Arch Capital (ACGL) 424B2Prospectus for primary offering

The insurance and reinsurance industry is highly competitive. We compete on an international and regional basis with major U.S. and non-U.S. insurers and reinsurers, many of which have greater financial, marketing and management resources than we do. See “Business—Competition” in the 2019 Form 10-K. There has been significant consolidation in the insurance and reinsurance sector in recent years and we may experience increased competition as a result of that consolidation, with consolidated entities having enhanced market power. These consolidated entities may use their enhanced market power and broader capital base to negotiate price reductions for products and services that compete with ours, and we may experience rate declines and possibly write less business. Any failure by us to effectively compete could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Historically, insurers and reinsurers have experienced significant fluctuations in operating results due to competition, frequency of occurrence or severity of catastrophic events, levels of capacity, general economic conditions, changes in equity, debt and other investment markets, changes in legislation, case law and prevailing concepts of liability and other factors. In particular, demand for reinsurance is influenced significantly by the underwriting results of primary insurers and prevailing general economic conditions. The supply of insurance and reinsurance is related to prevailing prices and levels of surplus capacity that, in turn, may fluctuate in response to changes in rates of return being realized in the insurance and reinsurance industry on both underwriting and investment sides. As a result, the insurance and reinsurance business historically has been a cyclical industry characterized by periods of intense price competition due to excessive underwriting capacity as well as periods when shortages of capacity permitted favorable premium levels and changes in terms and conditions. The supply of insurance and reinsurance has increased over the past several years and may increase further, either as a result of capital provided by new entrants or by the commitment of additional capital by existing insurers or reinsurers. Continued increases in the supply of insurance and reinsurance may have consequences for us, including fewer contracts written, lower premium rates, increased expenses for customer acquisition and retention, and less favorable policy terms and conditions.

We have large aggregate exposures to natural and man-made catastrophic events. Catastrophes can be caused by various events, including hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, windstorms, earthquakes, hailstorms, tornadoes, explosions, severe winter weather, fires, droughts and other natural disasters. The frequency and severity of natural catastrophe activity, including hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods and droughts, has also been greater in recent years. Catastrophes can also cause losses in non-property business such as workers’ compensation or general liability. In addition to the nature of the property business, we believe that economic and geographic trends affecting insured property, including inflation, property value appreciation and geographic concentration tend to generally increase the size of losses from catastrophic events over time. Actual losses from future catastrophic events may vary materially from estimates due to the inherent uncertainties in making such determinations resulting from several factors, including the potential inaccuracies and inadequacies in the data provided by clients, brokers and ceding companies, the modeling techniques and the application of such techniques, the contingent nature of business interruption exposures, the effects of any resultant demand surge on claims activity and attendant coverage issues.

In addition, over the past several years, changing weather patterns and climatic conditions, such as global warming, have added to the unpredictability and frequency of natural disasters in certain parts of the world and created additional uncertainty as to future trends and exposures. Although the loss experience of catastrophe insurers and reinsurers has historically been characterized as low frequency, there is a growing consensus today that climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events and, in recent years, the frequency of major catastrophes appears to have increased, and may continue to increase in the future.

Claims for catastrophic events, or an unusual frequency of smaller losses in a particular period, could expose us to large losses, cause substantial volatility in our results of operations and could have a material adverse effect on our ability to write new business if we are not able to adequately assess and reserve for the increased frequency and severity of catastrophes resulting from these environmental factors. Additionally, catastrophic events could result in increased credit exposure to reinsurers and other counterparties we transact business with, declines in the value of investments we hold and significant disruptions to our physical infrastructure, systems and operations.

Additionally, we cannot predict how legal, regulatory and/or social responses to concerns around global climate change may impact our business. We attempt to manage our exposure to such events through the use of underwriting controls, risk models, and the purchase of third-party reinsurance. Underwriting controls can include more restrictive underwriting criteria such as higher premiums and deductibles, or losses retained, and more specifically excluded policy risks. Our deductible in connection with a catastrophic event is determined by market capacity, pricing conditions and surplus preservation. There can be no assurance that our reinsurance coverage and other measures taken will be sufficient to mitigate losses resulting from one or more catastrophic events. As a result, the occurrence of one or more catastrophic events and the continuation and worsening of recent trends could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and sustainability have become major topics that encompass a wide range of issues, such as climate change and other environmental risks. It is something that has come to the fore at a European level. For example, the European Commission has published non-binding guidelines on non-financial reporting (to include climate-change related information) and the Regulation establishing a framework for disclosures related to sustainability risks and sustainable investments as part of the European Commission’s Sustainable Finance Action Plan. These will introduce mandatory, rather than voluntary, disclosure requirements in due course which could have an impact on the operation model of ACGL and its subsidiaries.

We have substantial exposure to unexpected, large losses resulting from future man-made catastrophic events, such as acts of war, acts of terrorism and political instability. These risks are inherently unpredictable. It is difficult to predict the timing of such events with statistical certainty or estimate the amount of loss any given occurrence will generate. In certain instances, we specifically insure and reinsure risks resulting from acts of terrorism. We may also insure against risk related to cybersecurity and cyber-attacks. In addition, our exposure to cyber-attacks includes exposure to ‘silent cyber’ risks, meaning risks and potential losses associated with policies where cyber risk is not specifically included nor excluded in the policies. Even in cases where we attempt to exclude losses from terrorism, cybersecurity and certain other similar risks from some coverages written by us, we may not be successful in doing so. Moreover, irrespective of the clarity and inclusiveness of policy language, there can be no assurance that a court or arbitration panel will not limit enforceability of policy language or otherwise issue a ruling adverse to us. Accordingly, while we believe our reinsurance programs, together with the coverage provided under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, as amended are sufficient to reasonably limit our net losses relating to potential future terrorist attacks, we can offer no assurance that our available capital will be adequate to cover losses when they materialize. To the extent that an act of terrorism is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury and aggregate industry insured losses resulting from the act of terrorism exceeds the prescribed program trigger, our U.S. insurance operations may be covered under TRIP for up to 80% subject to a mandatory deductible of 20% of our prior year’s direct earned premium for covered property and liability coverages. The program trigger for calendar year 2020 is $200 million. If an act (or acts) of terrorism result in covered losses exceeding the $100 billion annual limit, insurers with losses exceeding their deductibles will not be responsible for additional losses. It is not possible to completely eliminate our exposure to unforecasted or unpredictable events, and to the extent that losses from such risks occur, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Our operations are also exposed to the risk of catastrophic mortality, such as a pandemic or other event that causes a large number of deaths. For example, on January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the recent

Governmental authorities in the U.S. and worldwide have become increasingly interested in potential risks posed by the insurance industry as a whole, and to commercial and financial systems in general and there may be increased regulatory intervention in our industry in the future. For example, in the U.S., the federal government (including federal consumer protection authorities) has increased its scrutiny of the insurance regulatory framework in recent years, and various state legislators are considering or have enacted laws that will alter and likely increase state regulation of insurance and reinsurance companies and holding companies. The U.S. mortgage insurance industry has also been subject to increased federal and state regulatory scrutiny (including by state insurance regulatory authorities), which could generate new regulations, regulatory actions or investigations.

In the EU, Solvency II imposed economic risk-based solvency requirements across all EU Member States covering quantitative capital requirements, qualitative regulatory reviews and market discipline. In addition, Solvency II imposes significant requirements for our EU-based regulated companies which require substantial documentation and implementation effort. Following the U.K.’s departure from the EU, it is uncertain whether the U.K. will maintain equivalence with Solvency II beyond the end of the Transition Period.

The BMA has also implemented and imposed additional requirements on the commercial insurance companies it regulates, driven, in large part, by Solvency II. The European Commission has adopted a decision concluding that Bermuda meets the full equivalence criteria under Solvency II.

In addition, increased scrutiny by insurance regulators of investments in or acquisitions of insurers or insurance holding companies by private equity firms or hedge funds may result in imposition of additional regulatory requirements and restrictions. We have in the past partnered with private equity firms in making investments and may do so in the future. This increased scrutiny may make it difficult to complete investments with private equity or hedge funds should we seek to do so.

