay to play” regulatory regimes, could adversely affect our businesses.

In recent years, the SEC and several states have initiated investigations alleging that certain private equity firms and hedge funds or agents acting on their behalf have paid money to current or former government officials or their associates in exchange for improperly soliciting contracts with state pension funds. Under SEC rules addressing “pay to play” practices, investment advisers are prohibited from providing advisory services for compensation to a government entity 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 a position to influence the hiring of an investment adviser by such government entity. 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 to enable the SEC to determine compliance with the rule. In addition, there have been similar rules on a state level regarding “pay to play” practices by investment advisers. FINRA adopted its own set of “pay to play” regulations, which went into effect on August 20, 2017, that are similar to the SEC’s regulations.

We, our funds and their portfolio companies face increasing public scrutiny related to ESG activities. We and they risk damage to our brand and reputation, if we or they fail to act responsibly in a number of areas, such as diversity, equity and inclusion, environmental stewardship, support for local communities, corporate governance and transparency and considering ESG factors in our investment processes. Adverse incidents with respect to ESG activities could impact the value of our brand, or the brand of our funds or their portfolio companies, the cost of our or their operations and relationships with investors, all of which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Additionally, new regulatory initiatives related to ESG that are applicable to us, our funds and their portfolio companies could adversely affect our business. In May 2018, the European Commission adopted an “action plan on financing sustainable growth.” The action plan is, among other things, designed to define and reorient investment toward sustainability. The action plan contemplates: establishing EU labels for green financial products; clarifying asset managers' and institutional investors' duties regarding sustainability in their investment decision-making processes; increasing disclosure requirements in the financial services sector around ESG and strengthening the transparency of companies on their ESG policies and introducing a ‘green supporting factor’ in the EU prudential rules for banks and insurance companies to incorporate climate risks into banks’ and insurance companies’ risk management policies.

In addition, on June 22, 2020, Regulation (EU) 2020/852 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (the “Taxonomy Regulation”). The Taxonomy Regulation sets out a framework for classifying economic activities as “environmentally sustainable” and also introduces certain mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements (which supplement those set out in SFDR) for financial products which have an environmental sustainable investment objective or which promote environmental characteristics. The Taxonomy Regulation is due to take effect in part from January 2022 and in part from January 2023.

Much of the detail surrounding these EU sustainable finance initiatives is yet to be revealed and has been further delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic so it is not possible at this stage to fully assess how our business will be affected. We, our funds and their portfolio companies are subject to the risk that similar measures might be introduced in other jurisdictions in which we or they currently have investments or plan to invest in the future. Additionally, compliance with any new laws or regulations (including recent heightened SEC scrutiny regarding advisor compliance with advisors’ own internal policies) increases our regulatory burden and could make compliance more difficult and expensive, affect the manner in which we, our funds or their portfolio companies conduct our businesses and adversely affect our profitability.

While the U.K. is not expected to implement equivalent legislative initiatives, it has signaled an intention to introduce a new legislative framework focused on implementing the recommendations of the Financial Stability Board Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”), in particular by introducing mandatory TCFD-aligned disclosure requirements for U.K. firms. This framework is still in development and will be subject to a phased implementation, meaning it is not expected to begin to apply to the asset management sector until 2022 at the earliest. It is unclear at this stage what impact this new regime will have on our business.

The U.K.'s exit from the EU (“Brexit”) could adversely affect our business and our operations.

While the TCA provides clarity in some areas, there remains considerable uncertainty as to the future position of the U.K. and the arrangements which will apply to its relationships with the EU and other countries following the end of the transitional period. Ares Management Luxembourg was established to enable Ares to continue certain regulated activities in the EU post Brexit. Applicable regulatory requirements may increase effective tax rates within Ares’ structure or on its investments, including by way of higher levels of tax being imposed on Ares Management Luxembourg and EU branches of Ares Management Luxembourg. As yet, the full impact of Brexit on our business operations in the U.K. and the EU, and on the private investment funds industry more broadly, remains uncertain. This is driven in part by the ongoing uncertainty relating to

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

A portion of our revenue, earnings and cash flow is variable, which may make it difficult for us to achieve steady earnings growth on a quarterly basis and may cause the price of shares of our Class A common stock to decline.

Employee misconduct could harm us by impairing our ability to attract and retain investors and subjecting us to significant legal liability, regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm.

Fraud and other deceptive practices or other misconduct at our portfolio companies, properties or projects could similarly subject us to liability and reputational damage and also harm our businesses.

Our use of leverage to finance our businesses exposes us to substantial risks.

Operational risks may disrupt our businesses, result in losses or limit our growth.

We have made a significant investment in a subsidiary that is the sponsor of a SPAC, and will suffer the loss of all of our investment if the SPAC does not complete an acquisition within two years.

In February 2021, we invested $23.0 million into a subsidiary that is the sponsor of Ares Acquisition Corp (NYSE: AAC), a blank check company. Prior to a business combination, the Sponsor (and its permitted transferees) holds 100% of the Class B ordinary shares outstanding of AAC. The Class B ordinary shares equal 20% of the outstanding Class A ordinary shares of AAC. Upon the successful completion of an acquisition the pro forma ownership of the new company will vary depending on the business combination terms. There can be no assurances that this scenario and the resulting ownership will manifest, as changes may be made depending upon business combination terms. There is no assurance that the SPAC will be successful in completing a business combination or that any business combination will be successful. The Company can lose its entire investment in the SPAC if a business combination is not completed within 24 months or if the business combination is not successful, which may adversely impact our stockholder value.

Risks Related to Our Funds

The historical returns attributable to our funds should not be considered as indicative of the future results of our funds or of our future results or of any returns expected on an investment in shares of our Class A common stock.

Valuation methodologies for certain assets can be subject to significant subjectivity, and the values of assets may never be realized.

Market values of debt instruments and publicly traded securities that our funds hold as investments may be volatile.

Our funds may be unable to deploy capital at a steady and consistent pace, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and future fundraising.

Our funds depend on investment cycles, and any change in such cycles could have an adverse effect on our investment prospects.

Dependence on significant leverage by our funds subjects us to volatility and contractions in the debt financing markets could adversely affect our ability to achieve attractive rates of return on those investments.

Some of our funds may invest in companies that are highly leveraged, which may increase the risk of loss associated with those investments.

Many of our funds invest in assets that are high risk, illiquid or subject to restrictions on transfer and we may fail to realize any profits from these activities ever or for a considerable period of time.

