Company: AHL
Filing Date: 2025-05-08
Form Type: 424B4
Source: 0001628280-25-023859
Chunk: 63

Company: ASPEN INSURANCE HOLDINGS LTD
Filing Date: 2025-05-08
Form: 424B4
Chunk 63
---
 include factors not entirely within our control, including factors impacting the financial services, insurance and reinsurance industries generally. Financial strength ratings by rating agencies are not ratings of securities or recommendations to buy, hold or sell any security, including our ordinary shares.

If our Operating Subsidiaries’ or if Lloyd’s ratings are reduced from their current levels by either A.M. Best or S&P, our competitive position in the (re)insurance industry might suffer and it may be more difficult for us to market our products, expand our (re)insurance portfolio and renew our existing (re)insurance policies and agreements. A rating downgrade may also require us to establish trusts or post letters of credit for ceding company clients and could trigger provisions allowing some clients to terminate their (re)insurance contracts with us. Some contracts also provide for the return of premium to the ceding client in the event of a rating downgrade. It is increasingly common for our reinsurance contracts to contain such terms. Whether a cedant would exercise any of these rights could depend on various factors, such as the reason for and the extent of such downgrade, the prevailing market conditions and the pricing and availability of replacement reinsurance coverage. A downgrade could result in a substantial loss of business as ceding companies and brokers that place such business move to other reinsurers with higher ratings and therefore such downgrade may materially and adversely impact our business, operating results, liquidity and financial flexibility.

In addition, a downgrade of the financial strength rating of Aspen UK, Aspen Bermuda, AAIC or Aspen Specialty by A.M. Best below “B++” would constitute an event of default under one or more of our financing facilities. Additionally, the cost and availability of unsecured financing are generally dependent on the borrower’s long-term and short-term debt ratings. A lower rating may lead to higher borrowing costs, thereby adversely impacting our liquidity and financial flexibility and by extension our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Increasing scrutiny and evolving expectations from investors, customers, regulators, policymakers and other stakeholders regarding environmental, social and governance matters may adversely affect our reputation or otherwise adversely impact our business and results of operations.

ESG encompasses a wide range of issues, including climate change and other environmental and social risks, and failure to communicate a clear strategy to manage these risks and/or lacking progress on the implementation of a comprehensive climate risk management framework may pose reputational or litigation risks. Internal and external stakeholders, including regulators and investors, have placed increased and rapidly evolving importance on how we are addressing ESG issues. Reputational risks