Our success is dependent upon our ability to assess accurately the risks associated with the businesses that we insure and reinsure. We establish reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses which represent estimates involving actuarial and statistical projections, at a given point in time, of our expectations of the ultimate settlement and administration costs of losses incurred. We utilize actuarial models as well as available historical insurance industry loss ratio experience and loss development patterns to assist in the establishment of loss reserves. Most or all of these factors are not directly quantifiable, particularly on a prospective basis, and the effects of these and unforeseen factors could negatively impact our ability to accurately assess the risks of the policies that we write. Changes in the assumptions used by these models or by management could lead to an increase in our estimate of ultimate losses in the future. In addition, there may be significant reporting lags between the occurrence of the insured event and the time it is actually reported to the insurer and additional lags between the

If our loss reserves are determined to be inadequate, we will be required to increase loss reserves at the time of such determination with a corresponding reduction in our net income in the period in which the deficiency becomes known. It is possible that claims in respect of events that have occurred could exceed our claim reserves and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, in a particular period, or our financial condition in general. As a compounding factor, although most insurance contracts have policy limits, the nature of property and casualty insurance and reinsurance is such that losses can exceed policy limits for a variety of reasons and could significantly exceed the premiums received on the underlying policies, thereby further adversely affecting our financial condition.

In accordance with mortgage insurance industry practice, we establish loss reserves only for loans in our existing delinquency inventory. Because our mortgage insurance reserving process does not take account of the impact of future losses from loans that are not delinquent, mortgage insurance loss reserves are not intended to be an estimate of total future losses. Our expectation of total future losses under our mortgage insurance policies in force at any period end is not reflected in our financial statements. In addition to establishing loss reserves for delinquent loans, under GAAP, we are required to establish a premium deficiency reserve for our mortgage insurance products if the amount of expected future losses for a particular product and maintenance costs for such product exceeds expected future premiums, existing reserves and the anticipated investment income. We evaluate whether a premium deficiency exists quarterly. There can be no assurance that premium deficiency reserves will not be required in future periods. If this were to occur, our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

As of December 31, 2019, our consolidated reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, net of unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses recoverable, were approximately $9.81 billion. Such reserves were established in accordance with applicable insurance laws and GAAP. Loss reserves are inherently subject to uncertainty. In establishing the reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses, we have made various assumptions relating to the pricing of our reinsurance contracts and insurance policies and have also considered available historical industry experience and current industry conditions. Any estimates and assumptions made as part of the reserving process could prove to be inaccurate due to several factors, including the fact that relatively limited historical information has been reported to us through December 31, 2019.

We seek to limit our loss exposure by writing a number of our reinsurance contracts on an excess of loss basis, adhering to maximum limitations on reinsurance written in defined geographical zones, limiting program size for each client and prudent underwriting of each program written. In the case of proportional treaties, we may seek per occurrence limitations or loss ratio caps to limit the impact of losses from any one or series of events. In our insurance operations, we seek to limit our exposure through the purchase of reinsurance. For our U.S. mortgage insurance business, in addition to utilizing reinsurance, we have developed a proprietary risk model that simulates the maximum loss resulting from a severe economic event impacting the housing market. We cannot be certain that any of these loss limitation methods will be effective. We also seek to limit our loss exposure by geographic diversification. Geographic zone limitations involve significant underwriting judgments, including the determination of the area of the zones and the inclusion of a particular policy within a particular zone’s limits. Various provisions of our policies, negotiated to limit our risk, such as limitations or exclusions from coverage or choice of forum, may not be enforceable in the manner we intend, as it is possible that a court or regulatory authority could nullify or void an exclusion or limitation, or legislation could be enacted modifying or barring the use of these exclusions and limitations. Disputes relating to coverage and choice of legal forum may also arise. Underwriting is inherently a matter of judgment, involving important assumptions about matters that are inherently unpredictable and beyond our control, and for which historical experience and probability analysis may not provide sufficient guidance. No assurances can be made that these loss limitation methods will be effective and mitigate our loss exposure. One or more catastrophic events or severe economic events could result in claims that substantially exceed our expectations, or the protections set forth in our policies could be voided, which, in either case, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or our results of operations, possibly to the extent of eliminating our shareholders’ equity. In addition, factors such as global climate change

Adverse developments in the financial markets, such as disruptions, uncertainty or volatility in the capital and credit markets, may result in realized and unrealized capital losses that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and our businesses, and may also limit our access to capital required to operate our business. Depending on market conditions, we could incur additional realized and unrealized losses on our investment portfolio in future periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business. Economic conditions could also have a material impact on the frequency and severity of claims and therefore could negatively impact our underwriting returns. In addition, our policyholders, reinsurers and retrocessionaires may be affected by developments in the financial markets, which could adversely affect their ability to meet their obligations to us. The volatility in the financial markets could continue to significantly affect our investment returns, reported results and shareholders’ equity.

In a referendum in June 2016, a majority of voting U.K. citizens voted in favor of Brexit, whereby the U.K. will leave the EU. The U.K. government invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (“Article 50”) in 2017. On January 31, 2020, the U.K. withdrew from the EU. Terms of this withdrawal are set forth in the Withdrawal Agreement, which was approved by the U.K. Parliament and the EU Parliament. The Withdrawal Agreement allows for a Transition Period whereby “passporting” rights will continue to exist until the end of the Transition Period, which is December 31, 2020. During the Transition Period, the U.K. government and the EU will endeavor to negotiate a trade deal to govern the future relationship between the U.K. and the EU. If a trade deal is not agreed by the end of the Transition Period, the U.K. will leave the EU on December 31, 2020 on World Trade Organization ("WTO") terms, meaning that most U.K. goods will be subject to tariffs until a free trade deal is brought in and "passporting" rights will cease to apply.

Accordingly, there remains considerable uncertainty as to the negotiations between the U.K. and the EU during the Transition Period and the ultimate structure of the U.K’s future relationship with the EU. There is no certainty that the U.K.’s solvency and prudential regime will be deemed “equivalent” to Solvency II or that the U.K. will not impose more stringent requirements on companies conducting insurance business in the U.K.

During this Transition Period and beyond, the impact of the U.K.’s withdrawal on the U.K. and European economies and the broader global economy could be significant, resulting in negative consequences, such as increased volatility and illiquidity, and potentially lower economic growth in various markets in the U.K., Europe and globally and could continue to contribute to instability in global financial and foreign exchange markets. Brexit could also have the effect of disrupting the free movement of goods, services and people between the U.K. and the EU. We anticipate that Brexit may disrupt our U.K. domiciled entities and their ability to “passport” within the EU. Similarly, Brexit may disrupt the ability of our EU domiciled entities to access the U.K. markets although the U.K is attempting to mitigate this by introducing a temporary permissions regime which allows firms that wish to continue carrying out regulated activities in the U.K. in the longer term to operate in the U.K for a limited period after withdrawal, while they seek authorization from the U.K. regulators. The full effects of Brexit are uncertain and will depend on any agreements the U.K. and EU enter into regarding their future relationship.

The negative impact of these events on economic conditions and global markets could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and liquidity. For example, this crisis may cause the value of the European currencies, including the Euro and the British Pound Sterling, to further depreciate against the U.S. Dollar, which in turn could materially adversely impact assets denominated in such currencies held in our investment portfolio or results of our European book of business. In addition, the applicable legal framework and the terms of our Euro-denominated insurance policies and reinsurance agreements generally do not address withdrawal by a member state from the Eurozone or a break-up of the EU, which could create uncertainty in our payment obligations and rights under those policies and agreements in the event that such a withdrawal or break-up does occur.

Additionally, a contagion effect of a possible default of one or more EU Member States and/or their withdrawal from the Eurozone, or the failure of financial institutions, on the global economy, including other EU Member States and our counterparties located in those countries, or a break-up of the EU could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. As a result of Brexit, other European countries may seek to conduct referenda with respect to their continuing membership with the EU. Given these possibilities and others we may not anticipate, as well as the lack of comparable precedent, the full extent to which our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected by Brexit is uncertain.

Like other reinsurers, our reinsurance group does not separately evaluate each of the individual risks assumed under reinsurance treaties. Therefore, we are largely dependent on the original underwriting decisions made by ceding companies. We are subject to the risk that the ceding companies may not have adequately evaluated the risks to be reinsured and that the premiums ceded may not adequately compensate us for the risks we assume.