Many of our funds invest in securities that are not publicly traded. In many cases, our funds may be prohibited by contract or by applicable securities laws from selling such securities for a period of time. Our funds generally cannot sell these securities publicly unless either their sale is registered under applicable securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available. Accordingly, our funds may be forced, under certain conditions, to sell securities at a loss. The ability of many of our funds, particularly our Private Equity Group funds, to dispose of these investments is heavily dependent on the public equity markets. For example, the ability to realize any value from an investment may depend upon the ability of the portfolio company in which such investment is held to complete an initial public offering. Even if the securities are publicly traded, large holdings of securities can often be disposed of only over a substantial period of time. Moreover, because the investment strategy of many of our funds, particularly our Private Equity Group funds, often entails our having representation on our funds’ public portfolio company boards, our funds can affect such sales only during limited trading windows, exposing the investment returns to risks of downward movement in market prices during the intended disposition period. In addition, market conditions and the regulatory environment can also delay our funds' ability to exit and realize value from their investments. For example, rising interest rates and challenging credit markets may make it difficult for potential buyers to raise sufficient capital to purchase our funds’ investments. Government policies regarding certain regulations, such as antitrust law, or restrictions on foreign investment in certain of our funds’ portfolio companies or assets can also limit our funds’ exit opportunities. The recently enacted Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (“FIRRMA”) and related regulations significantly expanded the types of transactions that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). Under FIRRMA, CFIUS has the authority to review and potentially block or impose conditions on certain foreign investments in U.S. companies or real estate, which may reduce the number of potential buyers and limit the ability of our funds to exit from certain investments. In addition, our Credit Group funds may hold investments in portfolio companies of such Private Equity Group funds on which we have board representation and be restricted for extended periods of time from selling their investments. As such, we may fail to realize any profits from our investments in the funds that hold these securities for a considerable period of time or at all, and we may lose some or all of the principal amount of our investments.

Certain of our funds utilize special situation and distressed debt investment strategies that involve significant risks.

Certain of the funds or accounts we advise or manage are subject to the fiduciary responsibility and prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and Section 4975 of the Code, and our businesses could be adversely affected if certain of our other funds or accounts fail to satisfy an exception under the “plan assets” regulation under ERISA.

Our funds may be held liable for the underfunded pension liabilities of their portfolio companies.

A court decision found that, in certain circumstances, an investment fund could be treated as a “trade or business” for purposes of determining pension liability under ERISA. Therefore, where an investment fund owns 80% or more (or possibly, under certain circumstances, less than 80%) of a portfolio company, such investment fund (and any other 80%-owned portfolio companies of such fund) might be found liable for certain pension liabilities of such a portfolio company to the extent the portfolio company is unable to satisfy such liabilities. Our funds may, from time to time, invest in a portfolio company that has unfunded pension fund liabilities, including structuring the investment in a manner where a fund may own an 80% or greater

Our funds’ performance, and our performance, may be adversely affected by the financial performance of our portfolio companies and the industries in which our funds invest.

Third-party investors in certain of 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.

Our funds 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 make investments in companies that we do not control.

Increased regulatory scrutiny and uncertainty with regard to expense allocation may increase risk of harm.

We derive a substantial portion of our revenues from funds managed pursuant to management agreements that may be terminated or fund partnership agreements that permit fund investors to request liquidation of investments in our funds on short notice.

Third-party investors in many of our funds have the right to remove the general partner of the fund and to terminate the investment period under certain circumstances. In addition, the investment management agreements related to our separately managed accounts may permit the investor to terminate our management of such accounts on short notice. These events would lead to a decrease in our revenues, which could be substantial.

A downturn in the global credit markets could adversely affect our CLO investments.

Our funds may face risks relating to undiversified investments.

Our funds may be forced to dispose of investments at a disadvantageous time. Furthermore, we may have to waive management fees for certain of our funds in certain circumstances.

Our real estate funds are subject to the risks inherent in the ownership and operation of real estate and the construction and development of real estate.

Certain of our funds invest in the power, infrastructure and energy sector which is subject to significant market volatility. As such, the performance of investments in the energy sector is subject to a high degree of business and market risk.

Investments in energy, manufacturing, infrastructure and certain other assets may expose us to increased environmental risks and liabilities that are inherent in the ownership of real assets.

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. Even in cases where we are indemnified by a seller 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.

Our investments in infrastructure assets may expose us to increased risks and liabilities.

Investments in infrastructure assets may expose us to increased risks and liabilities that are inherent in the ownership of real assets. For example,

Infrastructure investments often involve an ongoing commitment to a municipal, state, federal or foreign government or regulatory agencies. The nature of these obligations exposes us to a higher level of regulatory control than typically imposed on other businesses and may require us to rely on complex government licenses, concessions, leases or contracts, which may be difficult to obtain or maintain. Infrastructure investments may require operators to manage such investments and such operators’ failure to comply with laws, including prohibitions against bribing of government officials, may adversely affect the value of such investments and cause us serious reputational and legal harm. 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 determine or limit 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 and thus reduce the profitability of such infrastructure investments.

Hedging strategies may adversely affect the returns on our funds’ investments.

When managing our exposure to market risks, we may (on our own behalf or on behalf of our funds) from time to time use forward contracts, options, swaps, caps, collars, floors, foreign currency forward contracts, currency swap agreements, currency option contracts or other strategies. Currency fluctuations in particular can have a substantial effect on our cash flow and financial condition. The success of any hedging or other derivative transactions generally will depend on our ability to correctly predict market or foreign exchange changes, the degree of correlation between price movements of a derivative instrument and the position being hedged, the creditworthiness of the counterparty and other factors. As a result, while we may enter into a transaction to reduce our exposure to market or foreign exchange risks, the transaction may result in poorer overall investment performance than if it had not been executed. Such transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the value of a hedged position increases.

While such hedging arrangements may reduce certain risks, such arrangements themselves may entail certain other risks. These arrangements may require the posting of cash collateral 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.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

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

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

We believe that we are engaged primarily in the business of providing investment management services and not primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. We hold ourselves out as an asset 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. Furthermore, we have no material assets other than interests in certain direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries (within the meaning of the Investment Company Act), which in turn have no material assets other than partnership units in the Ares Operating Group entities. These wholly owned subsidiaries are the general partners of certain of the Ares Operating Group entities and are vested with all management and control over such Ares Operating Group entities. We do not believe that the equity interests of Ares Management Corporation in its wholly owned subsidiaries or the partnership units of these wholly owned subsidiaries in the Ares Operating Group entities are investment securities. Moreover, because we believe that the capital interests of the general partners of our funds in their respective funds are neither securities nor investment securities, we believe that less than 40% of Ares Management Corporation’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis are composed of assets that could be considered investment securities. Accordingly, we do not believe that Ares Management Corporation is an inadvertent investment company by virtue of the 40% test in Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act as described in the second bullet point above.

