Our businesses are materially affected by conditions in the global financial markets and economic and political conditions throughout the world, such as interest rates, the availability and cost of credit, inflation rates, economic uncertainty, changes in laws (including laws relating to our taxation, taxation of our investors and the possibility of changes to tax laws in either the United States or any non-U.S. jurisdiction and regulations onapplicable to alternative asset managers), trade barriers, commodity prices, currency exchange rates and controls and national and international political circumstances (including wars, terrorist acts and security operations). These factors are outside of our control and may affect the level and volatility of securities prices and the liquidity and value of investments, and we may not be able to or may choose not to manage our exposure to these conditions.

Global financial markets have experienced heightened volatility in recent periods, including during Augustas a result of economic and September 2015, then againpolitical events in January 2016, followingor affecting the world’s major economies. For example, the decision of the People’s Bank of China in January 2016 to reduce the foreign exchange value of the renminbi and againsubsequent slowdown in China’s industrial sector, the June 2016 following the referendum in the UK in favor of exiting the EU. The transitionEU and subsequent uncertainty regarding the timing and terms of leadership followingthe exit, the 2016 U.S. presidential and congressional election and relatedresulting uncertainty regarding potential shifts in U.S. and foreign, trade, economic and other policies, underand, more recently, concerns over increasing interest rates (particularly short-term rates) and uncertainty regarding the new administration have heightened volatilityshort- and long-term effects of tax reform in the U.S.United States, have precipitated market volatility. In addition, numerous structural dynamics and global markets, which could persist for an extended period.persistent market trends have exacerbated volatility generally. Concerns over significant declines in the commodities markets, concerns over increasing interest rates, particularly short-term rates, increases in the foreign exchange valueimplementation by central banks of the U.S. dollar,synchronized global monetary tightening, sluggish economic expansion in non-U.S. economies, including continued concerns over growth prospects in China and emerging markets, growing debt loads for certain countries and uncertainty about the consequences of the U.S. and other governments withdrawing monetary stimulus measures all highlight the fact that economic conditions remain unpredictable and volatile.

Further, the potential impacttransition of leadership following the results of2016 U.S. presidential and congressional elections, the presidential electioncurrent U.S. political environment and the resulting uncertainties regarding possibleactual and potential shifts in U.S. foreign, trade, economic and other policies that could be implemented hasunder the new administration have led to further disruption, instability and volatility in the global markets. There can be no assurance these market conditions will not continue or worsen in the future.

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

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

As a result of market disruptions and highly publicized financial scandals in recent years, regulators and investors have exhibited concerns over the integrity of the U.S. financial markets, and the businesses in which we operate both in the United States and outside the United States will be subject to new or additional regulations. We may be adversely affected as a result of new or revised legislation or regulations imposed by the SEC, the CFTC or other U.S. governmental regulatory authorities or self-regulatoryself-

The OECD, which represents a coalition of member countries, has issued guidance through its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) project that contemplates changes to long standing international tax norms that determine each country’s jurisdiction to tax cross-border trade and profits. OnSeveral of the proposed measures, including measures covering treaty abuse, the deductibility of interest expense, local nexus requirements, transfer pricing and hybrid mismatch arrangements are potentially relevant to some of our structures and could have an adverse tax impact on our funds, investors and/or our portfolio companies. In June 29, 2016,2017, almost 70 countries (excluding the Treasury Department andUnited States) formally signed the Internal Revenue ServiceMultilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS (the “IRS”“Convention”) issued final regulations that would require the parent entity of certain U.S. multinational enterprise groups to file an annual report that would provide information on a country-by-country basis related to the group’s income and taxes paid.. These changes in law or guidance and additional proposals for reform, if enacted by the United States or by other countries in which we or our affiliates invest or doconduct business, or, even if not enacted, could adversely affect our investment returns, including, for example, by eliminating certain tax treaty benefits and increasing our tax compliance costs. Whether these or other proposals will be enacted by the United States or any foreign jurisdiction and in what form is unknown, as are the ultimate consequences of any such proposed legislation. See “-Risks Related to Taxation.”

Our ability to raise capital from investors depends on a number of factors, including many that are outside our control. Investors may downsize their investment allocations to alternative asset managers, including private funds and hedge funds, to rebalance a disproportionate weighting of their overall investment portfolio among asset classes. Poor performance of our funds, or regulatory or tax constraints, could also make it more difficult for us to raise new capital. Our investors and potential investors continually assess our funds’ performance independently and relative to market benchmarks and our competitors, which affects our ability to raise capital for existing and future funds. If economic and market conditions deteriorate or continue to be so volatile, we may be unable to raise sufficient amounts of capital to support the investment activities of future funds. If we were unable to successfully raise capital, our revenue and cash flow would be reduced, and our financial condition would be adversely affected. Furthermore, while our senior professional owners have committed substantial capital to our funds, commitments from new investors may depend on the commitments made by our senior professional owners to new funds and there can be no assurance that there will be further commitments to our funds, and any future investments by them in our funds or other alternative investment categories will likely depend on the performance of our funds, the performance of their overall investment portfolios and other investment opportunities available to them.

We depend on the diligence, skill, judgment, business contacts and personal reputations of the Holdco Members, senior professionals and other key personnel. Our future success will depend upon our ability to retain our senior professionals and other key personnel and our ability to recruit additional qualified personnel. These individuals possess substantial experience and expertise in investing, are responsible for locating and executing our funds’ investments, have significant relationships with the institutions that are the source of many of our funds’ investment opportunities and, in certain cases, have strong relationships with our investors. Therefore, if any of our senior professionals or other key personnel join competitors or form competing companies, it could result in the loss of significant investment opportunities, limit our ability to raise capital from certain existing investors or result in the loss of certain existing investors.

The departure or bad acts for any reason of any of our senior professionals, or a significant number of our other investment professionals, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our investment objectives, cause certain of our investors to withdraw capital they invest with us or elect not to commit additional capital to our funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business and our prospects. The departure of some or all of those individuals could also trigger certain “key person” provisions in the documentation governing certain of our funds, which would permit the investors in those funds to suspend or terminate such funds’ investment periods or, in the case of certain funds, permit investors to withdraw their capital prior to expiration of the applicable lock-up date. We do not carry any “key person” insurance that would provide us with proceeds in the event of the death or disability of any of our senior professionals, and we do not have a policy that prohibits our senior professionals from traveling together. See “-Employee misconduct could harm us by impairing our ability to attract and retain investors and subjecting us to significant legal liability, regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm.”

We anticipate that it will be necessary for us to add investment professionals both to grow our businesses and to replace those who depart. However, the market for qualified investment professionals is extremely competitive, both in the United States and internationally, and we may not succeed in recruiting additional personnel or we may fail to effectively replace current personnel who depart with qualified or effective successors. Our efforts to retain and attract investment professionals may also result in significant additional expenses, which could adversely affect our profitability or result in an increase in the portion of our performance fees that we grant to our investment professionals. In the year ended December 31, 2016,2017, we incurred equity compensation expenses of $39.1$69.7 million, and we expect these costs to continue to increase in the future as we increase the use of equity compensation awards to attract, retain and compensate employees.

As we have expanded and as we continue to expand the number and scope of our businesses, we increasingly confront potential conflicts of interest relating to our funds’ investment activities. Certain of our funds may have overlapping investment objectives, including funds that have different fee structures, and potential conflicts may arise with respect to our decisions regarding how to allocate investment opportunities among those funds. For example, a decision to receive material non-public information about a company while pursuing an investment opportunity for a particular fund may give rise to a potential conflict of interest when it results in our having to restrict the ability of other funds to trade in the securities of such company. We may also cause different Private Equity Group funds to invest in a single portfolio company, for example where the fund that made an initial investment

Though we believe we have appropriate means and oversight to resolve these conflicts, our judgment on any particular allocation could be challenged. While we have developed general guidelines regarding when two or more funds can invest in different parts of the same company’s capital structure and created a process that we employ to handle such conflicts if they arise,

The investment management business is intensely competitive, with competition based on a variety of factors, including investment performance, business relationships, quality of service provided to investors, investor liquidity and willingness to invest, fund terms (including fees), brand recognition and business reputation. We compete with a number of private equity funds, specialized funds, hedge funds, corporate buyers, traditional asset managers, real estate development companies, commercial banks, investment banks, other investment managers and other financial institutions, as well as sovereign wealth funds.

Numerous factors increase our competitive risks, including:including, but not limited to:

We may lose investment opportunities in the future if we do not match investment valuations, structures and terms offered by our competitors. Alternatively, we may experience decreased profitability, rates of return and increased risks of loss if we match investment valuations, structures and terms offered by our competitors. Moreover, if we are forced to compete with other investment

In addition, the attractiveness of investments in our funds relative to other investment products could decrease depending

Lastly, institutional and individual investors are allocating increasing amounts of capital to alternative investment strategies. Several large institutional investors have announced a desire to consolidate their investments in a more limited number of managers. We expect that this will cause competition in our industry to intensify and could lead to a reduction in the size and duration of pricing inefficiencies that many of our funds seek to exploit.

When any of our funds perform poorly, either by incurring losses or underperforming benchmarks, as compared to our competitors or otherwise, our investment record suffers. As a result, our performance fees may be adversely affected and, all else being equal, the value of our assets under management could decrease, which may, in turn, reduce our management fees. Moreover, we may experience losses on investments of our own capital in our funds as a result of poor investment performance. If a fund performs poorly, we will receive little or no performance fees with regard to the fund and little income or possibly losses from our own principal investment in such fund. Furthermore, if, as a result of poor performance or otherwise, a fund does not achieve total investment returns that exceed a specified investment return threshold over the life of the fund or other measurement period, we may be obligated to repay the amount by which performance fees that were previously distributed or paid to us exceeds amounts to which we were entitled. Poor performance of our funds could also make it more difficult for us to raise new capital. Investors in our closed-end funds may decline to invest in future closed-end funds we raise as a result of poor performance. Investors in our open-ended funds may redeem their investment as a result of poor performance. Poor performance of our publicly traded funds may result in stockholders selling their stock, thereby causing a decline in the stock price and limiting our ability to access capital. A failure to grow the assets of such funds will limit our ability to earn additional management fees and performance fees, and will ultimately affect our operating results. Our fund investors and potential fund investors continually assess our funds’ performance independently and relative to market benchmarks and our competitors, and our ability to raise capital for existing and future funds and avoid excessive redemption levels depends on our funds’ performance. Accordingly, poor fund performance may deter future investment in our funds and thereby decrease the capital invested in our funds and, ultimately, our management fee income. Alternatively, in the face of poor fund performance, investors could demand lower fees or fee concessions for existing or future funds which would likewise decrease our revenue.