For the purposes of managing risk, we use reinsurance, retrocessional coverage and capital markets transactions. In the normal course of business, our insurance subsidiaries cede a portion of their premiums through pro rata, excess of loss and facultative reinsurance agreements. Our reinsurance subsidiaries purchase a limited amount of retrocessional coverage as part of their aggregate risk management program. In addition, our reinsurance subsidiaries participate in “common account” retrocessional arrangements for certain pro rata treaties. Such arrangements reduce the effect of individual or aggregate losses to all companies participating on such treaties, including the reinsurers, such as our reinsurance subsidiaries, and the ceding company. Economic conditions could also have a material impact on our ability to manage our risk aggregations through reinsurance or capital markets transactions. The availability and cost of reinsurance and retrocessional protection is subject to market conditions, which are beyond our control. As a result of such market conditions and other factors, we may not be able to successfully mitigate risk through reinsurance and retrocessional arrangements.

Further, we are subject to credit risk with respect to our reinsurance and retrocessions because the ceding of risk to reinsurers and retrocessionaires does not relieve us of our liability to the clients or companies we insure or reinsure. We monitor the financial condition of our reinsurers and attempt to place coverages only with carriers we view as substantial and financially sound. Although we have not experienced any material credit losses to date, an inability of our reinsurers or retrocessionaires to meet their obligations to us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Our losses for a given event or occurrence may increase if our reinsurers or retrocessionaires dispute or fail to meet their obligations to us or the reinsurance or retrocessional protections purchased by us are exhausted or are otherwise unavailable for any reason. Our failure to establish adequate reinsurance or retrocessional arrangements or the failure of our existing reinsurance or retrocessional arrangements to protect us from overly concentrated risk exposure could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In accordance with industry practice, we generally pay amounts owed on claims under our insurance and reinsurance contracts to brokers, and these brokers, in turn, pay these amounts to the clients that have purchased insurance or reinsurance from us. In some jurisdictions, if a broker fails to make such payment, we may remain liable to the insured or ceding insurer for the deficiency. Likewise, in certain jurisdictions, when the insured or ceding company pays the premiums for these contracts to brokers for payment to us, these premiums are considered to have been paid and the insured or ceding company will no longer be liable to us for those amounts, whether or not we have actually received the premiums from the broker. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with our brokers. To date, we have not experienced any losses related to this credit risk.

As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge, including new or expanded theories of liability. These or other changes could impose new financial obligations on us by extending coverage beyond our underwriting intent or otherwise require us to make unplanned modifications to the products and services that we provide, or cause the delay or cancellation of products and services that we provide. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent until sometime after we have issued insurance or reinsurance contracts that are affected by the changes. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance or reinsurance contracts may not be known for many years after a contract is issued. The effects of unforeseen developments or substantial government intervention could adversely impact our ability to achieve our goals.

Our financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which is periodically revised by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), and they are subject to the accounting-related rules and interpretations of the SEC. We are required to adopt new and revised accounting standards implemented by the FASB. Unanticipated developments in accounting practices may require us to incur considerable additional expenses to comply with such developments, particularly if we are required to prepare information relating to prior periods for comparative purposes or to apply the new requirements retroactively. The impact of changes in accounting principles, practices and standards, particularly those that apply to insurance companies, cannot be predicted but may affect the calculation of net earnings, shareholders' equity and other relevant financial statement line items. In addition, such changes may cause additional volatility in reported earnings, decrease the understandability of our financial results and affect the comparability of our reported results with the results of others.

We may seek, from time to time, to acquire other companies, acquire selected blocks of business, expand our business lines, expand into new geographic regions and/or enter into joint ventures or partnerships. Such activities expose us to challenges and risks, including: integrating financial and operational reporting systems; establishing satisfactory budgetary and other financial controls; funding increased capital needs, overhead expenses or cash flow shortages that may occur if anticipated sales and revenues are not realized or are delayed, whether by general economic or market conditions or unforeseen internal difficulties; obtaining management personnel required for expanded operations; obtaining necessary regulatory permissions; and establishing adequate reserves for any acquired book of business. In addition, the value of assets acquired may be lower than expected or may diminish due to credit defaults or changes in interest rates; the liabilities assumed may be greater than expected; and assets and liabilities acquired may be subject to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuation. We may also be subject to financial exposures in the event that the sellers of the entities or business we acquire are unable or unwilling to meet their indemnification, reinsurance and other contractual obligations to us. Our failure to manage successfully any of the foregoing challenges and risks may adversely impact our results of operations.

Arch MI U.S. had risk in force of approximately $72.6 billion, before external reinsurance, as of March 31, 2020, including $3.8 billion of risk in force originated in 2010 and prior. The presence of multiple higher-risk characteristics in a loan materially increases the likelihood of a claim on such a loan unless there are other characteristics to mitigate the risk. The mix of business in our insured loan portfolio may affect losses and remain uncertain. 

The frequency and severity of claims we incur will be uncertain and will depend largely on general economic factors outside of our control, including, among others, changes in unemployment, home prices and interest rates in the U.S. Deteriorating economic conditions in the U.S. could adversely affect the performance of our acquired U.S. mortgage insurance portfolio and could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Generally, we cannot cancel mortgage insurance coverage or adjust renewal premiums during the life of a mortgage insurance policy. As a result, higher than anticipated claims generally cannot be offset by premium increases on policies in

We can offer no assurances that our ratings will remain at their current levels or that any of our ratings which are under review or watch by ratings agencies will remain unchanged. We believe it is possible that rating agencies may heighten the level of scrutiny they apply when analyzing companies in our industry, may increase the frequency and scope of their reviews, may request additional information from the companies that they rate (including additional information regarding the valuation of investment securities held), and may adjust upward the capital and other requirements employed in their models for maintenance of certain rating levels.

Operational risk and losses can result from, among other things, fraud, errors, failure to document transactions properly or to obtain proper internal authorization, failure to comply with regulatory requirements, information technology failures, failure to appropriately transition new hires or external events. We continue to enhance our operating procedures and internal controls (including information technology initiatives and controls over financial reporting) to effectively support our business and our regulatory and reporting requirements. Our management does not expect that our disclosure controls or our internal controls will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. As a result of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons or by collusion of two or more people. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions; over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. As a result of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatement due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Accordingly, our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable, not absolute, assurance that our goals are met. Any ineffectiveness in our controls or procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We operate within an ERM framework designed to assess and monitor our risks. However, there can be no assurance that we can effectively review and monitor all risks or that all of our employees will operate within the ERM framework. There can be no assurance that our ERM framework will result in us accurately identifying all risks and accurately limiting our

We market our insurance and reinsurance products primarily through brokers and intermediaries. We derive a significant portion of our business from a limited number of brokers. During 2019, approximately 12.2% and 9.6% of our gross premiums written were generated from or placed by Aon Corporation and its subsidiaries and Marsh & McLennan Companies and its subsidiaries, respectively. No other broker and no one insured or reinsured accounted for more than 10% of gross premiums written for 2019. Some of our competitors have higher financial strength ratings, offer a larger variety of products, set lower prices for insurance coverage, offer higher commissions and/or have had longer term relationships with the brokers we use than we have. This may adversely impact our ability to attract and retain brokers to sell our insurance products or brokers may increasingly promote products offered by other companies. The failure or inability of brokers to market our insurance products successfully, or loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided by these brokers could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

For certain business conducted by our insurance group, following our underwriting, financial, claims and information technology due diligence reviews, we authorize managing general agents, general agents and other producers to write business on our behalf within underwriting authorities prescribed by us. In addition, our mortgage group delegates the underwriting of a significant percentage of its primary new insurance written to certain mortgage lenders. Under this delegated underwriting program, the approved customer may determine whether mortgage loans meet our mortgage insurance program guidelines and commit us to issue mortgage insurance. We rely on the underwriting controls of these agents to write business within the underwriting authorities provided by us. Although we have contractual protections in some instances and we monitor such business on an ongoing basis, our monitoring efforts may not be adequate or our agents may exceed their underwriting authorities or otherwise breach obligations owed to us. In addition, our agents, our insureds or other third parties may commit fraud or otherwise breach their obligations to us. To the extent that our agents, our insureds or other third parties exceed their underwriting authorities, commit fraud or otherwise breach obligations owed to us in the future, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

In addition to exposure to credit risk related to our investment portfolio, reinsurance recoverables and reliance on brokers and other agents (each discussed elsewhere in this section), we are exposed to credit risk in other areas of our business related to policyholders. We are exposed to credit risk in our insurance group’s surety unit where we guarantee to a third party that our policyholder will satisfy certain performance or financial obligations. If our policyholder defaults, we may suffer losses and be unable to be reimbursed by our policyholder. We are exposed to credit risk in our insurance group’s construction and national accounts units where we write large deductible insurance policies. Under these policies, we are typically obligated to pay the claimant the full amount of the claim (shown as “contractholder payables” on our consolidated balance sheets). We are subsequently reimbursed by the policyholder for the deductible amount (shown as “contractholder receivables” on our consolidated balance sheets), which can be a set amount per claim and/or an aggregate amount for all covered claims. As such, we are exposed to credit risk from the policyholder. We are also exposed to credit risk from policyholders on smaller deductibles in other insurance group lines, such as healthcare and excess and surplus casualty.