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 that would cause us to be deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act, requirements imposed by the Investment Company Act, including limitations on capital structure, the ability to transact business with affiliates and the ability to compensate senior employees, could make it impractical for us to continue our businesses as currently conducted, impair the agreements and arrangements between and among the Ares Operating Group, us, our funds and our senior management, or any combination thereof, and have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we may be required to limit the amount of investments that we make as a principal or otherwise conduct our businesses in a manner that does not subject us to the registration and other requirements of the Investment Company Act.

Due to the disparity in voting power among the classes of our common stock, holders of our Class A common stock will generally have no influence over matters on which holders of our common stock vote and limited ability to influence decisions regarding our business.

Unless otherwise provided in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws or required by the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) or the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”), holders of our common stock vote together as a single class on all matters on which stockholders generally are entitled to vote under the DGCL. On any date on which the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, the shares of our Class B common stock held by the Class B Stockholder entitles it to a number of votes, in the aggregate, equal to (x) four times the aggregate number of votes attributable to the shares of our Class A common stock minus (y) the aggregate number of votes attributable to the shares of our Class C common stock. On any date on which the Ares Ownership Condition is not satisfied, the shares of our Class B common stock held by the Class B Stockholder will not be entitled to vote on any matter submitted to a vote of our stockholders. Ares Voting LLC, as the initial holder of the shares of our Class C common stock (in such capacity, the “Class C Stockholder”), is generally entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of Ares Operating Group Units held of record by each limited partner of the Ares Operating Group entities (other than us and our subsidiaries). When Ares Operating Group Units are exchanged for shares of our Class A common stock, the number of votes to which the shares of our Class C common stock are entitled shall be reduced by the number of Ares Operating Group Units so exchanged. However, so long as the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, the issuance of shares of our Class A common stock would increase the number of votes to which holders of our Class B common stock are entitled. As a result, so long as the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, practically all matters submitted to our stockholders will be decided by the vote of the holder of our Class B common stock, Ares Management GP LLC (in such capacity, the “Class B Stockholder”), and Class C Stockholder. Our certificate of incorporation also provides that the number of authorized shares of our Class A common stock may be increased solely by the holders of a majority of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock entitled to vote thereon, voting together as a single class, and no other vote of the holders of any class or series of our stock, voting together or separately as a class, shall be required therefor. As a result, holders of our Class A common stock will have very limited or no ability to influence stockholder decisions, including decisions regarding our business.

The voting rights of holders of our Class A common stock are further restricted by provisions in our certificate of incorporation stating that any of our shares of stock held by a person or group that beneficially owns 20% or more of any class of stock then outstanding (other than the holders of our Class B common stock, Ares Owners Holdings L.P. (“Ares Owners”), any Holdco Member or any of their respective affiliates, or a direct or subsequently approved transferee of the foregoing) cannot be voted on any matter. The Class B Stockholder and Class C Stockholder are both exempt from this limitation.

These limits on the ability of the holders of our Class A common stock to exercise voting rights restrict the ability of the holders of our Class A common stock to influence matters subject to a vote of our stockholders.

The Holdco Members are able to significantly influence the outcome of any matter that may be submitted for a vote of holders of our common stock.

The Class B Stockholder and Class C Stockholder, entities wholly owned by Ares Partners Holdco LLC, which is in turn owned and controlled by the Holdco Members, hold the shares of our Class B common stock and the shares of our Class C common stock, respectively. On any date on which the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, the shares of our Class B common stock held by the Class B Stockholder entitles it to a number of votes, in the aggregate, equal to (x) four times the aggregate number of votes attributable to the shares of our Class A common stock minus (y) the aggregate number of votes attributable to the shares of our Class C common stock. On any date on which the Ares Ownership Condition is not satisfied, the shares of our Class B common stock held by the Class B Stockholder will not be entitled to vote on any matter submitted to a vote of our stockholders. The Class C Stockholder, as the holder of our Class C common stock, is entitled to a number of

Furthermore, our certificate of incorporation provides that special meetings of our stockholders may be called at any time only by or at the direction of our board of directors, a record holder of our Class B common stock or stockholders representing 50% or more of the voting power of the outstanding stock of the class or classes of stock which are entitled to vote at such meeting. Our Class A common stock and our Class C common stock are considered the same class of common stock for this purpose.

Each year, our board of directors determines whether, as of January 31, the total voting power held by (i) holders of our Class C common stock, (ii) then-current or former Ares personnel (including indirectly through related entities) and (iii) Ares Owners, without duplication, is at least 10% of the voting power of the shares of our Class A common stock and the shares of our Class C common stock, voting together as a single class (the “Designated Stock”) (the “Ares Ownership Condition”). For purposes of determining whether the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, our board of directors will treat as outstanding, and as held by the foregoing persons, all shares of our common stock deliverable to such persons pursuant to equity awards granted to such persons. The Ares Ownership Condition is currently satisfied because Ares Owners owns a number of shares of our Class A common stock and Ares Operating Group Units such that the Class C Stockholder and Ares Owners control over 70% of the voting power of the Designated Stock. In addition, certain Ares personnel (including the Holdco Members) also hold shares of our Class A common stock and are entitled to shares of our Class A common stock pursuant to equity awards. All such additional shares of our Class A common stock would be considered in determining whether the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied.

If the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, our certificate of incorporation provides that our board of directors will be divided into two classes: Class I directors and Class II directors. Mr. Antony P. Ressler, a Holdco Member, is the only Class I director and will continue to be a Class I director until his ownership of our common stock decreases below certain specified thresholds. All other directors are Class II directors. Furthermore, so long as the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, (x) a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of our board of directors and (y) any act of our board of directors, requires a majority of the board of directors, which majority must include the Class I director. This effectively provides Mr. Ressler a veto right over all actions taken by our board of directors.

As a result of these matters and the provisions referred to under “-Due to the disparity in voting power among the classes of our common stock, holders of our Class A common stock will generally have no influence over matters on which holders of our common stock vote and limited ability to influence decisions regarding our business,” holders of our Class A common stock may be deprived of an opportunity to receive a premium for their shares of our Class A common stock in the future through a sale of Ares Management Corporation, and the trading prices of shares of our Class A common stock may be adversely affected by the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Potential conflicts of interest may arise among the Class B Stockholder and the Class C Stockholder, on the one hand, and the holders of our Class A common stock and/or preferred stock, on the other hand.

The Class B Stockholder and the Class C Stockholder are controlled by the Holdco Members, certain of whom also serve on our board of directors and all of whom serve as executive officers. As a result, conflicts of interest may arise among the Class B Stockholder and the Class C Stockholder, and their respective controlling persons, on the one hand, and us and the holders of our Class A common stock and/or preferred stock, on the other hand.