The management fees we receive from ARCC (including fees attributable to ARCC Part I Fees) comprise a significant percentage of our management fees. This percentage has increased as a result of ARCC’s acquisition of ACAS, which closed on January 3, 2017. The investment advisory agreement we have with ARCC categorizes the fees we receive as: (a) base management fees, which are paid quarterly and generally increase or decrease based on ARCC’s total assets, (b) fees based on ARCC ’sARCC’s net investment income (before ARCC Part I Fees and ARCC Part II Fees), which are paid quarterly (“ARCC Part I Fees”) and (c) fees based on ARCC’s net capital gains, which are paid annually (“ARCC Part II Fees”). We classify the ARCC Part I Fees as management fees because they are paid quarterly, are predictable and recurring in nature, are not subject to repayment (or contingent repayment obligations) and are generally expected to be cash-settled each quarter. If ARCC’s total assets or its net investment income were to decline significantly for any reason, including, without limitation, due to mark-to-market accounting requirements, the poor performance of its investments or the failure to successfully access or invest capital, the amount

Our investment advisory and management agreement with ARCC renews for successive annual periods subject to the approval of ARCC’s board of directors or by the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of ARCC’s outstanding voting securities. In addition, as required by the Investment Company Act, both ARCC and its investment adviser have the right to terminate the agreement without penalty upon 60 days’ written notice to the other party. Termination or non-renewal of this

We may not be able to maintain our current fee structure as a result of industry pressure from fund investors to reduce fees. Although our investment management fees vary among and within asset classes, historically we have competed primarily on the basis of our performance and not on the level of our investment management fees relative to those of our competitors. In recent years, however, there has been a general trend toward lower fees in the investment management industry. In September 2009, the Institutional Limited Partners Association (“ILPA”) published a set of Private Equity Principles (the “Principles”) which were revised in January 2011. The Principles were developed to encourage discussion between limited partners and general partners regarding private equity fund partnership terms. Certain of the Principles call for enhanced “alignment of interests” between general partners and limited partners through modifications of some of the terms of fund arrangements, including proposed guidelines for fees and performance income structures. We promptly provided ILPA with our endorsement of the Principles, representing an indication of our general support for the efforts of ILPA. Although we have no obligation to modify any of our fees with respect to our existing funds, we may experience pressure to do so in our future funds. More recently, institutional investors have been increasing pressure to reduce management and investment fees charged by external managers, whether through direct reductions, deferrals, rebates or other means. In addition, we may be asked by investors to waive or defer fees for various reasons, including during economic downturns or as a result of poor performance of our funds. We may not be successful in providing investment returns and service that will allow us to maintain our current fee structure. Fee reductions on existing or future new businesses could have an adverse effect on our profit margins and results of operations. For more information about our fees see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Some investors in our funds may have concerns that as a public company our attention is bifurcated between investors in our funds and the public unitholders,shareholders, resulting in potential conflicts of interest. Some investors in our funds may believe that as a public company we strive for near-term profit instead of superior risk-adjusted returns for investors in our funds over time or grow our assets under management for the purpose of generating additional management fees without regard to whether we believe there are sufficient investment opportunities to effectively deploy the additional capital. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in our efforts to address such concerns or to convince investors in our funds that our status as a public company does not and will not affect our longstanding priorities or the way we conduct our businesses. A decision by a significant number of investors in our funds not to commit additional capital to our funds or to cease doing business with us altogether, or our failure to continue to raise capital, could inhibit our ability to achieve our investment objectives and may have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Our assets under management have grown significantly in the past, and we are pursuing further growth in the near future, both organic and through acquisitions. Our rapid growth has placed, and planned growth, if successful, will continue to place, significant demands on our legal, accounting and operational infrastructure, and has increased expenses. The complexity of these demands, and the expense required to address them, is a function not simply of the amount by which our assets under management has grown, but of the growth in the variety and complexity of, as well as the differences in strategy between, our different funds. In addition, we are required to continuously develop our systems and infrastructure in response to the increasing sophistication of the investment management market and legal, accounting, regulatory and tax developments.

Our future growth will depend in part on our ability to maintain an operating platform and management system sufficient to address our growth and will require us to incur significant additional expenses and to commit additional senior management and operational resources. As a result, we face significant challenges:

We may not be able to manage our expanding operations effectively or be able to continue to grow, and any failure to do so could adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and control our expenses.

In addition, pursuing investment opportunities outside the United States presents challenges not faced by U.S. investments, such as different legal and tax regimes and currency fluctuations, which require additional resources to address. To accommodate the needs of global investors and strategies we must structure investment products in a manner that addresses tax, regulatory and legislative provisions in different, and sometimes multiple, jurisdictions. Further, in conducting business in foreign jurisdictions, we are often faced with the challenge of ensuring that our activities are consistent with U.S. or other laws with extraterritorial application, such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). Moreover, actively pursuing international investment opportunities may require that we increase the size or number of our international offices. Pursuing non-U.S. fund investors means that we must comply with international laws governing the sale of interests in our funds, different investor reporting and information processes and other requirements. As a result, we are required to continuously develop our systems and infrastructure, including employing and contracting with foreign businesses and entities, in response to the increasing complexity and sophistication of the investment management market and legal, accounting and regulatory situations. This growth has required, and will continue to require, us to incur significant additional expenses and to commit additional senior management and operational resources. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage or maintain appropriate oversight over our expanding international operations effectively or that we will be able to continue to grow this part of our businesses, and any failure to do so could adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and control our expenses.

We intend, if market conditions warrant, to growgrowing our businesses by increasing assets under management in existing businesses and expanding into new investment strategies, geographic markets and businesses. Our partnership agreement permits us to enter into new lines of business, make strategic investments or acquisitions and enter into joint ventures. Accordingly, we may pursue growth through acquisitions of other investment management companies, acquisitions of critical business partners or other strategic initiatives, which may include entering into new lines of business. In addition, consistent with our past experience, we expect opportunities will arise to acquire other alternative or traditional asset managers.

Attempts to expand our businesses involve a number of special risks, including some or all of the following:

Entry into certain lines of business may subject us to new laws and regulations with which we are not familiar, or from which we are currently exempt, and may lead to increased litigation and regulatory risk. It could also impact and affect our existing businesses, which might otherwise not be subject to such laws and regulations. If a new business does not generate sufficient revenues or if we are unable to efficiently manage our expanded operations, our results of operations will be adversely affected. Our strategic initiatives may include joint ventures, in which case we will be subject to additional risks and uncertainties in that we may be dependent upon, and subject to liability, losses or reputational damage relating to systems, controls and personnel that are not under our control. Because we have not yet identified these potential new investment strategies, geographic markets or lines of business, we cannot identify all of the specific risks we may face and the potential adverse consequences on us and their investment that may result from any attempted expansion.

Our growth strategy is based, in part, on the selective development or acquisition of asset management businesses, advisory businesses or other businesses complementary to our business where we think we can add substantial value or generate substantial returns. The success of this strategy will depend on, among other things: (a) the availability of suitable opportunities, (b) the level of competition from other companies that may have greater financial resources, (c) our ability to value potential development or acquisition opportunities accurately and negotiate acceptable terms for those opportunities, (d) our ability to obtain requisite approvals and licenses from the relevant governmental authorities and to comply with applicable laws and regulations without incurring undue costs and delays, (e) our ability to identify and enter into mutually beneficial relationships with venture partners, (f) our ability to properly manage conflicts of interest and (g) our ability to integrate personnel at acquired businesses into our

This strategy also contemplates the use of our publicly traded common unitsshares as acquisition consideration. Volatility or declines in the trading price of our common unitsshares may make our common unitsshares less attractive to acquisition targets. Moreover, even if we are able to identify and successfully complete an acquisition, we may encounter unexpected difficulties or incur unexpected costs associated with integrating and overseeing the operations of the new businesses. If we are not successful in implementing our growth strategy, our business, financial results and the market price for our common unitsshares may be adversely affected.

Our businesses are subject to extensive regulation, including periodic examinations, by governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations in the jurisdictions in which we operate. The SEC oversees the activities of our subsidiaries that are registered investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Investment Advisers Act”).Act. Since the first quarter of 2014, FINRA as well as the SEC has overseen the activities of our wholly owned subsidiary AIS as a registered broker-dealer. We are subject to audits by the Defense Security Service to determine whether we are under foreign ownership, control or influence. In addition, we regularly rely on exemptions from various requirements of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Investment Company Act, the Commodity Exchange Act and the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). These exemptions are sometimes highly complex and may in certain circumstances depend on compliance by third parties who we do not control. If for any reason these exemptions were to be revoked or challenged or otherwise become unavailable to us, wesuch action could beincrease our cost of doing business or subject us to regulatory action or third-party claims, which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses. For example, in 2013 the SEC amended Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act to impose “bad actor” disqualification provisions that ban an issuer from offering or selling securities pursuant to the safe harbor in Rule 506 if the issuer, or any other “covered person,” is the subject of a criminal, regulatory or court order or other “disqualifying event” under the rule which has not been waived by the SEC. The definition of a “covered person” under the rule includes an issuer’s directors, general partners, managing members and executive officers and promoters and persons compensated for soliciting investors in the offering. Accordingly, our ability to rely on Rule 506 to offer or sell securities would be impaired if we or any “covered person” is the subject of a disqualifying event under the rule and we are unable to obtain a waiver.waiver or, in certain circumstances, terminate our involvement with such “covered person”.

The SEC has indicated that investment advisors who receive transaction-based compensation for investment banking or acquisition activities relating to fund portfolio companies may be required to register as broker-dealers. Specifically, the SEC staff

Since 2010, states and other regulatory authorities have begun to require investment managers to register as lobbyists. We have registered as such in a number of jurisdictions, including California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Other states or municipalities may consider similar legislation or adopt regulations or procedures with similar effect. These registration requirements impose significant compliance obligations on registered lobbyists and their employers, which may include annual registration fees, periodic disclosure reports and internal recordkeeping, and may also prohibit the payment of contingent fees.

Each of the regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over us has regulatory powers dealing with many aspects of financial services, including the authority to grant, and in specific circumstances to cancel, permissions to carry on particular activities. A failure to comply with the obligations imposed by the Investment Advisers Act, including recordkeeping, advertising and operating requirements, disclosure obligations and prohibitions on fraudulent activities, could result in investigations, sanctions and reputational damage. We are involved regularly in trading activities that implicate a broad number of U.S. and foreign securities and tax law regimes, including laws governing trading on inside information, market manipulation and a broad number of technical trading requirements that implicate fundamental market regulation policies. Violation of these laws could result in severe restrictions on our activities and damage to our reputation.

Compliance with existing and new regulations subjects us to significant costs. Moreover, our failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations, including labor and employment laws, could result in fines, censure, suspensions of personnel or other sanctions, including revocation of the registration of our relevant subsidiaries as investment advisers or registered broker-dealers. The regulations to which our businesses are subject are designed primarily to protect investors in our funds and to ensure

In the past several years, the financial services industry, and private equity in particular, has been the subject of heightened scrutiny by regulators around the globe. In particular, the SEC and its staff have focused more narrowly on issues relevant to alternative asset management firms, including by forming specialized units devoted to examining such firms and, in certain cases, bringing enforcement actions against the firms, their principals and employees. In recent periods there have been a number of enforcement actions within the industry, and it is expected that the SEC will continue to pursue enforcement actions against private fund managers. This increased enforcement activity may cause us to reevaluate certain practices and adjust our compliance control function as necessary and appropriate.

As a business development company, ARCC operates as a highly regulated business within the provisions of the Investment Company Act. Many of the regulations governing business development companies have not been modernized within recent securities laws amendments and restrict, among other things, leverage incurrence, co-investments and other transactions with other entities within the Ares Operating Group. Certain of our funds may be restricted from engaging in transactions with ARCC and its subsidiaries.