Our operating results depend in part on the performance of our investment portfolio. A significant portion of cash and invested assets held by Arch consists of fixed maturities (74.6% as of March 31, 2020). Although our current investment guidelines and approach stress preservation of capital, market liquidity and diversification of risk, our investments are subject to market-wide risks and fluctuations. In addition, we are subject to risks inherent in particular securities or types of securities, as well as sector concentrations. Changing market conditions could materially affect the future valuation of securities in our investment portfolio, which could cause us to impair some portion of those securities. We may not be able to realize our investment objectives, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results. In the event that we are unsuccessful in correlating our investment portfolio with our expected insurance and reinsurance liabilities, we may be forced to liquidate our investments at times and prices that are not optimal, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results and ability to conduct our business.

We write business on a worldwide basis, and our results of operations may be affected by fluctuations in the value of currencies other than the U.S. Dollar. The primary foreign currencies in which we operate are the Euro, the British Pound Sterling, the Australian Dollar and the Canadian Dollar. Changes in foreign currency exchange rates can reduce our revenues, increase our liabilities and costs and cause fluctuations in the valuation of our investment portfolio. We may therefore suffer losses solely as a result of exchange rate fluctuations. In order to mitigate our exposure to foreign currency fluctuations in our net insurance liabilities, we have invested and expect to continue to invest in securities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar. In addition, we may replicate investment positions in foreign currencies using derivative financial instruments. Changes in the value of investments due to foreign currency rate movements are reflected as a direct increase or decrease to shareholders' equity and are not included in the statement of income. We have chosen not to hedge certain currency risks on capital contributed to certain subsidiaries, and may continue to choose not to hedge our currency risks. There can be no assurances that arrangements to match projected liabilities in foreign currencies with investments in the same currencies or derivative financial instruments will mitigate the negative impact of exchange rate fluctuations, and we may suffer losses solely as a result of exchange rate fluctuations.

Our operating results are affected by, and we are exposed to, significant financial and capital markets risk, including changes in interest rates, real estate values, foreign currency exchange rates, market volatility, the performance of the economy in general, the performance of our investment portfolio and other factors outside our control. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including the fiscal and monetary policies of the U.S. and other major economies, inflation, economic and political conditions and other factors beyond our control. Although we attempt to take measures to manage the risks of investing in changing interest rate environments, we may not be able to mitigate interest rate sensitivity effectively. Despite our mitigation efforts, an increase in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our book value.

Our investment portfolio includes residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”). As of March 31, 2020, RMBS constituted approximately 2.0% of cash and invested assets held by Arch. As with other fixed income investments, the fair value of these securities fluctuates depending on market and other general economic conditions and interest rate trends. In periods of declining interest rates, mortgage prepayments generally increase and RMBS are prepaid more quickly, requiring us to reinvest the proceeds at the then current market rates. Conversely, in periods of rising rates, mortgage prepayments generally fall, preventing us from taking full advantage of the higher level of rates. The residential mortgage market in the U.S has experienced a variety of difficulties in certain underwriting periods. A decline or an extended flattening in residential property values may result in additional increases in delinquencies and losses on residential mortgage loans generally, especially with respect to any residential mortgage loans where the aggregate loan amounts (including any subordinate loans) are close to or greater than the related property values. These developments may have a significant adverse effect on the prices of loans and securities, including those in our investment portfolio and may have other wide ranging consequences, including downward pressure on economic growth and the potential for increased insurance and reinsurance exposures, which could have an adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition, business and operations.

Mortgage insurance losses result when a borrower becomes unable to continue to make mortgage payments and the home of such borrower cannot be sold for an amount that covers unpaid principal and interest and the expenses of the sale. Deteriorating economic conditions increase the likelihood that borrowers will have insufficient income to pay their mortgages and can adversely affect housing values. In addition, natural disasters or other catastrophic events could result in increased

Our portfolio includes commercial mortgage backed securities (“CMBS”). At March 31, 2020, CMBS constituted approximately 3.5% of cash and invested assets held by Arch. The commercial real estate market may experience price deterioration, which could lead to delinquencies and losses on commercial real estate mortgages.

In addition, in each year, a significant portion of our mortgage insurance premiums will be from mortgage insurance written in prior years. The length of time insurance remains in force, referred to as persistency, is a significant driver of mortgage insurance revenues. Factors affecting persistency include: current mortgage interest rates compared to those rates on mortgages in our insurance in force, which affects the likelihood of the insurance in force to be subject to cancellation due to borrower refinancing; the amount of home equity, as homeowners with more equity in their homes can generally more readily move to a new residence or refinance their existing mortgage; and mortgage insurance cancellation policies and practices of mortgage investors and mortgage services and the cancellation of borrower-paid mortgage insurance, either upon request of the borrower or as required by law based upon the amortization of the loan. In 2018, the GSEs announced changes to various mortgage insurance termination requirements that are intended to further simplify the process of evaluating borrower-initiated requests for mortgage insurance termination. Among other things, these changes update evidence of value requirements for borrower requested cancellation based on the original value of the property and the current value of the property, raise Fannie Mae’s loan-to-value ratio for cancellation based on substantial improvements from 75% or less to 80% or less, provide clarification regarding what constitutes substantial improvements to the property, allow servicers to respond to either verbal or written requests for mortgage insurance cancellation by a borrower, and provide servicers flexibility in evaluating the payment history of borrowers that have been impacted by certain disaster events.

Fannie Mae implemented these changes by March 1, 2019, although certain requirements were implemented as early as January 1, 2019. Freddie Mac’s requirements became effective October 1, 2018. If these or other factors cause the length of time our mortgage insurance policies remain in force to decline, our mortgage insurance revenues could be adversely affected.

Significant, continued volatility in financial markets, changes in interest rates, a lack of pricing transparency, decreased market liquidity, declines in equity prices and the strengthening or weakening of foreign currencies against the U.S. Dollar, individually or in tandem, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows through realized losses, impairments and changes in unrealized positions.

On July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced that it intends to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit LIBOR rates after 2021. As a result, LIBOR and certain other indices which are currently utilized as benchmarks are not expected to be published after 2021. LIBOR is the benchmark rate that is used by many banks and issuers to set interests in loan documents. Recognizing the need to replace LIBOR, authorities in the United States convened the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (“ARRC”) in 2014 to identify a replacement for LIBOR. In 2017, the ARRC identified the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), a combination of certain overnight repo rates, as its preferred alternative to LIBOR, and in April 2018, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York began publishing the SOFR rate. Because SOFR is an overnight rate, versus the various term rates that are available with LIBOR, and SOFR is also a risk-free rate, versus LIBOR which has an embedded credit charge, the transition from LIBOR to SOFR will require adjustments. The uncertainty of these adjustments, and the timing of when the transition will occur may adversely affect the value of and trading market for LIBOR-based securities. Moreover, the transition to SOFR from LIBOR for U.S. Dollar transactions as well as LIBOR transitions in other currencies and any future reform, replacement or disappearance of LIBOR may adversely affect the value of and return of our investment portfolio, our cost of capital and our cost of issuing Bellemeade mortgage risk transfer securities. We do not believe that it is possible to predict how markets will respond to the transition to SOFR from LIBOR on new or existing financial instruments or quantify the potential effect of any such event on us at this time. While we have an internal committee focused on managing the replacement of LIBOR for our investments and operations, we do not believe that it is possible to predict how markets will respond to the transition to SOFR, or any other rate, from LIBOR on new or existing financial instruments or quantify the potential effect of any such event on us at this time.