The Class B Stockholder and the Class C Stockholder, and thereby the Holdco Members, have the ability to influence our business and affairs through their ownership of the shares of our Class B common stock and the shares of our Class C common stock, respectively, and provisions under our certificate of incorporation requiring the approval of the holders of our Class B common stock for certain corporate actions. Due to the disparity in voting power among the classes of our common stock, the Class B Stockholder and the Class C Stockholder will effectively control the election of directors while the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, and holders of our Class A common stock will generally have limited ability to elect directors and no ability to remove any of our directors, with or without cause.

As such, the Class B Stockholder and Class C Stockholder, and thereby the Holdco Members, have the ability to indirectly, and in some cases directly, influence the determination of the amount and timing of the Ares Operating Group’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 Ares Operating Group Units.

In addition, conflicts may arise relating to the selection and structuring of investments or transactions, declaring dividends and other distributions. For example, certain of our principals and senior professional owners indirectly hold their Ares Operating Group Units through Ares Owners, which, unlike us, is not subject to corporate income taxation. See “-Tax consequences to the direct and indirect holders of Ares Operating Group Units or to general partners in our funds may give rise to conflicts of interests.”

Certain actions by our board of directors require the approval of the Class B Stockholder, which is controlled by the Holdco Members.

Although the affirmative vote of a majority of our directors (which, so long as the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, must include the Class I director) is required for any action to be taken by our board of directors, certain specified actions will also require the approval of the Class B Stockholder, which is controlled by the Holdco Members. These actions consist of the following:

As a “controlled company,” we qualify for some exemptions from the corporate governance and other requirements of the NYSE.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the corporate governance standards of the NYSE. Under the NYSE rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power for the election of directors is held by an individual, group or another company is a “controlled company” and 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. Accordingly, holders of our Class A common stock do not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE.

Our certificate of incorporation states that the Class B Stockholder is under no obligation to consider the separate interests of our other stockholders and contains provisions limiting the liability of the Class B Stockholder.

Due to the disparity in the voting power of the classes of our common stock, holders of our Class A common stock will generally have no influence over matters on which holders of our common stock vote. As a result, on any date on which the Ares Ownership Condition is satisfied, nearly all matters submitted to a vote of the holders of our common stock will be determined by the vote of the Class B Stockholder. Although controlling stockholders may owe duties to minority stockholders, our certificate of incorporation contains provisions limiting the duties owed by the Class B Stockholder and contains provisions allowing the Class B Stockholder to favor its own interests and the interests of its controlling persons over us and the holders of our Class A common stock. Our certificate of incorporation contains provisions stating that the Class B Stockholder is under no obligation to consider the separate interests of our other stockholders (including the tax consequences to such stockholders) in deciding whether or not to cause us to take (or decline to take) any action as well as provisions stating that the Class B Stockholder shall not be liable to our other stockholders for monetary damages or equitable relief for losses sustained, liabilities incurred or benefits not derived by such stockholders in connection with such decisions. See “-Potential conflicts of interest may arise among the Class B Stockholder and the Class C Stockholder, on the one hand, and the holders of our Class A common stock and/or preferred stock, on the other hand.”

The Class B Stockholder will not be liable to us or holders of our Class A common stock for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment determining that the Class B Stockholder acted in bad faith or with criminal intent, and we have also agreed to indemnify other designated persons to a similar extent.

Even if there is deemed to be a breach of the obligations set forth in our certificate of incorporation, our certificate of incorporation provides that the Class B Stockholder will not be liable to us or the holders of our Class A common stock for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that, in respect of the matter in question, the Class B Stockholder acted in bad faith or with criminal intent. These

In addition, we have agreed to indemnify and hold harmless (a) each member of our board of directors and each of our officers, (b) each holder of record of our Class B common stock, (c) Ares Management GP LLC, in its capacity as the former general partner of our company when we were a Delaware limited partnership, and any successor or permitted assign, (d) any person who is or was a “tax matters partner” (as defined in the Section 6231 of the Code prior to amendment by P.L. 114-74) or “partnership representative” (as defined in Section 6223 of the Code after amendment by P.L. 114-74), member, manager, officer or director of any holder of record of our Class B common stock or Ares Management GP LLC, (e) any member, manager, officer or director of any holder of record of our Class B common stock or Ares Management GP LLC who is or was serving at the request of any holder of record of our Class B common stock or Ares Management GP LLC as a director, officer, manager, employee, trustee, fiduciary, partner, tax matters partner, partnership representative, member, representative, agent or advisor of another person (collectively, the “Indemnitees”), to the fullest extent permitted by law, on an after tax basis from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, joint or several, expenses (including legal fees and expenses), judgments, fines, penalties, interests, settlements or other amounts arising from any and all threatened, pending or completed claim, demand, action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative, and whether formal or informal, and including appeals, in which any Indemnitee may be involved, or is threatened to be involved, as a party or otherwise, by reason of its status as an Indemnitee, whether arising from acts or omissions to act occurring on, before or after the date of our certificate of incorporation. We have agreed to provide this indemnification unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that, in respect of the matter in question, the Indemnitee acted in bad faith or with criminal intent.

The provision of our certificate of incorporation requiring exclusive venue in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware for certain types of lawsuits may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and stockholders.

Our certificate of incorporation requires, to the fullest extent permitted by law, that any claim, demand, action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative, and whether formal or informal, and including appeals, arising out of or relating in any way to our certificate of incorporation or any of our stock 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. This provision may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and stockholders.

Our ability to pay dividends to the holders of our Class A common stock may be limited by our holding company structure, applicable provisions of Delaware law and contractual restrictions or obligations.

As a holding company, our ability to pay dividends will be subject to the ability of our subsidiaries to provide cash to us. Ares Management Corporation has no material assets other than investments in the Ares Operating Group entities, either directly or through subsidiaries. We have no independent means of generating revenues. Accordingly, we intend to cause the Ares Operating Group entities to fund any dividends we may declare on shares of our Class A common stock. If the Ares Operating Group entities make distributions to fund such dividends, all holders of Ares Operating Group Units will be entitled to receive equivalent distributions pro rata based on their partnership interests in the Ares Operating Group.

Because as a U.S. corporation we will be subject to entity-level corporate income taxes and may be obligated to make payments under the tax receivable agreement, the amount of dividends ultimately paid by us to holders of our Class A common stock are generally expected to be less, on a per share basis, than the amounts distributed by the Ares Operating Group to the holders of Ares Operating Group Units (including us) in respect of their or our Ares Operating Group Units. For a further discussion of related tax consequences and risks, see “-Risks Related to Taxation-We are a corporation, and applicable taxes will reduce the amount available for dividends to holders of our Class A common stock in respect of such investments and could adversely affect the value of our Class A common stockholders’ investment.”