As a business development company registered under the Investment Company Act, ARCC may issue debt securities or preferred stock and borrow money from banks or other financial institutions, which we refer to collectively as “senior securities,” up to the maximum amount permitted by the Investment Company Act. Under the provisions of the Investment Company Act, ARCC is permitted, as a business development company, to incur indebtedness or issue senior securities only in amounts such that its asset coverage, as calculated pursuant to the Investment Company Act, equals at least 200% after each such incurrence or issuance. If the value of its assets declines, it may be unable to satisfy this test. If that happens, it may be required to sell a portion of its investments and, depending on the nature of its leverage, repay a portion of its indebtedness at a time when such sales may be disadvantageous. Business development companies may issue and sell common stock at a price below net asset value per share only in limited circumstances, one of which is during an approximately one-year period after obtaining stockholder approval for such issuance in accordance with the Investment Company Act. ARCC’s stockholders have, in the past, approved such issuances so that during the subsequent 12-month period, ARCC may, in one or more public or private offerings of its common stock, sell or otherwise issue shares of its common stock at a price below the then-current net asset value per share, subject to certain conditions including parameters on the level of permissible dilution, approval of the sale by a majority of its independent directors and a requirement that the sale price be not less than approximately the market price of the shares of its common stock at specified times, less the expenses of the sale. ARCC may ask its stockholders for additional approvals from year to year. There can be no assurance that such approvals will be obtained.

Our publicly traded investment vehicles operate under a complex regulatory environment. Such companies require the application of complex tax and securities regulations and may entail a higher level of regulatory scrutiny. In addition, regulations affecting our publicly traded investment vehicles generally affect their ability to take certain actions. For example, certain of our publicly traded vehicles have elected to be treated as a REIT or RIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. To maintain their status as a RIC or a REIT, such vehicles must meet, among other things, certain source of income, asset diversification and annual distribution requirements. ARCC and our publicly traded closed-end fund are subject to complex rules under the Investment Company Act, including rules that restrict certain of our funds from engaging in transactions with ARCC or the closed-end fund. For example, ARCC is required to generally distribute to its stockholders at least 90% of its investment company taxable income to maintain its RIC status and, subject to certain exceptions, ARCC is generally prohibited from issuing and selling its common stock at a price below net asset value per share and from incurring indebtedness (including for this purpose, preferred stock), if ARCC’s asset coverage, as calculated pursuant to the Investment Company Act, equals less than 200% after such incurrence.

In recent years, the SEC and several states have initiated investigations alleging that certain private equity firms and hedge funds or agents acting on their behalf have paid money to current or former government officials or their associates in exchange for improperly soliciting contracts with state pension funds. In June 2010, the SEC approved Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act regarding “pay to play” practices by investment advisers involving campaign contributions and other payments to government officials able to exert influence on potential government entity clients. Among other restrictions, the rule prohibits investment advisers from providing advisory services for compensation to a government entity for two years, subject to very limited exceptions, after the investment adviser, its senior executives or its personnel involved in soliciting investments from government entities make contributions to certain candidates and officials in a position to influence the hiring of an investment adviser by such government entity. Advisers are required to implement compliance policies designed, among other matters, to track contributions by certain of the adviser’s employees and engagements of third parties that solicit government entities and to keep certain records to enable the SEC to determine compliance with the rule. In addition, there have been similar rules on a state level regarding “pay to play” practices by investment advisers.

As we have a significant number of public pension plans that are investors in our funds, these rules could impose significant economic sanctions on our businesses if we or one of the other persons covered by the rules make any such contribution or payment, whether or not material or with an intent to secure an investment from a public pension plan. We may also acquire other investment managers who are not subject to the same restrictions as us, but whose activity, and the activity of their principals, prior to our ownership could affect our fundraising. In addition, such investigations may require the attention of senior management and may result in fines if any of our funds are deemed to have violated any regulations, thereby imposing additional expenses on us. Any failure on our part to comply with these rules could cause us to lose compensation for our advisory services or expose us to significant penalties and reputational damage.

In June 2011, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international trade body comprised of senior representatives of bank supervisory authorities and central banks from 27 countries, including the United States and the EU, announced the final framework for a comprehensive set of capital and liquidity standards, commonly referred to as “Basel III,” for internationally active banking organizations and certain other types of financial institutions. These new standards, which will be fully phased in by 2019, will require banks to hold more capital, predominantly in the form of common equity, than under the

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law and has imposed significant regulations on nearly every aspect of the U.S. financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act established a ten voting-member Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”), an interagency body chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, to identify and manage systemic risk in the financial system and improve interagency cooperation. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Council has the authority to review the activities of certain nonbank financial firms engaged in financial activities that are designated as “systemically important,” meaning, among other things, evaluating the impact of the distress of the financial firm on the stability of the U.S. economy. If we were designated as such, it would result in increased regulation of our businesses, including the imposition of capital, leverage, liquidity and risk management standards, credit exposure reporting and concentration limits, restrictions on acquisitions and annual stress tests by the Federal Reserve.

In October 2011, the Federal Reserve and other federal regulatory agencies issued a proposed rule implementing a section of the Dodd-Frank Act that has become known as the “Volcker Rule.” In December 2013, the Federal Reserve and other federal regulatory agencies adopted a final rule implementing the Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule generally prohibits insured banks or thrifts, any bank holding company or savings and loan holding company, any non-U.S. bank with a U.S. branch, agency or commercial lending company and any subsidiaries and affiliates of such entities, regardless of geographic location, from investing in or sponsoring “covered funds,” which include private equity funds or hedge funds and certain other proprietary activities. The effects of the Volcker Rule are uncertain but it is in any event likely to curtail various banking activities that in turn could result in uncertainties in the financial markets as well as our business. The final Volcker Rule became effective on April 1, 2014, and, is subjectexcept with respect to acertain foreign banking entities, the conformance period (endingended on July 21, 2017).2017. It contains exemptions for certain “permitted activities” that would enable certain institutions subject to the Volcker Rule to continue investing in covered funds under certain conditions. Although we do not currently anticipate that the Volcker Rule will adversely affect our fundraising to any significant extent, there is uncertainty regarding the implementation of the Volcker Rule and its practical implications, and there could be adverse implications on our ability to raise funds from the types of entities mentioned above as a result of this prohibition.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, regulation of the U.S. derivatives market is bifurcated between the CFTC and the SEC. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has jurisdiction over swaps and the SEC has jurisdiction over security-based swaps. As part of its Dodd-Frank Act related rule-making process, the CFTC made changes to its rules with respect to the registration and oversight

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC, the SEC and other regulatory authorities to promulgate certain rules relating to the regulation of the derivatives market. Such rules require or will require the registration of certain market participants, the clearing of certain derivatives contracts through central counterparties, the execution of certain derivatives contracts on electronic platforms, as well as reporting and recordkeeping of derivatives transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides expanded enforcement authority to the CFTC and SEC. While certain rules have been promulgated and are already in effect, the rulemaking and implementation process is still ongoing. In particular, the CFTC has finalized most of its rules under the Dodd-Frank Act, and the SEC has proposed a number of rules regarding security-based swaps but has only finalized some of these rules. We cannot therefore yet predict the ultimate effect of the rules and regulations on our business.

Under CFTC and SEC rules, an entity may be required to register as a MSP or MSBSP if it has substantial swaps or security-based swaps positions or has substantial counterparty exposure from its swaps or security-based swaps positions. If any of our funds were required to register as an MSP or MSBSP, it could make compliance more expensive, affect the manner in which we conduct our businesses and adversely affect our profitability. Additionally, if any of our funds qualify as “special entities” under CFTC rules, it could make it more difficult for them to enter into derivatives transactions or make such transactions more expensive.

Pursuant to rules finalized by the CFTC in December 2012 and September 2016, certain classes of interest rate swaps and certain classes of credit default swaps are subject to mandatory clearing, unless an exemption applies. Many of these swaps are also subject to mandatory trading on designated contract markets or swap execution facilities. At this time, the CFTC has not proposed any rules designating other classes of swaps for mandatory clearing, but it may do so in the future. Mandatory clearing and trade execution requirements may change the cost and availability of the swaps that we use, and exposes our funds to the credit risk of the clearing house through which any cleared swap is cleared. In addition, federal bank regulatory authorities and the CFTC have adopted initial and variation margin requirements for swap dealers, security-based swap dealers and swap entities, including permissible forms of margin, custodial arrangements and documentation requirements for uncleared swaps and security-based swaps. As a result, swap entities will be required to collect margin for transactions and positions in uncleared swaps and security-based swaps by financial end users. The new rules will becomebecame effective for end users on March 1, 2017. On February 13, 2017, theThe CFTC’s Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight announced a grace periodsubsequently extended, until September 1, 2017 ,the time to comply with the variation margin requirements for swaps that are subject to a March 1, 2017 compliance date. The effect of the regulations on us is not fully known at this time. However, these rules may increase the cost of our activity in uncleared swaps and security-based swaps to the extentif we are determined to be a financial end user.

In December 2016, the CFTC reproposedre-proposed rules that would set federal position limits for certain referenced contracts, and issued final rules on aggregation among entities under common ownership or control, for position limits on certain futures and options contracts that would apply to the proposed position limits on referenced contracts. It is possible that the CFTC could propose to expand such requirements to other types of contracts in the future. If any when enacted, the proposal could affect our ability and the ability for our funds to enter into derivatives transactions.

The CFTC has finalized rules requiring collateral used to margin cleared swaps to be segregated in a manner different from that applicable to the futures market and has finalized other rules allowing parties to an uncleared swap to require that any collateral posted as initial margin be segregated with a third party custodian. Collateral segregation may impose greater costs on us when entering into swaps.

Finally,In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFTC expanded anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority, including authority over disruptive trading practices and insider trading. Several investigations have commenced in the United States related to manipulation of the foreign exchange, LIBOR and indices markets. It is possible that new standards will emerge from these proceedings that could impact the way that we trade.

The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes federal regulatory agencies to review and, in certain cases, prohibit compensation arrangements at financial institutions that give employees incentives to engage in conduct deemed to encourage inappropriate risk-taking by covered financial institutions. FederalIn 2016, federal bank regulatory authorities and the SEC have proposedrevised and re-proposed a rule to implement the law that generally (1) prohibits incentive-based payment arrangements that are determined to encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss and (2) requires

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

The SEC requires investment advisers registered or required to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act that advise one or more private funds and have at least $150.0 million in private fund assets under management to periodically file reports on Form PF. We have filed, and will continue to file, quarterly reports on Form PF, which has resulted in increased administrative costs and requires a significant amount of attention and time to be spent by our personnel.

On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) published the first of several reports in response to the Executive Order on the depository system covering banks and other savings institutions. On October 6, 2017, the Treasury released a second report outlining ways to streamline and reform the U.S. regulatory system for capital markets, followed by a third report, on October 26, 2017, examining the current regulatory framework for the asset management and insurance industries. Subsequent reports are expected to address: retail and institutional investment products and vehicles, as well as non‑bank financial institutions, financial technology and financial innovation.