On a quarterly basis, we perform reviews of our investments to determine whether declines in fair value below the cost basis are considered other-than-temporary in accordance with applicable accounting guidance regarding the recognition and presentation of other-than-temporary impairments. The process of determining whether a security is other-than-temporarily impaired requires judgment and involves analyzing many factors. These factors include: an analysis of the liquidity, business prospects and overall financial condition of the issuer; the time period in which there was a significant decline in value; the significance of the decline; and the analysis of specific credit events. There can be no assurance that our management has accurately assessed the level of impairments taken and allowances reflected in our financial statements. Furthermore, additional impairments may need to be taken or allowances provided for in the future. Historical trends may not be indicative of future impairments or allowances. Further, rapidly changing and unpredictable credit and equity market conditions could materially affect the valuation of securities carried at fair value as reported within our consolidated financial statements and the period-to-period changes in value could vary significantly. Decreases in value could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our investments in certain securities, including certain fixed income and structured securities, investments in funds accounted for using the equity method, other alternative investments and strategic investments in joint ventures such as Watford, Premia and others, may be illiquid due to contractual provisions or investment market conditions. If we require significant amounts of cash on short notice in excess of anticipated cash requirements, then we may have difficulty selling these investments in a timely manner or may be forced to sell or terminate them at unfavorable values.

Our success has been, and will continue to be, dependent on our ability to retain the services of our existing key executive officers and to attract and retain additional qualified personnel in the future. The pool of talent from which we actively recruit is limited. Although, to date, we have not experienced difficulties in attracting and retaining key personnel, the inability to attract and retain qualified personnel could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our underwriting staff is critical to our success in the production of business. While we do not consider any of our key executive officers or underwriters to be irreplaceable, the loss of the services of our key executive officers or underwriters or the inability to hire and retain other highly qualified personnel in the future could delay or prevent us from fully implementing our business strategy which could affect our financial performance.

Our information technology systems service our insurance portfolios. Accordingly, we are highly dependent on the effective operation of these systems. While we believe that the systems are adequate to service our insurance portfolios, there can be no assurance that they will operate in all manners in which we intend or possess all of the functionality required by customers currently or in the future.

We rely on information technology systems to process, transmit, store and protect the electronic information, financial data and proprietary models that are critical to our business. Furthermore, a significant portion of the communications between our employees and our business partners and service providers depends on information technology and electronic information exchange. Like all companies, our information technology systems are vulnerable to data breaches, interruptions or failures due to events that may be beyond our control, including, but not limited to, natural disasters, power outages, theft, terrorist attacks, computer viruses, hackers, errors in usage and general technology failures. Additionally, our employees and vendors may use portable computers or mobile devices which may contain duplicate or similar information to that in our computer systems, and these devices can be stolen, lost or damaged. Security breaches could expose us to the loss or misuse of our information, litigation and potential liability. In addition, cyber incidents that impact the availability, reliability, speed, accuracy or other proper functioning of these systems could have a significant negative impact on our operations and possibly our results. A cyber incident could also result in a violation of applicable privacy and other laws, damage our reputation, cause a loss of customers, adversely affect our stock price, cause us to incur remediation costs, increased cybersecurity protection costs and/or increased insurance premiums, and/or give rise to monetary fines and other penalties, any of which could be significant and could adversely affect our business.

We have outsourced certain technology and business process functions to third parties and may continue do so in the future. Our outsourcing of certain technology and business process functions to third parties may expose us to increased risk related to data security, service disruptions or the effectiveness of our control system, which could result in monetary and reputational damage or harm to competitive position. These risks could increase as vendors increasingly offer cloud-based software services rather than software services which can be run within our data centers.

We believe that we have established and implemented appropriate security measures to provide reasonable assurance that our information technology systems are secure and appropriate controls and procedures to enable us to identify and respond to unauthorized access to such systems. We regularly engage third parties to evaluate and test the adequacy of our most critical security measures, controls and procedures. Despite these security measures, controls and procedures, disruptions to and breaches of our information technology systems are possible. Because we rely on our technology systems for many critical functions, including connecting with our customers, if such systems were to fail or be attacked or breached, we may experience a significant disruption in our operations and in the business we receive and process, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, the regulatory environment surrounding information security and privacy is increasingly changing. We are subject to EU, U.S. federal, state and other foreign laws and regulations regarding the protection of personal data and information. These laws and regulations are complex and sometimes conflict. We could be subject to fines, penalties and/or regulatory enforcement actions in one or more jurisdictions if any person, including any employee, disregards or breaches, whether intentionally or negligently, controls intended to protect the confidential information of our employees or clients. Failure to timely report breach incidents under these regulations may also result in fines, penalties and/or other enforcement actions. As an example, the New York State Department of Financial Services adopted a regulation pertaining to cybersecurity for all banking and insurance entities under its jurisdiction that came into effect March 1, 2017. California also

The size of the U.S. mortgage insurance market depends in large part upon the volume of low down payment home mortgage originations. Factors affecting the volume of low down payment mortgage originations include, among others: restrictions on mortgage credit due to stringent underwriting standards and liquidity issues affecting lenders; changes in mortgage interest rates and home prices, and other economic conditions in the U.S. and regional economies; population trends, including the rate of household formation; and U.S. government housing policy. A decline in the volume of low down payment home mortgage originations could decrease demand for mortgage insurance, decrease our U.S. new insurance written and reduce mortgage insurance revenues.

The GSEs are the beneficiaries of the significant majority of the insurance policies we issue as a result of their purchases, statutorily required or otherwise, of qualifying mortgage loans from lenders or investors. The charters of the GSEs require credit enhancement for low down payment mortgages in order for such loans to be eligible for purchase or guarantee by the GSEs. If the charters of the GSEs were amended to change or eliminate the acceptability of private mortgage insurance, our mortgage insurance business could decline significantly. The FHFA has also indicated the possibility of amending the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (“PSPAs”) that the GSEs have executed with the Department of Treasury or pursuing consent orders, in conjunction with releasing the GSEs from conservatorship, to place continuing restrictions on the GSEs post conservatorship. If the PSPAs include restrictions on the loans purchased by the GSEs, our mortgage insurance business could decline.

We set premiums at the time a policy is issued based upon our expectations regarding likely performance over the life of insurance coverage. We generally cannot cancel mortgage insurance coverage or adjust renewal premiums during the life of a mortgage insurance policy. As a result, losses from higher than anticipated claims generally cannot be offset by premium increases on policies in force or mitigated by non-renewal or cancellation of insurance coverage. The premiums we charge on our insurance in force and the associated investment income may not be adequate to compensate us for the risks and costs associated with the insurance coverage provided to customers. An increase in the number or size of claims, compared to what we anticipate, could adversely affect Arch MI U.S.’s results of operations and financial condition.

Substantially all of Arch MI U.S.’s insurance written has been for loans sold to the GSEs. The PMIERs apply to Arch Mortgage Insurance Company and United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company, which are GSE-approved mortgage insurers (“eligible mortgage insurers”). The PMIERs impose limitations on the type of risk insured, the forms and insurance policies issued, standards for the geographic and customer diversification of risk, procedures for claims handling, acceptable underwriting practices, standards for certain reinsurance cessions and financial requirements, among other things. The financial requirements require a mortgage insurer’s available assets, which generally include only the most liquid assets of an insurer, to meet or exceed “minimum required assets” as of each quarter end. Our eligible mortgage insurers each satisfied the PMIERs’ financial requirements as of December 31, 2019.

The revised PMIERs also impose additional operational requirements in areas such as claim processing, loss mitigation, underwriting, quality control, and reporting. The revised requirements have caused us to make changes to our business

While we intend to continue to comply with these requirements, there can be no assurance that the GSEs will continue to treat Arch Mortgage Insurance Company or United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company as eligible mortgage insurers. If either or both of the GSEs were to cease to consider Arch Mortgage Insurance Company or United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company as eligible mortgage insurers and, therefore, cease accepting our mortgage insurance products, our results of operations and financial condition would be adversely affected.

Our mortgage insurance portfolio includes loans with loan-to-value ratios exceeding 95%, loans with FICO scores below 620, adjustable rate mortgages, (“ARMs”), and less-than A quality loans. Even when housing values are stable or rising, we expect higher default and claim rates for high loan-to-value loans, loans with lower FICO scores, ARMs and less-than A quality loans. Although we attempt to incorporate the higher default and claim rates associated with these loans into our underwriting and pricing models, there can be no assurance that the premiums earned and the associated investment income will adequately compensate us for future losses from these loans. From time to time, we change the types of loans that we insure and the requirements under which we insure them. In 2017 and 2018, we modestly expanded our underwriting guidelines and we may further expand such guidelines in the future.

Arch MI U.S.’s minimum required assets under the PMIERs will be determined, in part, by the particular risk profiles of the loans it insures. If, absent other changes, Arch MI U.S.’s mix of business changes to include more loans with higher loan-to-value ratios or lower credit scores, it will have a higher minimum required asset amount under the PMIERs and, accordingly, be required to hold more capital in order to maintain GSE eligibility.