Our dividend policy contemplates a steady quarterly dividend for each calendar year that will be based on our after-tax fee related earnings. The declaration, payment and determination of the amount of quarterly dividends, if any, will be at the sole discretion of our board of directors, and reassessed each year based on the level and growth of our after-tax fee related earnings. We may change our dividend policy at any time. There can be no assurance that any dividends, whether quarterly or otherwise, can or will be paid. Our ability to make cash dividends to holders of our Class A common stock depends on a number of factors, including among other things, general economic and business conditions, our strategic plans and prospects, our businesses and investment opportunities, our financial condition and operating results, working capital requirements and other anticipated cash needs, contractual restrictions and obligations, including fulfilling our current and future capital commitments, legal, tax and regulatory restrictions, restrictions and other implications on the payment of dividends by us to our common

Under the DGCL, we may only pay dividends to our stockholders out of (i) our surplus, as defined and computed under the provisions of the DGCL or (ii) our net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year. If we do not have sufficient surplus or net profits, we will be prohibited by law from paying any such dividend. In addition, the terms of the Credit Facility or other financing arrangements may from time to time include covenants or other restrictions that could constrain our ability to make dividends. Furthermore, the Ares Operating Group’s cash flow may be insufficient to enable them to make required minimum tax distributions to their members and partners, in which case the Ares Operating Group may have to borrow funds or sell assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and financial condition. Our certificate of incorporation contains provisions authorizing us, subject to the approval of our stockholders, to issue additional classes or series of stock that have designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties that are different from, and may be senior to, those applicable to shares of our Class A common stock.

Furthermore, by making cash dividends to our stockholders 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.

The Class B Stockholder or the Class C Stockholder may transfer their interests in the shares of our Class B common stock or the shares of our Class C common stock, respectively, which could materially alter our operations.

Subject to certain restrictions outlined in our certificate of incorporation, our stock is freely transferable and the Class B Stockholder or the Class C Stockholder may transfer their shares of our Class B common stock and our Class C common stock, respectively, to a third party without the consent of the holders of any other class or series of our stock. Further, the members of the Class B Stockholder or the Class C Stockholder may sell or transfer all or part of their limited liability company interests in the Class B Stockholder or the Class C Stockholder, respectively, at any time without restriction. Any such transfer could constitute or cause a change of control under the Investment Advisers Act, the Credit Facility or other debt instruments and/or governing documents of our funds and other vehicles, which could require consents or waivers or cause defaults under any such documents. In addition, a new holder of shares of our Class B common stock or shares of our Class C common stock, or new controlling members of the Class B Stockholder or Class C Stockholder, may choose to vote for the election of directors to our board of directors who may not be willing or able to cause us to form new funds and could cause us to form funds that have investment objectives and governing terms that differ materially from those of our current funds. A new holder of our Class B common stock or our Class C Common Stock, new controlling members of the Class B Stockholder or Class C Stockholder and/or the directors they each respectively may appoint to our board of directors could also have a different investment philosophy, cause us or our affiliates to 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.

Our certificate of incorporation also provides us with a right to acquire shares of our Class A common stock under specified circumstances, which may adversely affect the price of shares of our Class A common stock.

Our certificate of incorporation provides that, if at any time, either (i) less than 10% of the total shares of any class of our stock then outstanding (other than our Class B common stock, our Class C common stock and our preferred stock) is held by persons other than a record holder of our Class B common stock, any person who is, was or will be a member of Ares Partners Holdco LLC or their respective affiliates or (ii) we are required to register as an investment company under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940, we may exercise our right to purchase shares of our Class A common stock or assign this right to a record holder of our Class B common stock or any of its affiliates. As a result, a stockholder may have his or her shares of our Class A common stock purchased from him or her at an undesirable time or price.

Other anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents could delay or prevent a change in control.

In addition to the provisions described elsewhere relating to the relative voting power of our classes of common stock, other provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that a holder of our Class A common stock may consider favorable by, for example:

These provisions may also discourage acquisition proposals or delay or prevent a change in control.

We will be required to pay the TRA Recipients for most of the benefits relating to our use of attributes we receive from prior and future exchanges of Ares Operating Group Units and related transactions. In certain circumstances, payments to the TRA Recipients may be accelerated and/or could significantly exceed the actual tax benefits we realize.

The holders of Ares Operating Group Units, subject to any applicable transfer restrictions and other provisions, may, on a quarterly basis, exchange their Ares Operating Group Units for shares of our Class A common stock on a one-for-one basis or, at our option, for cash. A holder of Ares Operating Group Units must exchange one Ares Operating Group Unit in each of the three Ares Operating Group entities to effect an exchange for a share of Class A common stock of Ares Management Corporation. These exchanges are expected to result in increases (for U.S. federal income tax purposes) in the tax basis of the tangible and intangible assets of the relevant Ares Operating Group entity. These increases in tax basis generally will increase (for U.S. federal income tax purposes) depreciation and amortization deductions and potentially reduce gain on sales of assets and, therefore, reduce the amount of tax that we would otherwise be required to pay in the future, although the IRS may challenge all or part of these deductions and tax basis increases, and a court could sustain such a challenge.

We have entered into a tax receivable agreement with certain direct and indirect holders of Ares Operating Group Units (the “TRA Recipients”) that provides for the payment by us to the TRA Recipients of 85% of the amount of cash tax savings, if any, in U.S. federal, state, local and foreign income tax or franchise tax that we actually realize (or are deemed to realize in the case of an early termination payment by us or a change of control, as discussed below) as a result of increases in tax basis and certain other tax benefits related to our entering into the tax receivable agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the tax receivable agreement. The payments we may make to the TRA Recipients could be material in amount and we may need to incur debt to finance payments under the tax receivable agreement if our cash resources are insufficient to meet our obligations under the tax receivable agreement as a result of timing discrepancies or otherwise. The actual increase in tax basis (and our ability to achieve the corresponding tax benefits), as well as the amount and timing of any payments under the tax receivable agreement, will vary depending upon a number of factors, including the timing of exchanges, the price of a share of our Class A common stock at the time of the exchange, the extent to which such changes are taxable and the amount and timing of our income. As a result, in certain circumstances, payments to the TRA Recipients under the tax receivable agreement could be in excess of our cash tax savings. If the IRS were to challenge a tax basis increase (or the ability to amortize such increase), the TRA Recipients will not reimburse us for any payments previously made to them under the tax receivable agreement.

In addition, the tax receivable agreement provides that, upon a change of control, or if, at any time, we elect an early termination of the tax receivable agreement, our obligations under the tax receivable agreement with respect to exchanged or acquired shares of our Class A common stock (whether exchanged or acquired before or after such change of control) would be based on certain assumptions, including that we would have sufficient taxable income to fully utilize the deductions arising from the increased tax deductions and tax basis and other benefits related to entering into the tax receivable agreement and, in the case of an early termination election, that any Ares Operating Group Units that have not been exchanged are deemed exchanged for the market value of shares of our Class A common stock at the time of termination. Assuming that the market value of a share of our Class A common stock were to be equal to $47.05, which is the closing price per share of our Class A common stock as of December 31, 2020, and that LIBOR were to be 1.34% and a blended federal and state corporate tax rate of 23.7%, we estimate that the aggregate amount of these termination payments would be approximately $983.2 million on the 112 million Ares Operating Group Units that have not been exchanged for Class A common stock. The foregoing amount is merely an estimate and the actual payments could differ materially.