On June 8, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial Choice Act, which includes legislation intended to repeal or replace substantial portions of the Dodd‑Frank Act. Among other things, the proposed law would repeal the Volcker Rule limiting certain proprietary investment and trading activities by banks, eliminate the authority of regulators to restructure major provisionsdesignate asset managers and other large non‑bank institutions as “systemically important financial institutions” or “SIFIs,” and repeal the Department of Labor (“DOL”) “fiduciary rule” governing standards for dealing with retirement plans until the Dodd-Frank Act.SEC issues standards for similar dealings by broker‑dealers and limiting the substance of any subsequent DOL rule to the SEC standards. The ultimate impactbill was referred to the Senate, where it is unlikely to pass as proposed. On November 16, 2017, a bipartisan group of this orderU.S. Senators, led by Senate Banking Committee Chairman, introduced the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “Senate Regulatory Relief Bill”). The Senate Regulatory Relief Bill would revise various post-crisis regulatory requirements and provide targeted regulatory relief to certain financial institutions. Among the most significant of its implementation on existing and proposed regulations underamendments to the Dodd-Frank Act are a substantial increase in the $50 billion asset threshold for automatic regulation of bank holding companies as SIFIs, an exemption from the Volcker Rule for insured depository institutions with less than $10 billion in consolidated assets and other ruleslower levels of trading assets and regulations applicableliabilities, as well as amendments to the liquidity leverage ratio and supplementary leverage ratio requirements. On December 5, 2017, the Senate Banking Committee approved the Senate Regulatory Relief Bill. If the legislation is adopted in the Senate, it remains unclear whether and how it would be reconciled with its House-passed counterpart, the Financial Choice Act, which is substantially different in scope and substance, and ultimately approved by both chambers of Congress.

It is difficult to determine the full extent of the impact on us of the Financial Choice Act, the Dodd-Frank Act or any other new laws, regulations or initiatives that may be proposed or whether any of the proposals will become law. In addition, as a result of proposed legislation, shifting areas of focus of regulatory enforcement bodies or otherwise, regulatory compliance practices may shift such that formerly accepted industry practices become disfavored or less common. Any changes or other developments in the regulatory framework applicable to our businesses, including the changes described above and changes to formerly accepted industry practices, may impose additional costs on us, require the attention of our senior management or result in limitations on the manner in which we conduct our businesses. Moreover, as calls for additional regulation have increased, there may be a related increase in regulatory investigations of the trading and other investment activities of alternative asset management funds, including our funds. In addition, we may be adversely affected by changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules by these governmental authorities and self-regulatory organizations. Compliance with any new laws or regulations could make compliance more difficult and expensive, affect the manner in which we conduct our businesses and adversely affect our profitability.

Certain of our subsidiaries operate outside the United States. In the United Kingdom, Ares Management Limited and Ares Management UK Limited are subject to regulation by the FCA. Ares European Loan Management LLP, which is not a subsidiary, but in which we are indirectly invested and which procures certain services from Ares Management Limited, is also subject to regulation by the FCA. In some circumstances, Ares Management Limited, Ares Management UK Limited, Ares European Loan Management LLP and other Ares entities are or become subject to UK or EU laws, for instance in relation to marketing our funds to investors in the EEA.

EU legislation could impact our business in the United Kingdom and in other EEA member states where we have operations. The following measures are of particular relevance to our business.

In March 2013, the predecessor regulator to the FCA published the final rules for the FCA’s regulation and supervision of the LIBOR. In particular, the FCA’s LIBOR rules include requirements that (1) an independent LIBOR administrator monitor and survey LIBOR submissions to identify breaches of practice standards and/or potentially manipulative behavior, and (2) firms submitting data to LIBOR establish and maintain a clear conflicts of interest policy and appropriate systems and controls. These requirements may cause LIBOR to be more volatile than it has been in the past, which may adversely affect the value of investments made by our funds. On February 3, 2014, ICE Benchmark Administration Limited took responsibility for administering LIBOR, following regulatory authorization by the FCA. LIBOR is expected to be phased out over the coming years. The Bank of England working group has approved SONIA as its preferred short-term interest benchmark and will take over its administration from April 2018. The impact this change will have is uncertain.

The Benchmarks Regulation entered into force on June 30, 2016. It aims to introduce a common framework and consistent approach to benchmark regulation across the EU by regulating producers, contributors to and users of benchmarks. The Benchmarks Regulation will replace the current UK framework regulating LIBOR and other specified benchmarks, notably the EURIBOR. Certain requirementsThe majority of provisions in the Benchmarks Regulation have already entered into force, but the majority will apply beginningtook effect on January 1, 2018. Although there are measures in the Benchmarks Regulation which are designed to prevent certain benchmarks from being undermined by a material reduction of benchmark contributors, it is not yet clear how successful these will be. The Benchmarks Regulation may therefore lead to unpredictable developments in relation to LIBOR and certain other benchmarks, which could affect the value of investments made by our funds.

The Directive and CRD IV could restrict the ability of banks and alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) managed in the EU to invest in securitization vehicles including collateralized loan obligations operated by us unless either the “originator”, “original lender” or “sponsor” (as those terms are defined in the legislation) retains a prescribed5% interest in the securitization concerned. Where such securitization arrangements are managed by Ares affiliatedAres-affiliated undertakings, and in order to make the securitization attractive to banks and AIFs, this risk retention requirement will, at present, need to beis held by an appropriately (EU) authorized and regulated entity affiliated with us (i.e., as “sponsor”). The holding of that retention on our affiliate’s balance sheet is likely to increase that entity’s regulatory capital requirement and will accordingly adversely affect return on equity. In September 2015,On December 28, 2017 the European Commission published proposals for a new securitization regulation as part of the Securitisation Regulation. The text of the Securitisationnew Securitization Regulation continueswas published in the EU Official Journal. The new regulation will apply from January 1, 2019 to securitization issued after that date. Although risk retention requirements will remain at 5% (of material net economic interest) a mechanism has been introduced whereby this requirement could be modified without the need for the change to be negotiated and no single compromise text yet exists. Measures likely to be included inmade through the final text include a proposal for a new "direct approach" to securitization retention requirements for lenders, originators and sponsors, placing them under a direct obligation to hold the retention slice (rather than creating an indirect obligation through increased capital requirements fornormal EU investors in non-

The EU Regulation on OTC derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories (commonly known as EMIR) will require the mandatory clearing of certain OTC derivatives through central counterparties. Beginning June 21, 2017, this mandatory clearing obligation will begin to apply to certain Ares-affiliated undertakings that enter into an eligible derivative transaction with another financial counterparty or a non-financial counterparty whose OTC derivative exposures exceed a prescribed clearing threshold, although the implementation of this requirement may be subject to a delay. EMIR will further require certain Ares-affiliated undertakings to provide margincounterparties and creates additional margining requirements in respect of OTC derivative transactions that are not cleared by a central counterpartycounterparty. The implementation of EMIR is phased; timing is dependent on the type of derivative and the categorization of the parties to the trade. Implementation deadlines have already been deferred but as they currently stand full implementation is due by March 1, 2017.July 9, 2019. EMIR does not have a materialhas started to impact on Ares-affiliated undertakings at present, althoughand as thesefurther implementation dates are reached the cost of complying with the requirements is likely to increase.

On December 14, 2015, the European Banking Authority published guidelines which are relevant to, amongstamong other things, EU banks' exposures to shadow banking entities. These guidelines have applied since January 1, 2017. The definition of shadow banking entity is extremely wide and could potentially catch a number of different entities, including investment funds and securitization vehicles. AIFs are excluded from the definition of a shadow banking entity unless they: (1) deploy leverage within the meaning of the Directive on a substantial basis; or (2) are permitted to originate loans or purchase third party lending exposures onto their balance sheet pursuant to the relevant fund rules or constitutional documents. These guidelines may affect our ability to raise capital in certain of our funds from EU banks.

Our UK, other European and Asian operations and our investment activities worldwide are subject to a variety of regulatory regimes that vary by country. In addition, we regularly rely on exemptions from various requirements of the regulations of certain foreign countries in conducting our asset management activities.

A portion of our revenue, net income and cash flow is variable, primarily due to the fact that the performance fees that we receive from certain of our funds can vary from quarter to quarter and year to year. In addition, the investment returns of most of our funds are volatile. We may also experience fluctuations in our results from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a number of other factors, including changes in the values of our funds’ investments, changes in the amount of distributions, dividends or interest paid in respect of investments, changes in our operating expenses, the degree to which we encounter competition and general economic and market conditions. Such variability may lead to volatility in the trading price of our common unitsshares and cause our results for a particular period not to be indicative of our performance in a future period. It may be difficult for us to achieve steady growth in net income and cash flow on a quarterly basis, which could in turn lead to large adverse movements in the price of our common unitsshares or increased volatility in the price of our common unitsshares generally.

The timing and amount of performance fees generated by our funds is uncertain and contributes to the volatility of our results. It takes a substantial period of time to identify attractive investment opportunities, to raise all the funds needed to make an investment and then to realize the cash value or other proceeds of an investment through a sale, public offering, recapitalization or other exit. Even if an investment proves to be profitable, it may be several years before any profits can be realized in cash or other proceeds. We cannot predict when, or if, any realization of investments will occur. If we were to have a realization event in a particular quarter or year, it may have a significant impact on our results for that particular quarter or year that may not be replicated in subsequent periods. We recognize revenue on investments in our funds based on our allocable share of realized and unrealized gains (or losses) reported by such funds, and a decline in realized or unrealized gains, or an increase in realized or unrealized losses, would adversely affect our revenue, which could increase the volatility of our results.

With respect to our funds that generate carried interest, the timing and receipt of such carried interest varies with the life cycle of our funds. During periods in which a relatively large portion of our assets under management is attributable to funds and investments in their “harvesting” period, our funds would make larger distributions than in the fund-raising or investment periods that precede harvesting. During periods in which a significant portion of our assets under management is attributable to funds that are not in their harvesting periods, we may receive substantially lower carried interest distributions. Moreover in some cases, we receive carried interest payments only upon realization of investments by the relevant fund, which contributes to the volatility of our cash flow and in other funds we are only entitled to carried interest payments after a return of all contributions and a preferred return to investors.

Because a portion of our revenue, net income and cash flow can be variable from quarter to quarter and year to year, we do not plan to provide any guidance regarding our expected quarterly and annual operating results. The lack of guidance may affect the expectations of public market analysts and could cause increased volatility in the price of our common units.shares.

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

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

Our ability to attract and retain investors and to pursue investment opportunities for our funds depends heavily upon the reputation of our professionals, especially our senior professionals. We are subject to a number of obligations and standards arising from our investment management business and our authority over the assets managed by our investment management business.

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice and the CommissionSEC have devoted greater resources to enforcement of the FCPA. In addition, the United Kingdom significantly expanded the reach of its anti-bribery law with the creation of the U.K. Bribery Act of 2010 (the “UK Bribery Act”). The UK Bribery Act prohibits companies that conduct business in the United Kingdom and their employees and representatives from giving, offering or promising bribes to any person, including non-UK government officials, as well as requesting, agreeing to receive or accepting bribes from any person. Under the UK Bribery Act, companies may be held liable for failing to prevent their employees and associated persons from violating the UK Bribery Act. While we

In addition, we could be adversely affected as a result of actual or alleged misconduct by personnel of portfolio companies, properties or projects in which our funds invest. For example, failures by personnel at our portfolio companies, properties or projects to comply with anti-bribery, trade sanctions, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Environmental Protection Agency regulations or other legal and regulatory requirements could expose us to litigation or regulatory action and otherwise adversely affect our businesses and reputation. Such misconduct could negatively affect the valuation of a fund’s investments and consequently affect our funds’ performance and negatively impact our businesses.