The NAIC, which reviews state insurance laws and regulations, has established a Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Working Group (“Working Group”) to make recommendations to the NAIC's Financial Condition Committee regarding changes to the NAIC’s Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Model Act. The Working Group has released a draft of the Model Act which includes proposed changes to minimum statutory capital requirements.

If the NAIC revises the Model Act, some state legislatures are likely to enact and implement part or all of the revised provisions. While we cannot predict the effect that any NAIC recommendations or future legislation may have on Arch MI U.S., such changes could reduce Arch MI U.S.’s profitability and its ability to compete with credit enhancement alternatives to mortgage insurance, which could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

We depend on reliable, consistent third-party servicing of the loans that we insure. Among other things, our mortgage insurance policies require our customers and their servicers to timely submit premium and reports and utilize commercially reasonable efforts to limit and mitigate loss when a loan is in default. Without reliable, consistent third-party servicing, our insurance subsidiaries may be unable to correctly record new loans as they are underwritten, receive and process payments on insured loans and/or properly recognize and establish reserves on loans when a default exists or occurs but is not reported to us. In addition, if these servicers fail to limit and mitigate losses when appropriate, our losses may unexpectedly increase. If one or more servicers failed to adhere to these requirements, our financial results could be adversely affected.

With certain exceptions, the Basel III Rules became effective on January 1, 2014. If further implementation of the Basel III Rules increases the capital requirements of banking organizations with respect to the residential mortgages we insure or does not provide sufficiently favorable treatment for the use of mortgage insurance, it could adversely affect the demand for mortgage insurance. In December 2017, the Basel Committee published final revisions to the Basel Capital Accord which is informally denominated in the U.S. as “Basel IV.” The Basel Committee expects the new rules to be phased-in beginning in January 2020 and fully implemented by January 2027. In October 2019, the EU stated that it will conduct an “impact study” of the new rules before implementation, indicating that additional changes are possible. Under these revised rules, banks using the standardized approach for credit risk management will determine the risk-weight for residential mortgages based on the loan-to-value ratio at loan origination, without consideration of mortgage insurance. As prescribed at the international level, the new standard would permit consideration of mortgage insurance, but only if the company issuing the insurance has a lower risk-weight than the underlying exposure. Mortgage insurance issued by private companies would not meet this test in connection with residential mortgage. Therefore, under the 2017 international agreement, mortgage insurance could not mitigate credit and lower the capital charge under the standardized approach. To date the U.S. banking agencies have not begun the implementation of Basel IV standards. If the Basel IV standard is implemented in the U.S. without modification, mortgage insurance would not lower the loan-to-value ratio of residential loans for capital purposes, and therefore the demand for this product may decrease. It is also possible that the U.S. regulatory agencies could determine that their current capital rules are at least as stringent as the Basel IV standards, in which case no change would be required regarding the treatment of mortgage insurance for capital purposes. However, if the U.S. agencies decide to implement the new standards drafted by the Basel Committee, mortgage insurance would not lower the loan-to-value ratio of residential loans for capital purposes, and therefore may decrease the demand for this product.

Further, it is possible (but not mandated by the Basel Capital Accord) that the banking agencies and the GSEs might likewise discontinue taking mortgage insurance into account when determining a mortgage’s loan-to-value ratio for prudential (non-capital) purposes. Additionally, a new risk-based capital proposal for the GSEs was published for comment by the FHFA in 2018. Under this proposal the capital requirements of these GSEs would take into account the existence of credit mitigants, such as mortgage insurance. However, mortgage insurance issued by monoline mortgage insurance companies would result in less capital relief than the capital relief afforded by other forms of credit mitigation, such as the issuance of credit-linked notes. In November 2019 the FHFA announced that it would re-propose the 2018 capital rules in 2020. In that announcement the FHFA explained that the re-proposed rule would be consistent with the goal of releasing the GSEs from conservatorship and ensuring that taxpayers will never be on the hook again during an economic downturn. If this rulemaking is finalized, a new capital framework for the Enterprises might disadvantage monoline mortgage insurance companies, or otherwise reduce the demand for this product. The capital rules proposed by FHFA may also prompt the banking regulators to re-examine the bank capital rules, and such action could disadvantage monoline mortgage insurance companies.

Some provisions of our bye-laws could have the effect of discouraging unsolicited takeover bids from third parties or changes in management initiated by shareholders. These provisions may encourage companies interested in acquiring us to negotiate in advance with our board of directors, since the board has the authority to overrule the operation of several of the limitations.

Among other things, our bye-laws provide: for a classified board of directors, in which the directors of the class elected at each annual general meeting holds office for a term of three years, with the term of each class expiring at successive annual general meetings of shareholders; that the number of directors is determined by the board from time to time by a vote of the majority of our board; that directors may only be removed for cause, and cause removal shall be deemed to exist only if the director whose removal is proposed has been convicted of a felony or been found by a court to be liable for gross negligence or misconduct in the performance of his or her duties; that our board has the right to fill vacancies, including vacancies created by an expansion of the board; and for limitations on a shareholder’s right to raise proposals or nominate directors at general meetings. Our bye-laws provide that certain provisions which may have anti-takeover effects may be repealed or altered only with prior board approval and upon the affirmative vote of holders of shares representing at least 65% of the total voting power of our shares entitled generally to vote at an election of directors.

The bye-laws also contain a provision limiting the rights of any U.S. person (as defined in section 7701(a)(30) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)) that owns shares of ACGL, directly, indirectly or constructively (within the meaning of section 958 of the Code), representing more than 9.9% of the voting power of all shares entitled to vote generally at an election of directors. The votes conferred by such shares of such U.S. person will be reduced by whatever amount is necessary so that after any such reduction the votes conferred by the shares of such person will constitute 9.9% of the total voting power of all shares entitled to vote generally at an election of directors. Notwithstanding this provision, the board may make such final adjustments to the aggregate number of votes conferred by the shares of any U.S. person that the board considers fair and reasonable in all circumstances to ensure that such votes represent 9.9% of the aggregate voting power of the votes conferred by all shares of ACGL entitled to vote generally at an election of directors. ACGL will assume that all shareholders (other than specified persons) are U.S. persons unless we receive assurance satisfactory to us that they are not U.S. persons.

The provisions described above may have the effect of making more difficult or discouraging unsolicited takeover bids from third parties. To the extent that these effects occur, shareholders could be deprived of opportunities to realize takeover premiums for their shares and the market price of their shares could be depressed. In addition, these provisions could also result in the entrenchment of incumbent management.

The jurisdictions in which our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries operate have laws and regulations that require regulatory approval of a change in control of an insurer or an insurer's holding company. Where such laws apply to us and our subsidiaries, there can be no effective change in our control unless the person seeking to acquire control has filed a statement with the regulators and has obtained prior approval for the proposed change from such regulators. The usual measure for a presumptive change in control pursuant to these laws is the acquisition of 10% or more of the voting power of the insurance company or its parent, although this presumption is rebuttable. Consequently, a person may not acquire 10% or more of our common shares without the prior approval of the applicable insurance regulators. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent a change in control of us, including transactions that some shareholders might consider to be desirable.

Our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries are subject to the laws and regulations of a number of jurisdictions worldwide, including Bermuda, the states in the U.S. in which such subsidiaries conduct business, the U.K., certain EU Member States, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and Hong Kong. Existing laws and regulations, among other things, limit the amount of dividends that can be paid to us by our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries, prescribe solvency and capital adequacy standards, impose restrictions on the amount and type of investments that can be held to meet solvency and capital adequacy requirements, require the maintenance of reserve liabilities, and require pre-approval of acquisitions and certain affiliate transactions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations or to maintain appropriate authorizations, licenses, and/or exemptions under applicable laws and regulations may cause governmental authorities to preclude or suspend our insurance or reinsurance subsidiaries from carrying on some or all of their activities, place one or more of them into rehabilitation or liquidation proceedings, impose monetary penalties or other sanctions on them or our affiliates, or commence insurance company delinquency proceedings against our insurance or reinsurance subsidiaries. The application of these laws and regulations by various governmental authorities, including authorities outside the U.S., may affect our liquidity and restrict our ability to expand our business operations through acquisitions or to pay dividends on our ordinary shares. Furthermore, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements may result in significant expenses, which could have a negative impact on our profitability.