Tax consequences to the direct and indirect holders of Ares Operating Group Units or to general partners in our funds may give rise to conflicts of interests.

As a result of the tax gain inherent in our assets held by the Ares Operating Group, upon a realization event, certain direct and indirect holders of Ares Operating Group Units may incur different and potentially significantly greater tax liabilities as a result of the disproportionately greater allocations of items of taxable income and gain to such holders. As these direct and indirect holders will not receive a correspondingly greater distribution of cash proceeds, they may, subject to applicable fiduciary or contractual duties, have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing, timing and other material terms of any sale, refinancing, or disposition, or whether to sell such assets at all. Decisions made with respect to an acceleration or deferral of income or the sale or disposition of assets with unrealized built-in tax gains may also influence the timing and amount of payments that are received by the TRA Recipients (including, among others, the Holdco Members and other

Moreover, we may receive performance income from our funds if specified returns are achieved by those funds. In certain circumstances, we may prefer to structure the performance income as a special allocation of income, which we refer to as a carried interest, rather than as an incentive fee.

The general partner of our funds may be entitled to receive carried interest from our funds and a significant portion of that carried interest may consist of long-term capital gains. As a U.S. corporation, we will not receive preferential treatment for long-term capital gains and we may be limited in deducting capital losses. As a result, the general partners of our funds may have interests that are not entirely aligned with our stockholders and thus, subject to their fiduciary duties to fund investors, may be incentivized to seek investment opportunities that maximize favorable tax treatment to the general partners.

Risks Related to Shares of Our Common Stock and Shares of Our Preferred Stock

The market price and trading volume of shares of our Class A common stock may be volatile, which could result in rapid and substantial losses for holders of our Class A common stock.

The market price of shares of our Class A common stock may decline due to the large number of shares of Class A common stock eligible for exchange and future sale.

Dividends on shares of the Series A Preferred Stock are discretionary and non-cumulative.

Risks Related to Taxation

We are a corporation, and applicable taxes will reduce the amount available for dividends to holders of our Class A common stock in respect of such investments and could adversely affect the value of our Class A common stockholders’ investment.

Applicable U.S. and foreign tax law, regulations, or treaties, and changes in such tax laws, regulations or treaties or an adverse interpretation of these items by tax authorities could adversely affect our effective tax rate, tax liability, financial condition and results, ability to raise funds from certain foreign investors, increase our compliance or withholding tax costs and conflict with our contractual obligations.

Under Sections 1471 to 1474 of the Code (such Sections, along with the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, “FATCA”), a broadly defined class of foreign financial institutions are required to comply with a U.S. tax reporting regime or be subject to certain U.S. withholding taxes. The reporting obligations imposed under FATCA require foreign financial institutions to enter into agreements with the IRS to obtain and disclose information about certain account holders and investors to the IRS (or in the case of certain foreign financial institutions that are resident in a jurisdiction that has entered into

The U.K. has implemented two corporate criminal offenses: failure to prevent facilitation of U.K. tax evasion and failure to prevent facilitation of overseas tax evasion. Liability under these offences can be mitigated where the relevant business has in place reasonable prevention procedures. The scope of these offences is extremely wide and could have an impact on Ares’ global businesses. The U.K. has also implemented transparency legislation that requires many large businesses to publish their U.K. tax strategies and their approach to dealing with the U.K. tax authority on their websites. Our U.K. tax policy statement is published on our website. These developments show that the U.K. is seeking to bring tax matters further into the public domain. As a result, tax matters may pose an increased reputational risk to our business. The EU, the U.K. and many other countries have implemented the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard for the automatic exchange of financial account information in tax matters (the “CRS”). EU Council Directive 2018/822 (“DAC 6”) requires mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements. As July 1, 2020 (or January 1, 2021 for jurisdictions which deferred implementation), taxpayers and their advisers may be required under DAC 6 to disclose information to tax authorities when arrangements bearing specific hallmarks involve one or more EU member states. Certain cross-border arrangements put into place beginning June 25, 2018 will also be reportable to relevant taxing authorities beginning August 31, 2020 (or February 28, 2021 for jurisdictions which deferred implementation). On December 31, 2020, the U.K. narrowed the scope of arrangements that need to be reported in the UK pursuant to DAC 6 and, in due course, intends to replace DAC 6 with the OECD Mandatory Disclosure Rules. The EU has also signed separate automatic exchange of information agreements with certain non-EU countries, under which the EU and the relevant jurisdiction will automatically exchange information on the financial accounts of each other’s residents. Investors in our funds will be required (i) to consent to the taking of any action in connection with FATCA, the CRS, DAC 6 and/or any similar other tax reporting regimes, including the disclosure of information to tax authorities which may in turn be exchanged between other tax authorities, and (ii) to agree to provide the AIFM and/or the general partner with the information they require to comply with FATCA, the CRS, DAC 6 and/or any similar other tax reporting regimes in any relevant jurisdiction. The breadth of the disclosure requirements under such tax reporting regimes will likely create costs and administrative burdens and penalties and withholding taxes could be imposed for non-compliance.

Pursuant to the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) Project, individual jurisdictions are beginning to introduce domestic legislation implementing certain of the BEPS actions. Several of the areas of tax law (including double taxation treaties) on which the BEPS Project is focusing are relevant to the ability of our funds to efficiently realize income or capital gains and to efficiently repatriate income and capital gains from the jurisdictions in which they arise to partners and, depending on the extent to and manner in which relevant jurisdictions implement changes in such areas of tax law (including double taxation treaties), the ability of our funds to do these things may be adversely impacted. Changes in tax laws as a result of the BEPS Project may, for example, result in: (a) the restriction or loss of existing access by partners in our funds or their subsidiaries to tax relief under applicable double taxation treaties or EU directives, such as the EU Interest and Royalties Directive; (b) restrictions on permitted levels of deductibility of expenses (such as interest) for tax purposes; (c) rules affecting profit allocation and local nexus requirements, transfer pricing, or the treatment of hybrid entities/investments or (d) an increased risk of activity undertaken in a jurisdiction constituting a permanent establishment of our funds and/or any of their subsidiaries.