As of December 31, 2016,2017, we had no$210.0 million of borrowings outstanding under our credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) and $244.7$406.2 million aggregate principal amount of senior notes outstanding. We may choose to finance our businesses operations through further borrowings under the Credit Facility or by issuing additional debt. Our existing and future indebtedness exposes us to the typical risks associated with the use of leverage, including thosethe same risks that are applicable to our funds that use leverage as discussed below under “-Risks Related to Our Funds-Dependence on significant leverage in investments by our funds subjects us to volatility and contractions in the debt financing markets and could adversely affect our ability to achieve attractive rates of return on those investments.” The occurrence or continuation of any of these risksevents or trends could cause us to suffer a decline in the credit ratings assigned to our debt by rating agencies, which would cause the interest rate applicable to borrowings under the Credit Facility to increase and could result in other material adverse effects on our businesses. We depend on financial institutions extending credit to us on terms that are reasonable to us. There is no guarantee that such institutions will continue to extend credit to us or renew any existing credit agreements we may have with them, or that we will be able to refinance outstanding facilities when they mature. [In addition, the incurrence of additional debt in the future could result in potential downgrades of our existing corporate credit ratings, which could limit the availability of future financing and/or increase our cost of borrowing.] Furthermore, our Credit Facility and the indenture governing our senior notes contain certain covenants with which we need to comply. Non-compliance with any of the covenants without cure or waiver would constitute an event of default, and an event of default resulting from a breach of certain covenants could result, at the option of the lenders, in an acceleration of the principal and interest outstanding. In addition, if we incur additional debt, our credit rating could be adversely impacted.

Borrowings under the Credit Facility will mature in February 2022 (maturity date was extended as of February 24, 2017) and the senior notes mature in October 2024. As these borrowings and other indebtedness mature (or are otherwise repaid prior to their scheduled maturities), we may be required to

The risks related to our use of leverage may be exacerbated by our funds’ use of leverage to finance investments. See “-Risks Related to Our Funds-Dependence on significant leverage in investments by our funds subjects us to volatility and contractions in the debt financing markets and could adversely affect our ability to achieve attractive rates of returns on those investments.”

We face operational risk from errors made in the execution, confirmation or settlement of transactions. We also face operational risk from transactions and key data not being properly recorded, evaluated or accounted for in our funds. In particular, our Credit Group, and to a lesser extent our Private Equity Group, are highly dependent on our ability to process and evaluate, on a daily basis, transactions across markets and geographies in a time-sensitive, efficient and accurate manner. Consequently, we rely heavily on our financial, accounting and other data processing systems. New investment products we may introduce could create a significant risk that our existing systems may not be adequate to identify or control the relevant risks in the investment strategies employed by such new investment products.

In addition, we operate in a business that is highly dependent on information systems and technology. Our information systems and technology may not continue to be able to accommodate our growth, particularly our growth internationally, and the cost of maintaining the systems may increase from its current level. Such a failure to accommodate growth, or an increase in costs related to the information systems, could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Finally, we rely on third-party service providers for certain aspects of our businesses, including for certain information systems, technology and administration of our funds and compliance matters. Any interruption or deterioration in the performance of these third parties or failures of their information systems and technology could impair the quality of our funds’ operations and could impact our reputation, adversely affect our businesses and limit our ability to grow.

The historical performance of our funds is relevant to us primarily insofar as it is indicative of performance fees we have earned in the past and may earn in the future and our reputation and ability to raise new funds. The historical and potential returns of the funds we advise are not, however, directly linked to returns on our common units.shares. Therefore, holders of our common unitsshares should not conclude that positive performance of the funds we advise will necessarily result in positive returns on an investment in common units.shares. However, poor performance of the funds we advise would likely cause a decline in our revenues and would therefore likely have a negative effect on our operating results and returns on our common units.shares. An investment in our unitsshares is not an investment in any of our funds. Also, there is no assurance that projections in respect of our funds or unrealized valuations will be realized.

Moreover, the historical returns of our funds should not be considered indicative of the future returns of these or from any future funds we may raise, in part because:

The future internal rate of return for any current or future fund may vary considerably from the historical internal rate of return generated by any particular fund, or for our funds as a whole. Future returns will also be affected by the risks described elsewhere in this report,Annual Report on Form 10-K, including risks of the industries and businesses in which a particular fund invests.

Many of the investments in our funds are illiquid and thus have no readily ascertainable market prices. We value these investments based on our estimate, or an independent third party’s estimate, of their fair value as of the date of determination, which often involves significant subjectivity. There is no single standard for determining fair value in good faith and in many cases fair value is best expressed as a range of fair values from which a single estimate may be derived. We estimate the fair value of our investments based on third-party models, or models developed by us, which include discounted cash flow analyses and other techniques and may be based, at least in part, on independently sourced market parameters. The material estimates and assumptions used in these models include the timing and expected amount of cash flows, the appropriateness of discount rates used, and, in some cases, the ability to execute, the timing of and the estimated proceeds from expected financings, some or all of which factors may be ascribed more or less weight in light of the particular circumstances. The actual results related to any particular investment often vary materially as a result of the inaccuracy of these estimates and assumptions. In addition, because many of the illiquid investments held by our funds are in industries or sectors which are unstable, in distress or undergoing some uncertainty, such investments are subject to rapid changes in value caused by sudden company-specific or industry-wide developments.

We include the fair value of illiquid assets in the calculations of net asset values, returns of our funds and our assets under management. Furthermore, we recognize performance fees from affiliates based in part on these estimated fair values. Because these valuations are inherently uncertain, they may fluctuate greatly from period to period. Also, they may vary greatly from the prices that would be obtained if the assets were to be liquidated on the date of the valuation and often do vary greatly from the prices we eventually realize; as a result, there can be no assurance that such unrealized valuations will be fully or timely realized.

In addition, the values of our investments in publicly traded assets are subject to significant volatility, including due to a number of factors beyond our control. These include actual or anticipated fluctuations in the quarterly and annual results of these companies or other companies in their industries, market perceptions concerning the availability of additional securities for sale, general economic, social or political developments, changes in industry conditions or government regulations, changes in management or capital structure and significant acquisitions and dispositions. Because the market prices of these securities can be volatile, the valuations of these assets change from period to period, and the valuation for any particular period may not be

Although we frequently engage independent third parties to perform the foregoing valuations, the valuation process remains inherently subjective for the reasons described above.

If we realize value on an investment that is significantly lower than the value at which it was reflected in a fund’s net asset values, we would suffer losses in the applicable fund. This could in turn lead to a decline in asset management fees and a loss equal to the portion of the performance fees from affiliates reported in prior periods that was not realized upon disposition. These effects could become applicable to a large number of our investments if our estimates and assumptions used in estimating their fair values differ from future valuations due to market developments. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Segment Analysis” for information related to fund activity that is no longer consolidated. If asset values turn out to be materially different than values reflected in fund net asset values, fund investors could lose confidence which could, in turn, result in difficulties in raising additional investments.

The market prices of debt instruments and publicly traded securities held by some of our funds may be volatile and are likely to fluctuate due to a number of factors beyond our control, including actual or anticipated changes in the profitability of the issuers of such securities, general economic, social or political developments, changes in industry conditions, changes in government regulation, shortfalls in operating results from levels forecast by securities analysts, inflation and rapid fluctuations in inflation rates and the general state of the securities markets as described above under “Risks Related to Our Business-Difficult market and political conditions may adversely affect our businesses in many ways, including by reducing the value or hampering the performance of the investments made by our funds or reducing the ability of our funds to raise or deploy capital, each of which could materially reduce our revenue, net income and cash flow and adversely affect our financial prospects and condition,” and other material events, such as significant management changes, financings, refinancings,re-financings, securities issuances, acquisitions and dispositions. The value of publicly traded securities in which our funds invest may be particularly volatile as a result of these factors. In addition, debt instruments that are held by our funds to maturity or for long terms must be “marked-to-market” periodically, and their values are therefore vulnerable to interest rate fluctuations and the changes in the general state of the credit environment, notwithstanding their underlying performance. Changes in the values of these investments may adversely affect our investment performance and our results of operations.

Cyclicality is important to our businesses. Weak economic environments have often provided attractive investment opportunities and strong relative investment performance. For example, the relative performance of our high yield bond strategy has typically been strongest in difficult times when default rates are highest, and our distressed debt and control investing funds have historically identified investment opportunities during downturns in the economy when credit is not as readily available. Conversely, we tend to realize value from our investments in times of economic expansion, when opportunities to sell investments may be greater. Thus, we depend on the cyclicality of the market to sustain our businesses and generate attractive risk-adjusted returns over extended periods. Any significant ongoing volatility or prolonged economic expansion or recession could have an adverse impact on certain of our funds and materially affect our ability to deliver attractive investment returns or generate incentive or other income.

Some of our funds and their investments rely on the use of leverage, and our ability to achieve attractive rates of return on investments will depend on our ability to access sufficient sources of indebtedness at attractive rates. If our funds or the companies in which our funds invest raise capital in the structured credit, leveraged loan and high yield bond markets, the results

Recently, the credit markets have experienced heightened volatility. Interest rates have increased, and the Federal Reserve has raised the federal funds rate on multiple occasions since 2015, with ongoing increases expected. Further, many other economies are experiencing weakness, with tighter credit markets tightened, decreasingconditions and a decreased availability of foreign capital. These developments have caused borrowing costs to rise and decreased the availability of leverage and the attractiveness of the terms on which we, our funds and our portfolio companies were able to obtain debt financing. AFurthermore, some of the provisions under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act could have a negative impact on the cost of financing and dampen the attractiveness of credit. Significant ongoing volatility or a protracted economic downturn could adversely affect the financial resources of our funds and their investments (in particular those investments that depend on credit from third parties or that otherwise participate in the credit markets) and their ability to make principal and interest payments on, or refinance, outstanding debt when due. Moreover, these events could affect the terms of available debt financing with, for example, higher rates, higher equity requirements and/or more restrictive covenants, particularly in the area of acquisition financings for leveraged buyout and real estate assets transactions.

The absence of available sources of sufficient debt financing for extended periods of time or an increase in either the general levels of interest rates or in the risk spread demanded by sources of indebtedness would make it more expensive to finance

In the event that our funds are unable to obtain committed debt financing for potential acquisitions or can only obtain debt at an increased interest rate or on unfavorable terms, our funds may have difficulty completing otherwise profitable acquisitions or may generate profits that are lower than would otherwise be the case, either of which could reduce the performance and investment income earned by us. Similarly, our funds’ portfolio companies regularly utilize the corporate debt markets to obtain financing for their operations. If the credit markets continue to render such financing difficult to obtain or more expensive, this may negatively impact the operating performance of those portfolio companies and, therefore, the investment returns of our funds. In addition, if the markets make it difficult or impossible to refinance debt that is maturing in the near term, some of our portfolio companies may be unable to repay such debt at maturity and may be forced to sell assets, undergo a recapitalization or seek bankruptcy protection. Any of the foregoing circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

When our funds’ existing portfolio investments reach the point when debt incurred to finance those investments matures in significant amounts and must be either repaid or refinanced, those investments may materially suffer if they have not generated sufficient cash flow to repay maturing debt and there is insufficient capacity and availability in the financing markets to permit them to refinance maturing debt on satisfactory terms, or at all. A persistence of the limited availability of financing for such purposes for an extended period of time when significant amounts of the debt incurred to finance our funds’ existing portfolio investments becomes due could have a material adverse effect on these funds.