In addition to legal and regulatory requirements, the insurance and reinsurance industry has experienced substantial volatility as a result of investigations, litigation and regulatory activity by various insurance, governmental and enforcement authorities, including the SEC, concerning certain practices within the insurance and reinsurance industry. Our involvement in any investigations, litigations or regulatory activity, including any related lawsuits, would cause us to incur legal costs and, if we or any of our insurance or reinsurance subsidiaries were found to have violated any laws or regulations, we could be required to pay fines and damages and incur other sanctions, perhaps in material amounts, which could have a material negative impact on our profitability.

Any such litigation or failure to comply with applicable laws could result in the imposition of significant restrictions on our ability to do business, and could also result in suspensions, injunctions, monetary damages, fines or other sanctions, any or all of which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Arch Re Bermuda is a registered Bermuda insurance company and is not licensed or admitted as an insurer in any jurisdiction in the U.S., although Arch Re Bermuda has been approved as a “certified reinsurer” in certain U.S. states that allow reduced collateral for reinsurance ceded to such reinsurers. Arch Re Bermuda's contracts generally require it to post a letter of credit or provide other security, even in U.S. states where it has been approved for reduced collateral. State credit for reinsurance rules also generally provide that certified reinsurers such as Arch Re Bermuda must provide 100% collateral in the event their certified status is “terminated” or upon the entry of an order of rehabilitation, liquidation or conservation against a ceding insurer.

Although, to date, Arch Re Bermuda has not experienced any difficulties in providing collateral when required, if we are unable to post security in the form of letters of credit or trust funds when required, the operations of Arch Re Bermuda could be significantly and negatively affected.

We are a Bermuda company and some of our officers and directors are residents of various jurisdictions outside the U.S. All or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of those persons may be located outside the U.S. As a result, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process within the U.S. upon those persons or to recover against us or those persons on judgments of U.S. courts based on civil liabilities provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws even though we have appointed National Registered Agents, Inc., New York, New York, as our agent for service of process with respect to actions based on offers and sales of securities made in the U.S. Because there is no treaty in effect between the U.S. and Bermuda providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts in civil and commercial matters, a final judgment for the payment of money rendered by a court in the U.S. based on civil liability, whether or not predicated solely upon the U.S. federal securities laws, would not be automatically enforceable in Bermuda, and there are grounds upon which Bermuda courts may not enforce judgments of U.S. courts. Further, no claim may be brought in Bermuda against us or our directors and officers for violation of U.S. federal securities laws, as such laws do not have force of law in Bermuda. A

We must comply with all applicable economic sanctions and anti-bribery laws and regulations of the U.S. and other foreign jurisdictions where we operate, including the U.K., Ireland and the EU. U.S. laws and regulations applicable to us include the economic trade sanctions laws and regulations administered by the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control as well as certain laws administered by the U.S. Department of State. New sanction regimes may be initiated, or existing sanctions expanded, at any time, which can immediately impact our business activities. In addition, we are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-bribery laws such as the U.K. Bribery Act that generally bar corrupt payments or unreasonable gifts to foreign governments or officials. Although we have policies and controls in place that are designed to ensure compliance with these laws and regulations, it is possible that an employee or intermediary could fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations. In such event, we could be exposed to civil penalties, criminal penalties and other sanctions, including fines or other punitive actions. In addition, such violations could damage our business and/or our reputation. Such criminal or civil sanctions, penalties, other sanctions, and damage to our business and/or reputation could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The continuing global pandemic related to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 has impacted the global economy, financial markets and our results of operations. In addition, COVID-19 could materially disrupt the business operations of third parties with whom we interact. Because of the size and breadth of this pandemic, all of the direct and indirect consequences of COVID-19 are not yet known and may not emerge for some time.

The disruption in the financial markets related to COVID-19 has contributed to net realized losses, primarily due to the impact of changes in fair value on our equity investments and, to a lesser extent, our fixed-income investment portfolio. Our corporate fixed income portfolio may be adversely impacted by ratings downgrades, increased bankruptcies and credit spread widening in distressed industries, such as energy, gaming, lodging and leisure, autos, airlines and retail. In addition, in recent years, many state and local governments have been operating under deficits or projected deficits. These deficits may be exacerbated by the costs of responding to COVID-19 and reduced tax revenues due to adverse economic conditions. The severity and duration of these deficits could have an adverse impact on the collectability and valuation of our municipal bond portfolio. Our investment portfolio also includes residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities and commercial mortgage loans, all of which could be adversely impacted by declines in real estate valuations and/or financial market disruption, including a heightened collection risk on the underlying mortgages and on rent receivables. Further disruptions in global financial markets due to the continuing impact of COVID-19 could result in additional net realized investment losses, including potential impairments in our fixed income portfolio. In addition, declines in fixed income yields would result in decreases in net investment income from future investment activity, including re-investments. Furthermore, issuers of the investments we hold under the equity method of accounting report their financial information to us one month to three months following the end of the reporting period. Accordingly, the adverse impact of the recent disruption in global financial markets on equity method income from these investments is not reflected in our results for the

Federal, state and local government actions in the U.S. and other countries where we do business to address and mitigate the impact of COVID-19 may adversely affect us. For example, we are potentially subject to legislative and/or regulatory action that seeks to retroactively mandate coverage for losses which our insurance policies were not designed or priced to cover. Currently, in some states there is proposed legislation to require insurers to cover business interruption claims irrespective of terms, exclusions or other conditions included in the policies that would otherwise preclude coverage. In addition, a number of states have instituted, and other states are considering instituting, changes designed to effectively expand workers' compensation coverage by creating presumptions of compensability of claims for certain types of workers. Regulatory restrictions or requirements could also impact pricing, risk selection and our rights and obligations with respect to our policies and insureds, including our ability to cancel policies or our right to collect premiums. At least one state regulator has issued an order requiring insurers to issue premium refunds, and regulators in other states could take similar actions. Many insurers, including us, have also voluntarily provided, and may further provide, premium refunds to their customers. It is also possible that changes in economic conditions and steps taken by federal, state and local governments in response to COVID-19 could require an increase in taxes at the federal, state and local levels, which would adversely impact our results of operations.

In addition, we expect the pandemic to result in a material increase in new defaults as borrowers fail to make timely payments on their mortgages, including as a result of entering mortgage forbearance programs that allow borrowers to defer mortgage payments, which may impact our eligible insurers’ ability to remain compliant with the Private Mortgage Insurers Eligibility Requirements (“PMIERs”) financial requirements. On March 18, 2020, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”), the primary purchasers of mortgages insured by the Company, to suspend foreclosures and evictions for at least 60 days and to provide payment forbearance to borrowers impacted by COVID-19. On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") was enacted. The CARES Act suspends foreclosures and evictions for at least 60 days from March 18, 2020, on mortgages purchased or securitized by the GSEs. In addition, the CARES Act provides for payment forbearance for up to 360 days to borrowers experiencing a hardship during the COVID-19 emergency.

Consistent with the CARES Act, the GSEs will provide a forbearance plan to any borrower who requests a forbearance with an attestation of the financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 emergency; and no additional documentation other than the borrower’s attestation to a financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 emergency is required. It is unclear how many

When a borrower obtains a forbearance plan and does not make their mortgage payment for two consecutive months, the servicer will report the NOD with a special code that indicates the loan is subject to a COVID-19 related forbearance plan. Under PMIERs, eligible insurers are required to hold additional risk-based required assets for delinquent mortgages. However, this amount is reduced for mortgages backed by a property located in a FEMA Declared Major Disaster Area that are either 1) subject to a forbearance plan executed in response to a FEMA Declared Major Disaster Area eligible for Individual Assistance, or 2) has an initial default date occurring up to either (i) 30 days prior to or (ii) 90 days following the Major Disaster event. FEMA has issued Major Disaster Area declarations in all states related to COVID-19, noting the incident date as January 20, 2020. It is unclear whether the GSEs will provide updated PMIERs guidance related to the risk-based required asset factor applicable to delinquencies and forbearance plans related to COVID-19 or the application of the incident date. In addition, the Company is reliant on the accurate reporting of servicers to correctly identify which NODs are subject to COVID-19 related forbearance plans.

The rating agencies continually review the financial strength ratings assigned to the Company and its subsidiaries, and the ratings are subject to change. The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on financial results and condition, could cause one or more of the rating agencies to downgrade the ratings assigned to the Company and its subsidiaries.