Many of the jurisdictions in which our funds will make investments indicated in June 2017 that they would implement the OECD’s draft Multilateral Instrument (“MLI”) which will bring into force a number relevant changes to double tax treaties. The MLI is intended to facilitate the speedy introduction by participating states of double tax treaty-related BEPS recommendations. There remains significant uncertainty as to whether and, if so, to what extent our funds or their subsidiaries may benefit from the protections afforded by such treaties and whether our funds may look to their partners in order to derive tax treaty or other benefits. This position is likely to remain uncertain for a number of years.

In July 2016, the EU adopted the EU adopted the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive 2016/1164 (commonly referred to as “ATAD I”), which directly implements some of the BEPS Project actions points within EU law. EU member states had until December 31, 2018 to transpose ATAD I into their domestic laws (except for the provisions on exit taxation, which had to be transposed by December 31, 2019). On May 29, 2017, the Council of the EU formally adopted the Council Directive amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries (commonly referred to as “ATAD II”), which came into force in member states on January 1, 2020 (subject to relevant derogations) and which contains a set of anti-hybrid rules.

ATAD II was implemented into Luxembourg domestic law by way of a law dated December 20, 2019. The anti-hybrid rules apply for fiscal years starting on or after January 1, 2020, except for the rules governing reverse hybrid mismatches which should be applicable only as of January 1, 2022. ATAD II covers inter alia hybrid mismatches and imported hybrid mismatches resulting from the different characterization of a financial instrument or an entity leading to situations of deduction without inclusion or double deduction. For hybrid mismatches resulting in a situation of deduction without inclusion, the primary rule is that the member state of the payor shall deny such deduction. For hybrid mismatches resulting in a situation of double deduction, a deduction shall only be given to the member state where the payment has its source. However, if, the jurisdiction of the payee does not deny the deduction, the secondary rule would oblige the jurisdiction of the payor to deny the deduction at the level of the payor.

If the ATAD II anti-hybrid rules apply, they can act to deny (to a greater or lesser extent) deductibility in Luxembourg corporate entities of interest/expenses. However, these anti-hybrid rules only apply to arrangements (i) between associated enterprises or (ii) that constitute “structured arrangements”. In the context of hybrid mismatches resulting from the different characterization of a financial instrument, an entity will need to hold a direct or indirect interest of 25% or more of the voting rights, capital interests or rights to share a profit to be considered an associated enterprise. The 25% requirement is replaced by a 50% requirement if the hybrid mismatch results from a different characterization of an entity (i.e. a hybrid entity). With respect to the computation of this 25% or 50% threshold requirement, ATAD II makes reference to the OECD concept of “persons acting together”, as it is specifically mentioned that for purposes of the anti-hybrid rules under ATAD II, “a person who acts together with another person in respect of the voting rights or capital ownership of an entity shall be treated as holding a participation in all of the voting rights or capital ownership of that entity that are held by the other person”. However, the Luxembourg law implementing ATAD II, which came into effect on January 1, 2020, provides that an investor in an investment fund who holds directly or indirectly less than 10% of the interest in the investment fund and who is entitled to receive less than 10% of the fund’s profits is presumed not to act together with the other investors in the same investment fund (since the investors have in principle no effective control over the investments realized by the fund), unless proved otherwise (the de minimis rule). As a consequence of this rebuttable presumption, any investor holding less than 10% in an investment fund should not be regarded as an “associated enterprise” of the fund and of any underlying Luxembourg entities. Any investor holding more than 10% will only be regarded as an “associated enterprise” if it meets the requisite threshold in its own right, or it can be demonstrated that it is acting together with other investors, which would cause it to be deemed to reach the requisite threshold. Our funds have sought their own tax advice in relation to these proposed new rules and their potential impact on future investments.

The impacts of ATAD II on interest and other finance costs in the context of European investments are jurisdiction specific and will be examined on an investment-by-investment basis.

Further to the BEPS Project, and in particular BEPS Action 1 (“Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy”), the OECD published a Report on May 31, 2019 entitled “Programme of Work to Develop a Consensus Solution to the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy” (as updated on January 31, 2020 by the “Statement by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on the Two-Pillar Approach to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy”), which proposes fundamental changes to the international tax system. The proposals (commonly now also referred to as “BEPS 2.0”) are based on two “pillars”, involving the reallocation of taxing rights (Pillar One) and additional global anti-base erosion rules (Pillar Two). On October 12, 2020, the OECD published a report entitled “Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Economic Impact Assessment”, which among other items, included detailed reports on Pillar One and Pillar Two (in addition to an “Economic Impact Assessment” of the Pillar One and Pillar Two proposals). Although the OECD originally aimed to reach a consensual solution on the new international tax rules during 2020, with a final report by the end of 2020, the OECD’s October 12, 2020 report indicated that a consensus will likely not be reached

The Netherlands continued to provide additional updates to its withholding tax on dividends. Following EU case law, three safe harbor rules currently embedded in domestic anti-abuse rules as part of the Dividend Withholding Tax Act and the Corporate Income Tax Act will no longer function as a safe harbor rule. In addition, the Dutch political party “GroenLinks” has indicated they will issue a legislative proposal to amend the Dividend Withholding Tax Act. Currently, there is no draft bill, nor is it indicated when the draft bill will be presented to parliament. If the bill is accepted, the date of entry into force would be subject to discussion. We are evaluating the impact of this change which could result in additional withholding on certain payments for us and our investment funds.

Limitations on the amount of interest expense that we may deduct could materially increase our tax liability and negatively affect an investment in shares of our Class A common stock.

For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, our deduction of net business interest expenses for each taxable year is limited generally to 30% (or, solely for the taxable years that begin in 2019 or 2020, 50%) of our “adjusted taxable income” for the relevant taxable year (with an election being available for taxable years beginning in 2020 to use adjusted taxable income from the last taxable year beginning in 2019), which is an amount that is similar to EBITDA for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022, and similar to earnings before interest and taxes (“EBIT”) for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022. Any excess business interest not allowed as a deduction in a taxable year as a result of the limitation generally will carry forward to the next year.

There is no grandfather provision for outstanding debt prior to the effective date of these rules. This is a significant change from prior law, which could increase our tax liability.

General Risk Factors

The efficient operation of our business is dependent on computer hardware and software systems, as well as data processing systems and the secure processing, storage and transmission of information, which are vulnerable to security breaches and cyber incidents. A cyber incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information resources. These incidents may be an intentional attack or an unintentional event and could

These risks are exacerbated by the rapidly increasing volume of highly sensitive data, including our proprietary business information and intellectual property, and personally identifiable information of our employees, our investors and others, that we collect and store in our data centers and on our networks. The secure processing, maintenance and transmission of this information are critical to our operations. A significant actual or potential theft, loss, corruption, exposure, fraudulent use or misuse of investor, employee or other personally identifiable or proprietary business data, whether by third parties or as a result of employee malfeasance or otherwise, non-compliance with our contractual or other legal obligations regarding such data or intellectual property or a violation of our privacy and security policies with respect to such data could result in significant remediation and other costs, fines, litigation or regulatory actions against us and significant reputational harm.