Our funds may choose to use leverage as part of their respective investment programs and certain funds, particularly in our Credit Group, regularly borrow a substantial amount of their capital. The use of leverage poses a significant degree of risk and enhances the possibility of a significant loss in the value of the investment portfolio. A fund may borrow money from time to time to purchase or carry securities or may enter into derivative transactions with counterparties that have embedded leverage. The interest expense and other costs incurred in connection with such borrowing may not be recovered by appreciation in the securities purchased or carried and will be lost, and the timing and magnitude of such losses may be accelerated or exacerbated, in the event of a decline in the market value of such securities. Gains realized with borrowed funds may cause the fund’s net asset value to increase at a faster rate than would be the case without borrowings. However, if investment results fail to cover the cost of borrowings, the fund’s net asset value could also decrease faster than if there had been no borrowings. In addition, as a business development company registered under the Investment Company Act, ARCC is permitted to incur indebtedness or issue senior

Some of our funds may invest in companies whose capital structures involve significant leverage. For example, in many non-distressed private equity investments, indebtedness may be as much as 75% or more of a portfolio company’s or real estate asset’s total debt and equity capitalization, including debt that may be incurred in connection with the investment, whether incurred at or above the investment-level entity. In distressed situations, indebtedness may exceed 100% or more of a portfolio company’s capitalization. Additionally, the debt positions acquired by our funds may be the most junior in what could be a complex capital structure, and thus subject us to the greatest risk of loss.

As a result, the risk of loss associated with a leveraged entity is generally greater than for companies with comparatively less debt. For example, a number of investments consummated by private equity sponsors during 2005, 2006 and 2007 that utilized significant amounts of leverage subsequently experienced severe economic stress and, in certain cases, defaulted on their debt obligations due to a decrease in revenues and cash flow precipitated by the subsequent economic downturn during 2008 and 2009. Similarly, the leveraged nature of the investments of our real estate funds increases the risk that a decline in the fair value of the underlying real estate or tangible assets will result in their abandonment or foreclosure. In addition, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposes significant limitations on the deductibility of interest expense for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which could adversely affect highly leveraged companies.

Many of our funds invest in securities that are not publicly traded. In many cases, our funds may be prohibited by contract or by applicable securities laws from selling such securities for a period of time. Our funds generally cannot sell these securities publicly unless either their sale is registered under applicable securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available. Accordingly, our funds may be forced, under certain conditions, to sell securities at a loss. The ability of many of our funds, particularly our private equityPrivate Equity Group funds, to dispose of these investments is heavily dependent on the public equity markets. For example, the ability to realize any value from an investment may depend upon the ability of the portfolio company in which such investment is held to complete an initial public offering. Even if the securities are publicly traded, large holdings of securities

Certain of the funds in our Credit and Private Equity Groups invest in obligors and issuers with weak financial conditions, poor operating results, substantial financing needs, negative net worth and/or special competitive problems. These funds also invest in obligors and issuers that are involved in bankruptcy or reorganization proceedings. In such situations, it may be difficult to obtain full information as to the exact financial and operating conditions of these obligors and issuers. Additionally, the fair values of such investments are subject to abrupt and erratic market movements and significant price volatility if they are publicly traded securities, and are subject to significant uncertainty in general if they are not publicly traded securities. Furthermore, some of our funds’ distressed investments may not be widely traded or may have no recognized market. A fund’s exposure to such investments may be substantial in relation to the market for those investments, and the assets are likely to be illiquid and difficult to sell or transfer. As a result, it may take a number of years for the market value of such investments to ultimately reflect their intrinsic value as perceived by us.

In addition, these investments could subject a fund to certain potential additional liabilities that may exceed the value of its original investment. Under certain circumstances, payments or distributions on certain investments may be reclaimed if any such payment or distribution is later determined to have been a fraudulent conveyance, a preferential payment or similar transaction under applicable bankruptcy and insolvency laws. In addition, under certain circumstances, a lender that has inappropriately exercised control of the management and policies of a debtor may have its claims subordinated or disallowed, or may be found liable for damages suffered by parties as a result of such actions. In the case where the investment in securities of troubled companies is made in connection with an attempt to influence a restructuring proposal or plan of reorganization in bankruptcy, our funds may become involved in substantial litigation.

Certain of the funds and accounts we advise or manage are subject to the fiduciary responsibility and prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and Section 4975 of the Code. For example, we currently manage some of our funds or accounts as “plan assets” under ERISA. With respect to these funds or accounts, this results in the application of the fiduciary responsibility standards of ERISA to investments made by such funds or accounts, including the requirement of investment prudence and diversification, and the possibility that certain transactions that we enter into, or may have entered into, on behalf of these funds or accounts, in the normal course of business, might constitute or result in, or have constituted or resulted in, non-exempt prohibited transactions under Section 406 of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code. A non-exempt prohibited transaction, in addition to imposing potential liability upon fiduciaries of an ERISA plan, may also result in the imposition of an excise tax under the Code upon a “party in interest” (as defined in ERISA) or “disqualified person” (as defined in the Code) with whom we engaged in the transaction. Some of our other funds or accounts currently qualify as venture capital operating companies (“VCOCs”) or rely on another exception under the “plan assets” regulation under ERISA and therefore are not subject to the fiduciary requirements of ERISA with respect to their assets. However, if these funds or accounts fail to satisfy the VCOC requirements for any reason, including as a result of an amendment of the relevant regulations by the U.S. Department of Labor, or another exception under the “plan assets” regulation under ERISA, such failure could materially interfere with our activities in relation to these funds or accounts or expose us to risks related to our failure to comply with the applicable requirements.

Under ERISA, members of certain “controlled groups” of “trades or businesses” may be jointly and severally liable for contributions required under any member’s tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan and under certain other benefit plans. Similarly, if any member’s tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan were to terminate, underfunding at termination would be the joint and several responsibility of all controlled group members, including members whose employees did not participate in

Our performance and the performance of our funds are significantly impacted by the value of the companies in which our funds have invested. Our funds invest in companies in many different industries, each of which is subject to volatility based upon economic and market factors. The credit crisis between mid-2007 and the end of 2009 caused significant fluctuations in the value of securities held by our funds and the recent global economic recession had a significant impact in overall performance activity and the demands for many of the goods and services provided by portfolio companies of the funds we advise. Although the U.S. economy has registered seveneight consecutive years of growth in real GDP, there remain many obstacles to continued growth in the economy such as global geopolitical events, risks of inflation or deflation, rising interest rates and high debt levels, both public and private. These factors and other general economic trends are likely to affect the performance of portfolio companies in many industries and, in particular, industries that anticipated that the GDP in developed economies would quickly return to pre-crisis trend. The performance of our funds, and our performance, may be adversely affected if our fund portfolio companies in these industries experience adverse performance or additional pressure due to downward trends.

The performance of our investments with underlying exposure to the commodities markets is also subject to a high degree of business and market risk, as it is dependent upon prevailing prices of commodities such as oil, natural gas and coal. Prices for oil and natural gas, for example, are subject to wide fluctuation in response to relatively minor changes in the supply and demand for oil and natural gas, market uncertainty and a variety of additional factors that are beyond our control, such as level of consumer product demand, the refining capacity of oil purchasers, weather conditions, government regulations, the price and availability of alternative fuels, political conditions, foreign supply of such commodities and overall economic conditions. It is common in making

In respect of real estate, even though the U.S. residential real estate market has recently shown signs of stabilizing from a lengthy and deep downturn, various factors could halt or limit a recovery in the housing market and have an adverse effect on investment performance, including, but not limited to, rising mortgage interest rates, a low level of confidence in the economic recovery or the residential real estate market and high unemployment.recent U.S. tax law changes which limit the amount of itemized deductions for mortgage interest as well as state and local income tax.

Investors in certain of our funds make capital commitments to those funds that we are entitled to call from those investors at any time during prescribed periods. We depend on investors fulfilling and honoring their commitments when we call capital from them for those funds to consummate investments and otherwise pay their obligations when due. Any investor that did not fund a capital call would be subject to several possible penalties, including having a meaningful amount of its existing investment forfeited in that fund. However, the impact of the penalty is directly correlated to the amount of capital previously invested by the investor in the fund and if an investor has invested little or no capital, for instance early in the life of the fund, then the forfeiture penalty may not be as meaningful. Investors may also negotiate for lesser or reduced penalties at the outset of the fund, thereby limiting our ability to enforce the funding of a capital call. Third-party investors in private equity and real estate funds typically use distributions from prior investments to meet future capital calls. In cases where valuations of existing investments fall and the pace of distributions slows, investors may be unable to make new commitments to third-party managed investment funds such as those advised by us. A failure of investors to honor a significant amount of capital calls for any particular fund or funds could have a material adverse effect on the operation and performance of those funds.

Some of our funds invest a portion of their assets in the equity, debt, loans or other securities of issuers located outside the United States, including Europe and Asia, while certain of our funds invest substantially all of their assets in these types of securities, and we expect that international investments will increase as a proportion of certain of our funds’ portfolios in the future. Investments in non-U.S. securities involve certain factors not typically associated with investing in U.S. securities, including risks relating to:

While our funds will take these factors into consideration in making investment decisions, including when hedging positions, there can be no assurance that adverse developments with respect to these risks will not adversely affect our funds that invest in securities of non-U.S. issuers. In addition, certain of these funds are managed outside the United States, which may increase the foregoing risks. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposes a one-time tax on a U.S. shareholder’s pro rata share of net accumulated untaxed earnings and profits of certain foreign subsidiaries (measured as of November 2, 2017 or December 31, 2017, whichever is greater). In addition, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also taxes (at reduced rates) U.S. shareholders on their pro rata share of “global intangible low-taxed income” earned in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 by certain of their foreign subsidiaries (generally the excess of an implied 10% rate of return on the subsidiaries’ adjusted bases in tangible business assets), regardless of whether the underlying earnings are repatriated.

Investments by many of our funds will include debt instruments and equity securities of companies that we do not control. Such instruments and securities may be acquired by our funds through trading activities or through purchases of securities from the issuer. In addition, our funds may seek to acquire minority equity interests more frequently and may also dispose of a portion of their majority equity investments in portfolio companies over time in a manner that results in the funds retaining a minority investment. Furthermore, while certain of our funds may make “toe-hold” distressed debt investments in a company with the intention of obtaining control, there is no assurance that a control position may be obtained and such fund may retain a minority investment. Those investments will be subject to the risk that the company in which the investment is made may make business, financial or management decisions with which we do not agree or that the majority stakeholders or the management of the company may take risks or otherwise act in a manner that does not serve our interests. If any of the foregoing were to occur, the values of the investments held by our funds could decrease and our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow could suffer as a result.

While we historically have and will continue to allocate the expenses of our funds in good faith and in accordance with the terms of the relevant fund agreements and our expense allocation policy in effect from time to time, due to increased regulatory scrutiny of expense allocation policies in the private investment funds realm, there is no guarantee that our policies and practices

Generally, if at the termination of a fund (and increasingly at interim points in the life of a fund), the fund has not achieved investment returns that (in most cases) exceed the preferred return threshold or (in all cases) the general partner receives net profits over the life of the fund in excess of its allocable share under the applicable partnership agreement, we will be obligated to repay an amount equal to the extent to which carried interest that wasexcess of amounts previously distributed to us exceedsover the amounts to which we are ultimately entitled. This obligation is known as a “clawback" or contingent repayment obligation. Due in part to our investment performance and the fact that our carried interest is generally determined on a liquidation basis, as of December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, if the funds were liquidated at their fair values at that date, there would have been no contingent repayment obligation or liability. There can be no assurance that we will not incur a contingent repayment obligation in the future. At December 31, 2017, 2016 2015 and 2014,2015, had we assumed all existing investments were worthless, the amount of carried interest, net of tax, subject to contingent repayment would

The terms of our funds generally give either the manager of the fund or the fund itself the right to terminate our investment management agreement with the fund. However, insofar as we control the general partners of our funds that are limited partnerships, the risk of termination of investment management agreement for such funds is limited, subject to our fiduciary or contractual duties as general partner. This risk is more significant for certain of our funds that have independent boards of directors.