ACGL and its non-U.S. subsidiaries intend to operate their businesses in a manner that will not cause them to be treated as engaged in a trade or business in the U.S. and, thus, will not require them to pay U.S. federal income taxes (other than U.S. excise taxes on insurance and reinsurance premiums and withholding taxes on certain U.S. source investment income) on their income. However, because there is uncertainty as to the activities which constitute being engaged in a trade or business in the U.S., there can be no assurances that the IRS will not successfully contend that ACGL or its non-U.S. subsidiaries are engaged in a trade or business in the U.S. If ACGL or any of its non-U.S. subsidiaries were subject to U.S. federal income tax, our shareholders' equity and earnings could be adversely affected.

Congress has been considering several legislative proposals intended to eliminate certain perceived tax advantages of Bermuda and other non-U.S. insurance companies. There is no assurance that any such legislative proposal will not be enacted into law and any such enacted law would not have a material and adverse effect on the income tax liabilities of us or any of our subsidiaries.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“Tax Cuts Act”) includes significant changes to the taxation of business entities. These changes include, among others, a permanent reduction to the U.S. federal corporate income tax rate. Notwithstanding the reduction in such corporate income tax rate, the overall impact of this tax reform is uncertain, and our business and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

Certain provisions in the Tax Cuts Act could have a material and adverse impact on our financial condition and business operations. One such provision imposes a 10% minimum base erosion and anti-abuse tax (increased to 12.5% for the 2026 taxable year and the subsequent taxable years) on the “modified taxable income” of a U.S. corporation (or a non-U.S. corporation engaged in a U.S. trade or business) over such corporation’s regular U.S. federal income tax, reduced by certain tax credits. The “modified taxable income” of a corporation is determined without deduction for certain payments by such corporation to its non-U.S. affiliates (including reinsurance premiums). Other provisions of the Tax Cuts Act that could have a material and adverse impact on us include a provision that defers or disallows a U.S. corporation’s deduction of interest expense to the extent such interest expense exceeds a specified percentage of such U.S. corporation’s “adjusted taxable income” and a provision that adjusts the manner in which a U.S. property and casualty insurance company computes its loss reserve. There is no assurance that a subsequent change in tax laws will not materially and adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

The results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election could have further impacts on our industry if new legislative or regulatory reforms are adopted. We are unable to predict at this time the effect of any such reforms.

We intend to operate in such a manner so that none of our companies, other than our U.K. subsidiaries and branch operations (the “U.K. Group”), should be resident in the U.K. for tax purposes or carry on a trade, whether or not through a permanent establishment, in the U.K. Accordingly, we do not expect that any of our other subsidiaries, other than the U.K. Group, should be subject to U.K. tax. Case law has held that whether or not a trade is being carried on in the U.K. is a matter of fact and emphasis is placed on where the operations take place from which the profits in substance arise. HM Revenue and Customs might contend successfully that one or more of our subsidiaries, in addition to the U.K. Group, is carrying on a trade in the U.K. For U.K. tax purposes, a non-U.K. tax resident company will be subject to U.K. corporation tax if it carries on a trade through a permanent establishment in the U.K. Moreover, that subsidiary may still be subject to U.K. income tax if it carries on a trade in the U.K., without a permanent establishment, unless it is entitled to the protection afforded by a double tax treaty between the U.K. and the jurisdiction in which that company is resident. If any of our subsidiaries is treated as resident, or carrying on a trade, in the U.K., whether or not through a permanent establishment, and, therefore, subject to U.K. tax, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Under current Bermuda law, we are not subject to tax on income, profits, withholding, capital gains or capital transfers. Furthermore, we have obtained from the Minister of Finance of Bermuda under the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966 of Bermuda, an assurance that, in the event that Bermuda enacts legislation imposing tax computed on profits, income, any capital asset, gain or appreciation, or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of the tax will not be applicable to us or our operations until March 31, 2035. However, we could be subject to taxes in Bermuda after that date. The assurance obtained from the Minister of Finance of Bermuda does not, however, prevent the imposition of taxes on any person ordinarily resident in Bermuda or any company in respect of its ownership of real property or leasehold interests in Bermuda.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) has published reports and launched a global initiative among member and non-member countries on measures to limit harmful tax competition. These measures are largely directed at counteracting the effects of tax havens and preferential tax regimes in countries around the world. Bermuda was not listed in the most recent report as an uncooperative tax haven jurisdiction because it had previously committed to eliminate harmful tax practices, to embrace international tax standards for transparency, to exchange information and to eliminate an environment that attracts business with no substantial domestic activity. We are not able to predict what changes will arise from the commitment or whether such changes will subject us to additional taxes.

The OECD, with the support of the G20, initiated the “base erosion and profit shifting” (“BEPS”) project in 2013 in response to concerns that international tax standards have not kept pace with changes in global business practices and that changes are needed to international tax laws to address situations where multinationals may pay little or no tax in certain jurisdictions by shifting profits away from jurisdictions where the activities creating those profits may take place. In October 2015, the OECD issued “final reports” in connection with the BEPS project. The final reports were approved for adoption by the G20 finance ministers in November 2015. The final reports provide the basis for international standards for corporate taxation that are designed to prevent, among other things, the artificial shifting of income to tax havens and low-tax jurisdictions, the erosion of the tax base through interest deductions on intercompany debt and the artificial avoidance of permanent establishments (i.e., tax nexus with a jurisdiction).

Legislation to adopt these standards has been enacted or is currently under consideration in a number of jurisdictions to implement these standards, including country by country reporting. As a result, our income may be taxed in jurisdictions where it is not currently taxed and at higher rates of tax than currently taxed, which may substantially increase our effective tax rate. Also, the continued adoption of these standards may increase the complexity and costs associated with tax compliance and adversely affect our financial position and results of operations.

In May 2019, the OECD published a “Programme of Work,” divided into two pillars, which is designed to address the tax challenges created by an increasing digitalized economy. Pillar One addresses the broader challenge of a digitalized economy and focuses on the allocation of group profits among taxing jurisdictions based on a market-based concept rather than historical “permanent establishment” concepts. Pillar Two addresses the remaining BEPS risk of profit shifting to entities in low tax jurisdictions by introducing a global minimum tax and a proposed tax on base eroding payments, which would operate through a denial of a deduction or imposition of source-based taxation (including withholding tax) on certain payments. In January 2020, the OECD released a statement excluding most financial services activities, including insurance activities, from the scope of the profit reallocation mechanism in Pillar I. The OECD statement cited the presence of commercial (rather than consumer) customers as grounds for the carve-out, but also acknowledged that a “compelling case” could be made that the consumer-facing business lines of insurance companies should be excluded from the scope of Pillar I given the impact of regulations and licensing requirements that typically ensure that residual profits are largely realized in local customer markets. However, the OECD noted that the proper scope for Pillar I as applied to “unregulated elements of the financial services sector” may require further consideration. The OECD expects to reach agreement on key policy issues by July 2020, with a final proposal to be agreed to by the participating members by the end of 2020 and incorporated into local jurisdiction tax laws and treaties sometime shortly thereafter. To date, the proposal has been written broadly enough to potentially apply to our activities, and we are unable to determine at this time when such measures would be implemented and if so, whether they will be in a form that would have a material adverse impact on our operations and results.

During 2017, the EU Economic and Financial Affairs Council (“ECOFIN”) released a list of noncooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes. The stated aim of this list, and accompanying report, was to promote good governance worldwide in order to maximize efforts to prevent tax fraud and tax evasion. Bermuda was not on the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions, but did feature in the report (along with approximately 40 other jurisdictions) as having committed to address concerns relating to economic substance by December 31, 2018. In accordance with that commitment, Bermuda has enacted legislation that requires certain entities in Bermuda engaged in “relevant activities” to maintain a substantial economic presence in Bermuda and to satisfy economic substance requirements. The list of “relevant activities” includes carrying on as a business any one or more of: banking, insurance, fund management, financing and leasing, headquarters, shipping, distribution and service center, intellectual property and holding entities. Any entity that must satisfy economic substance requirements but fails to do so could face automatic disclosure to competent authorities in the EU of the information filed by the entity with the Bermuda Registrar of Companies in connection with the economic substance requirements and may also face financial penalties, restriction or regulation of its business activities and/or may be struck off as a registered entity in Bermuda.

At present, the impact of these new economic substance requirements is unclear, and it is impossible to predict the nature and effect of these requirements on us. The new economic substance requirements may increase the complexity and costs of carrying on our business and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.