Our funds’ portfolio companies also rely on similar systems and face similar risks. 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 material adverse consequences on our investment or assets of the same type or may require applicable portfolio companies to increase preventative security measures or expand insurance coverage.

In addition, we operate in businesses that are highly dependent on information systems and technology. The costs related to cyber or other security threats or disruptions may not be fully insured or indemnified by other means. Cybersecurity has become a priority for regulators in the U.S. and around the world. Many jurisdictions in which we operate have laws and regulations relating to data privacy, cybersecurity and protection of personal information, including, the California Consumer Privacy Act that went into effect on January 1, 2020, and the New York SHIELD Act, which became effective on March 1, 2020. In addition, the SEC announced that one of the 2019 examination priorities for the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations was to continue to examine cybersecurity procedures and controls, including testing the implementation of these procedures and controls. Further, the European General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) came into effect in May 2018. Data protection requirements under the GDPR are more stringent than those imposed under prior European legislation. There are substantial financial penalties for breach of the GDPR, including up to the higher of 20 million Euros or 4% of group annual worldwide turnover. The U.K. has adopted GDPR and similar requirements therefore continue to apply in the U.K. notwithstanding Brexit (“UK GDPR”). However, as a result of Brexit, the U.K. is now a third country for the purposes of GDPR as it applies in the EU (“EU GDPR”). The TCA provides for a transitional period during which transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.K. will not be considered as transfers to a third country under EU GDPR. If this transitional period ends without the European Commission adopting an adequacy decision in relation to the U.K., transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.K. will be subject to additional requirements under the EU GDPR rules on exporting data outside the EU. Transfers of personal data from the U.K. to the EU will continue to be permitted under UK GDPR without the need for compliance with such additional data export requirements. Non-compliance with any of these laws, as well as others, represents a serious risk to our business. Some jurisdictions have also enacted laws requiring companies to notify individuals of data security breaches involving certain types of personal data. Breaches in security could potentially jeopardize our, our employees’ 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 employees’, 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 counterparties, regulatory intervention or reputational damage. Furthermore, if we fail to comply with the relevant laws and regulations, it could result in regulatory investigations and penalties, which could lead to negative publicity and may cause our fund investors and clients to lose confidence in the effectiveness of our security measures.

Although we are not currently aware of any cyber attacks or other incidents that, individually or in the aggregate, have materially affected, or would reasonably be expected to materially affect, our operations or financial condition, there can be no

In recent years, the volume of claims and amount of damages claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against investment managers have been increasing. We make investment decisions on behalf of investors in our funds that could result in substantial losses. This may subject us to the risk of legal liabilities or actions alleging negligent misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty or breach of contract. Further, we may be subject to third-party litigation arising from allegations that we improperly exercised control or influence over portfolio investments. In addition, we and our affiliates that are the investment managers and general partners of our funds, our funds themselves and those of our employees who are our, our subsidiaries’ or the funds’ officers and directors are each exposed to the risks of litigation specific to the funds’ investment activities and portfolio companies and, in the case where our funds own controlling interests in public companies, to the risk of shareholder litigation by the public companies’ other shareholders. Moreover, we are exposed to risks of litigation or investigation by investors or regulators relating to our having engaged, or our funds having engaged, in transactions that presented conflicts of interest that were not properly addressed.

Legal liability could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition or results of operations or cause reputational harm to us, which could harm our businesses. We depend to a large extent on our business relationships and our reputation for integrity and high-caliber professional services to attract and retain investors and to pursue investment opportunities for our funds. As a result, allegations of improper conduct asserted by private litigants or regulators, regardless of 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 investment industry in general, whether or not valid, may harm our reputation, which may be damaging to our businesses.

In addition, the laws and regulations governing the limited liability of such issuers and portfolio companies vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in certain contexts the laws of certain jurisdictions may provide not only for carve-outs from limited liability protection for the issuer or portfolio company that has incurred the liabilities, but also for recourse to assets of other entities under common control with, or that are part of the same economic group as, such issuer. For example, if one of our portfolio companies is subject to bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction and is found to have liabilities under the local consumer protection, labor, tax or bankruptcy laws, the laws of that jurisdiction may permit authorities or creditors to file a lien on, or to otherwise have recourse to, assets held by other portfolio companies (including assets held by us) in that jurisdiction. There can be no assurance that we will not be adversely affected as a result of the foregoing risks.

In addition, we may not be able to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance on commercially reasonable terms or with adequate coverage levels against potential liabilities we may face in connection with potential claims, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. We may face a risk of loss from a variety of claims, including related to securities, antitrust, contracts, cybersecurity, fraud and various other potential claims, whether or not such claims are valid. Insurance and other safeguards might only partially reimburse us for our losses, if at all, and if a claim is successful and exceeds or is not covered by our insurance policies, we may be required to pay a substantial amount in respect of such successful claim. Certain losses of a catastrophic nature, such as losses arising as a result of wars, earthquakes, typhoons, terrorist attacks or other similar events, may be uninsurable or may only be insurable at rates that are so high that maintaining coverage would cause an adverse impact on our business, our investment funds and their portfolio companies. In general, losses related to terrorism are becoming harder and more expensive to insure against. Some insurers are excluding terrorism coverage from their all-risk policies. In some cases, insurers are offering significantly limited coverage against terrorist acts for additional premiums, which can greatly increase the total cost of casualty insurance for a property. As a result, we, our investment funds and their portfolio companies may not be insured against terrorism or certain other catastrophic losses.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments

Item 2.  Properties

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures

Item 5. Market For Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters And Issuer Purchases Of Equity Securities

Market Information

Stock Performance Graph

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Dividend Policy for Class A Common Stock

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Purchases of Equity Securities

Ares Management Corporation is a Delaware corporation. Unless the context otherwise requires, references to “Ares,” “we,” “us,” “our,” and the “Company” are intended to mean the business and operations of Ares Management Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries. The following discussion analyzes the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. “Consolidated Funds” refers collectively to certain Ares funds, co-investment entities and CLOs that are required under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”) to be consolidated in our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Additional terms used by the Company are defined in the Glossary and throughout the Management's Discussion and Analysis in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements of Ares Management Corporation and the related notes included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Trends Affecting Our Business

Managing Business Performance

IGAUM generally represents the AUM of our funds that are currently generating performance income on a realized or unrealized basis. It represents the basis on which we are entitled to receive performance income. The basis is typically the NAV or total assets of the fund. We exclude from the basis amounts on which we do not earn performance income, such as capital committed by us and our professionals. ARCC is only included in IGAUM when ARCC Part II Fees are being generated.

The charts below present our IEAUM and IGAUM by segment ($ in billions):

Results of Operations