With respect to our funds that are subject tonot exempt from registration under the Investment Company Act, each fund’s investment management agreement must be approved annually by (a) such fund’s board of directors or by the vote of a majority of such fund’s stockholders and (b) the majority of the independent members of such fund’s board of directors and, in certain cases, by its stockholders, as required by law. The funds’ investment management agreements can also be terminated by the majority of such fund’s stockholders. Termination of these agreements would reduce the fees we earn from the relevant funds, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Currently, ARDC, a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act, and ARCC, a registered investment company that has elected to be treated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act, are subject to these provisions of the Investment Company Act.

The governing agreements of many of our funds provide that, subject to certain conditions, third-party investors in those funds have the right to remove the general partner of the fund or terminate the fund, including in certain cases without cause by a simple majority vote. Any such removal or dissolution could result in a cessation in management fees we would earn from such funds and/or a significant reduction in the expected amounts of performance fees or carried interest from those funds. Performance fees or carried interest could be significantly reduced as a result of our inability to maximize the value of investments by a fund during the liquidation process or in the event of the triggering of a “contingent repayment" obligation. Finally, the applicable funds would cease to exist after completion of liquidation and winding-up.

In addition, the governing agreements of many of our funds provide that, subject to certain conditions, third-party investors in those funds have the right to terminate the investment period of the fund, including in certain cases without cause. Such an

We currently manage a portion of investor assets through separately managed accounts whereby we earn management fees and performance fees, or carried interest, and we intend to continue to seek additional separately managed account mandates. The investment management agreements we enter into in connection with managing separately managed accounts on behalf of certain clients may in certain cases be terminated by such clients on as little as 30 days’ prior written notice. In addition, the boards of directors of the investment management companies we manage could terminate our advisory engagement of those companies on as little as 30 days’ prior written notice. ARCC’s investment management agreement can be terminated by the majority of its stockholders upon 60 days’ prior written notice. In the case of any such terminations, the management fees and performance fees or carried interest we earn in

In addition, if we were to experience a change of control (as defined under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, or as otherwise set forth in the partnership agreements of our funds), continuation of the investment management agreements of our funds would be subject to investor consent. There can be no assurance that required consents will be obtained if a change of control occurs. In addition, with respect to our funds that are subject to the Investment Company Act, each fund’s investment management agreement must be approved annually (a) by such fund’s board of directors or by a vote of the majority of such fund’s stockholders and (b) by the independent members of such fund’s board of directors and, in certain cases, by its stockholders, as required by law. Termination of these agreements would cause us to lose the management fees and performance fees we earn from such funds, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Among the sectors that have been particularly challenged by a downturn in the global credit markets are the CLO and leveraged finance markets. CLOs are subject to credit, liquidity, interest rate and other risks. In 2008 and through early 2009,From time to time, liquidity in the credit markets wasis reduced sometimes significantly, reduced, resulting in an increase in credit spreads and a decline in ratings, performance and market values for leveraged loans. We have significant exposure to these markets through our investments in our CLO funds. CLOs invest on a leveraged basis in loans or securities that are themselves highly leveraged investments in the underlying collateral, which increases both the opportunity for higher returns as well as the magnitude of losses when compared to unlevered investments. As a result of such funds’ leveraged position, CLOs and their investors are at greater risk of suffering losses. The CLO market in which we invest has experienced an increase in downgrades, defaults and declines in market value and defaults in respect of leveraged loans in their collateral. Many CLOs have failed in the past orand may in the future fail one or more of their “overcollateralization” tests. The failure of one or more of these tests will result in reduced cash flows that may have been otherwise available for distribution to us. This wouldcould reduce the value of our investment. There can be no assurance that market conditions giving rise to these types of consequences will not once again occur, subsist or become more acute in the future.

While diversification is generally an objective of our funds, there can be no assurance as to the degree of diversification, if any, that will be achieved in any fund investments. Difficult market conditions or volatility or slowdowns affecting a particular asset class, geographic region, industry or other category of investment could have a significant adverse impact on a fund if its investments are concentrated in that area, which would result in lower investment returns. This lack of diversification may expose a fund to losses disproportionate to market declines in general if there are disproportionately greater adverse price movements in the particular investments. If a fund holds investments concentrated in a particular issuer, security, asset class or geographic region, such fund may be more susceptible than a more widely diversified investment partnership to the negative consequences of a single corporate, economic, political or regulatory event. Accordingly, a lack of diversification on the part of a fund could adversely affect a fund’s performance and, as a result, our financial condition and results of operations.

Before making investments, we conduct due diligence that we deem reasonable and appropriate based on the facts and circumstances applicable to each investment. When conducting due diligence, we may be required to evaluate important and complex business, financial, tax, accounting, environmental and legal issues. The due diligence investigation that we will carry

Once we have made an investment in a portfolio company, our funds generally establish the capital structure on the basis of financial projections prepared by the management of such portfolio company. These projections are only estimates of future results that are based upon assumptions made at the time that the projections are developed. General economic conditions, which are not predictable, along with other factors, may cause actual performance to fall short of the projections.

Additionally, we may cause our funds to acquire an investment that is subject to contingent liabilities. Such contingent liabilities could be unknown to us at the time of acquisition or, if they are known to us, we may not accurately assess or protect against the risks that they present. Acquired contingent liabilities could thus result in unforeseen losses for our funds. In addition, in connection with the disposition of an investment in a portfolio company, a fund may be required to make representations about the business and financial affairs of such portfolio company typical of those made in connection with the sale of a business. A fund may also be required to indemnify the purchasers of such investment if any such representations are inaccurate. These arrangements may result in the incurrence of contingent liabilities by a fund, even after the disposition of an investment. Accordingly, the inaccuracy of representations and warranties made by a fund could harm such fund’s performance.

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

Investments in our real estate funds will be subject to the risks inherent in the ownership and operation of real estate and real estate-related businesses and assets. These risks include the following:

Although real estate values have generally rebounded with the rest of the economy, other than certain high profile assets in the best markets, various factors could halt or limit a recovery in the housing market.

If our real estate funds acquire direct or indirect interests in undeveloped land or underdeveloped real property, which may often be non-income producing, they will be subject to the risks normally associated with such assets and development

The energy companies in which certain of our funds invest have been and will be negatively impacted by material declines in energy related commodity prices and are subject to other risks, including among others, supply and demand risk, operational risk, regulatory risk, depletion risk, reserve risk and catastrophic event risk. Commodity prices fluctuate for several reasons, including changes in market and economic conditions, the impact of weather on demand, levels of domestic production and international production, policies implemented by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, energy conservation, domestic and foreign governmental regulation and taxation and the availability of local, intrastate and interstate transportation systems.

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

While such hedging arrangements may reduce certain risks, such arrangements themselves may entail certain other risks. These arrangements may require the posting of cash collateral at a time when a fund has insufficient cash or illiquid assets such that the posting of the cash is either impossible or requires the sale of assets at prices that do not reflect their underlying value. Moreover, these hedging arrangements may generate significant transaction costs, including potential tax costs, that reduce the returns generated by a fund. Finally, the CFTC has made several public statements that it may soon issue a proposal for certain foreign exchange products to be subject to mandatory clearing, which could increase the cost of entering into currency hedges.

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

We believe that we are engaged primarily in the business of providing investment management services and not primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. We hold ourselves out as an asset management firm and do not propose to engage primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Accordingly, we do not believe that we are an “orthodox” investment company as defined in Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act and described in the first bullet point above. Furthermore, we have no material assets other than interests in certain direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries (within the meaning of the Investment Company Act), which in turn have no material assets other than partnership units in the Ares Operating Group entities. These wholly owned subsidiaries are the general partners of certain of the Ares Operating Group entities and are vested with all management and control over such Ares Operating Group entities. We do not believe that the equity interests of Ares Management, L.P. in its wholly owned subsidiaries or the partnership units of these wholly owned subsidiaries in the Ares Operating Group entities are investment securities. Moreover, because we believe that the capital interests

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

Our general partner manages all of our operations and activities. On January 31 of each year, our general partner will determine whether the total voting power held collectively by (i) holders of the special voting unitsshares in Ares Management, L.P. (including our general partner, members of Ares Partners Holdco LLC and their respective affiliates), (ii) then-current or former Ares personnel (including indirectly through related entities) and (iii) Ares Owners Holdings L.P. is at least 10% of the voting power of the outstanding voting unitsshares of Ares Management, L.P. (the “Ares control condition”). For purposes of determining whether the Ares control condition is satisfied, our general partner will treat as outstanding, and as held by the foregoing persons, all voting unitsshares deliverable to such persons pursuant to equity awards granted to such persons. If the Ares control condition is satisfied, the board of directors of our general partner has no authority other than that which its member chooses to delegate to it. If the Ares control condition is not satisfied, the board of directors of our general partner will be responsible for the oversight of our business and operations. See “Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance-Limited Powers of Our Board of Directors.”

Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, our common unitholdersshareholders have limited voting rights and have no right to remove our general partner or, except in the limited circumstances described below, elect the directors of our general partner. Our common unitholdersshareholders have no right to elect the directors of our general partner unless the Ares control condition is not satisfied. For so long as the Ares control condition is satisfied, our general partner’s board of directors will beis elected in accordance with its limited liability company agreement, which provides that directors may beare appointed and removed by Ares Partners Holdco LLC, the member of our general partner. Ares Partners Holdco LLC is owned by the Holdco Members and managed by a board of managers, which is composed of Messrs. Arougheti, Berry, de Veer, Kaplan, McFerran, Ressler and Rosenthal (the “Managers”). DecisionsRosenthal. Mr. Ressler has veto power over decisions by the board of managers generally are made by a majority of the Managers, which majority, subject to a minimum ownership requirement, must include Antony P. Ressler.managers. As a result, our common unitholdersshareholders have limited ability to influence decisions regarding our businesses.

Ares Voting LLC, an entity wholly owned by Ares Partners Holdco LLC, which is in turn owned and controlled by the Holdco Members, holds a special voting unitshare that provides it with a number of votes, on any matter that may be submitted for a vote of our common unitholdersshareholders (voting together as a single class on all such matters), that is equal to the aggregate number of Ares Operating Group Units held by the limited partners of the Ares Operating Group entities that do not hold a special voting unit.share. The Holdco Members, through Ares Owners Holdings L.P. and the special voting unitshare held by Ares Voting LLC, hold approximately 72.13%71.59% of the voting power of Ares Management, L.P. Accordingly, the Holdco Members have sufficient voting power to determine the outcome of those few matters that may be submitted for a vote of our common unitholders.shareholders.

Our common unitholders’shareholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the provision in our partnership agreement that states that any common unitsshares held by a person that beneficially owns 20% or more of any class of our common unitsshares then outstanding (other than our general partner, Ares Owners Holdings L.P., a member of Ares Partners Holdco LLC or their respective affiliates,

As a result of these matters and the provisions referred to under “-Our common unitholdersshareholders do not elect our general partner or, except in limited circumstances, vote on our general partner’s directors and have limited ability to influence decisions regarding our businesses,” our common unitholdersshareholders may be deprived of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common unitsshares in the future through a sale of Ares Management, L.P., and the trading prices of our common unitsshares may be adversely affected by the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Conflicts of interest may arise among our general partner or its affiliates or associates, on the one hand, and us or our preferred and common unitholders,shareholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our general partner, which is wholly owned by Ares Partners Holdco LLC, which is in turn owned and controlled by the Holdco Members, may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates or associates (including the Holdco Members) over our interests or the interests of our preferred and common unitholders.shareholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following:

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that waive or consent to conduct by our general partner or its affiliates or associates that might otherwise raise issues about compliance with fiduciary duties or applicable law. For example, our partnership agreement provides that when our general partner is acting in its individual capacity, as opposed to in its capacity as our general partner, it or any of its affiliates or associates causing it to do so may act without any duties (including fiduciary duties) or obligations to us or our preferred and common unitholdersshareholders whatsoever. When our general partner, in its capacity as our general partner, is permitted to or required to make a decision in its “sole discretion” or “discretion” or under a grant of similar authority or latitude or pursuant to any provision not subject to an express standard of “good faith,” then our general partner is entitled to consider only such interests and factors as it desires, including its own interests or the interests of the Holdco Members, and has no duty or obligation (fiduciary or otherwise) to give any consideration to any interest of or factors affecting us or any preferred and common unitholdersshareholders and is not subject to any different standards imposed by our partnership agreement, or otherwise existing at law, in equity or otherwise. These provisions are expressly permitted by Delaware law. Unless our general partner breaches its obligations pursuant to our partnership agreement, we and our preferred and common unitholdersshareholders do not have any recourse against our general partner even if our general partner were to act in a manner that was inconsistent with traditional fiduciary duties. Furthermore, even if there has been a breach of our partnership agreement, our partnership agreement provides that our general partner and its members, managers, officers and directors will not be liable to us or our preferred and common unitholdersshareholders for any acts or omissions unless there has been a final and non-appealable judgment entered by a court of competent jurisdiction determining that the general partner or its members, managers, officers or directors acted in bad faith or with criminal intent. These modifications are detrimental to the preferred and common unitholdersshareholders because they restrict the remedies available to preferred and common unitholdersshareholders for actions that without those limitations might constitute breaches of duty (including fiduciary duty).

Whenever a potential conflict of interest exists between us, any of our subsidiaries or any of our partners and our general partner or its affiliates or associates, our general partner may resolve such conflict of interest in good faith. If our general partner subjectively believes that its resolution of the conflict of interest is not opposed to our best interests, then it will be conclusively deemed that its resolution was made in good faith and will not be a breach of our partnership agreement or any duty. A preferred or common unitholdershareholder seeking to challenge this resolution of the conflict of interest would bear the burden of overcoming such presumption. This is different from the situation with Delaware corporations, where a conflict resolution by an interested party would be presumed to be unfair and the interested party would have the burden of demonstrating that the resolution was fair.

Also, if our general partner obtains the approval of its conflicts committee or a majority of the voting units,shares, the resolution will be conclusively deemed approved by us and our preferred and common unitholdersshareholders and not a breach of our partnership agreement (or any agreement referred to therein) or of any duties that our general partner or its affiliates or associates may owe to us or our preferred and common unitholders.shareholders. This is different from the situation with Delaware corporations, where a conflict resolution by a committee consisting solely of independent directors may, in certain circumstances, merely shift the burden of demonstrating unfairness to the plaintiff. Preferred and common unitholdersshareholders are treated as having consented to the provisions

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

As a public entity, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”). These requirements may place a strain on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting, and requires our management and independent auditors to report annually on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. To maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, significant resources and management oversight is required. We have implemented procedures and processes to address the standards and requirements applicable to public companies. If we are not able to maintain the necessary procedures and processes, we may be unable to report our financial information on a timely or accurate basis, which could subject us to adverse regulatory consequences, including sanctions by the CommissionSEC or violations of applicable NYSE listing rules, and result in a breach of the covenants under the agreements governing any of our financing arrangements. Preparing our consolidated financial statements involves a number of complex manual and automated processes, which are dependent on individual data input or review and require significant management judgment. One or more of these elements may result in errors that may not be detected and could result in a material misstatement of our consolidated financial statements. There could also be a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of investor confidence in us and the reliability of our financial statements. Confidence in the reliability of our financial statements could also suffer if our independent registered public accounting firm were to report a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting. This could have a material adverse effect on us and lead to a decline in the price of our common units.shares.

In addition, sustaining our growth also requires us to commit additional management, operational, and financial resources to identify new professionals to join the firm and to maintain appropriate operational and financial systems to adequately support expansion. These activities may divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our general partner may transfer all or any part of its general partner interest without the consent of our common unitholders.shareholders. Furthermore, at any time, the member of our general partner may sell or transfer all or part of its interests in our general partner without the approval of the common unitholders.shareholders. A new general partner may not be willing or able to form new funds and could form funds that have investment objectives and governing terms that differ materially from those of our current funds. A new owner could also have a different investment philosophy, employ investment professionals who are less experienced, be unsuccessful in identifying investment opportunities or have a track record that is not as successful as our track record. If any of the foregoing were to occur, we could experience difficulty in making new investments, and the value of our existing investments, our businesses, our results of operations and our financial condition could materially suffer.

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

The declaration and payment of any future distributions will be at the sole discretion of our general partner, which may change our distribution policy at any time. There can be no assurance that any distributions, whether quarterly or otherwise, can or will be paid. Our ability to make cash distributions to our common unitholdersshareholders depends on a number of factors, including among other things, general economic and business conditions, our strategic plans and prospects, our businesses and investment opportunities, our financial condition and operating results, working capital requirements and other anticipated cash needs, contractual restrictions and obligations, including fulfilling our current and future capital commitments, legal, tax and regulatory restrictions, restrictions and other implications on the payment of distributions by us to our common unitholdersshareholders or by our subsidiaries to us, payments required pursuant to the tax receivable agreement and such other factors as our general partner may deem relevant.

Under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the “Delaware Limited Partnership Act”), we may not make a distribution to a partner if after the distribution all our liabilities, other than liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interests and liabilities for which the recourse of creditors is limited to specific property of the partnership, would exceed the fair value of our assets. If we were to make such an impermissible distribution, any limited partner who received a distribution and knew at the time of the distribution that the distribution was in violation of the Delaware Limited Partnership Act would be liable to us for the amount of the distribution for three years. In addition, the terms of the Credit Facility or other financing arrangements may from time to time include covenants or other restrictions that could constrain our ability to make distributions. In addition, the Ares Operating Group’s cash flow may be insufficient to enable them to make required minimum tax distributions to their members and partners, in which case the Ares Operating Group may have to borrow funds or sell assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and financial condition. Our partnership agreement contains provisions authorizing us to issue additional partnership interests that have designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties that are different from, and may be senior to, those applicable to our common unitsshares on the terms and conditions determined by our general partner in its sole discretion at any time without common unitholdershareholder approval.

Furthermore, by making cash distributions rather than investing that cash in our businesses, we risk slowing the pace of our growth, or not having a sufficient amount of cash to fund our operations, new investments or unanticipated capital expenditures, should the need arise.

The holders of Ares Operating Group Units, subject to any applicable transfer restrictions and other provisions, may, on a quarterly basis, from and after May 7, 2016 (the second anniversary of the date of the closing of our initial public offering) (subject to the terms of the exchange agreement), exchange their Ares Operating Group Units for our common unitsshares on a one-for-one basis (provided that Alleghany may exchange up to half of its Ares Operating Group Units from and after the first anniversary of our initial public offering and former employees of EIF and their related parties are entitled to exchange all of their Ares Operating Group Units) or, at our option, for cash. A holder of Ares Operating Group Units must exchange one Ares Operating Group Unit in each of the three Ares Operating Group entities to effect an exchange for a common unitshare of Ares Management, L.P. SubsequentThese exchanges are expected to result in increases (for U.S. federal income tax purposes) in the tax basis of the tangible and intangible assets of the relevant Ares Operating Group entity. These increases in tax basis generally will increase (for U.S. federal income tax purposes) depreciation and amortization deductions and potentially reduce gain on sales of assets and, therefore, reduce the amount of tax that Ares Management, L.P.’s direct subsidiaries that are taxable as corporations for U.S. federal tax purposes, which we refer to as the “corporate taxpayers,” would

We have entered into a tax receivable agreement with certain direct and indirect holders of AOGAres Operating Group Units (the “TRA Recipients”) that provides for the payment by the corporate taxpayersus to the TRA Recipients of 85% of the amount of cash tax

If the IRS were to challenge a tax basis increase (or the ability to amortize such increase), the TRA Recipients will not reimburse us for any payments previously made to them under the tax receivable agreement. The corporate taxpayers’Our ability to achieve benefits from any tax basis increase, and the payments to be made under the tax receivable agreement, will depend upon a number of factors, as discussed above, including the timing and amount of our future income. As a result, in certain circumstances, payments to the TRA Recipients under the tax receivable agreement could be in excess of the corporate taxpayers’our cash tax savings.

In addition, the tax receivable agreement provides that, upon a change of control, or if, at any time, the corporate taxpayer electswe elect an early termination of the tax receivable agreement, the corporate taxpayer'sour obligations under the tax receivables agreement with respect to exchanged or acquired unitsshares (whether exchanged or acquired before or after such change of control) would be based on certain assumptions, including that the corporate taxpayerwe would have sufficient taxable income to fully utilize the deductions arising from the increased tax deductions and tax basis and other benefits related to entering into the tax receivable agreement and, in the case of an early termination election, that any Ares Operating Group Units that have not been exchanged are deemed exchanged for the market value of the common unitsshares at the time of termination. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence-Tax Receivable Agreement.”

As a result of the tax gain inherent in our assets held by the Ares Operating Group at the time of this report, upon a realization event, certain direct and indirect holders of Ares Operating Group Units may incur different and potentially significantly greater tax liabilities as a result of the disproportionately greater allocations of items of taxable income and gain to such holders. As these direct and indirect holders will not receive a corresponding greater distribution of cash proceeds, they may, subject to applicable fiduciary or contractual duties, have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing, timing and other material terms of any sale, refinancing, or disposition, or whether to sell such assets at all. Decisions made with respect to an acceleration or deferral of income or the sale or disposition of assets with unrealized built-in tax gains may also influence the timing and amount of payments that are received by the TRA Recipients (including, among others, the Holdco Members and other executive officers) under the tax receivable agreement. In general, we anticipate that earlier disposition of assets with unrealized built-in tax gains following such exchange will tend to accelerate such payments and increase the present value of the tax receivable agreement, and disposition of assets with unrealized built-in tax gains before an exchange generally will increase an exchanging holder’s tax liability without giving rise to any rights to any payments under the tax receivable agreement. Decisions made regarding a change of control also could have a material influence on the timing and amount of payments received by the TRA Recipients pursuant to the tax receivable agreement.

We are a Delaware limited partnership and qualify for exceptions from certain corporate governance and other requirements of the rules of the NYSE. Pursuant to these exceptions, limited partnerships may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of the NYSE, including the requirements that (i) a majority of the board of directors of our general partner consist of independent directors, (ii) we have a nominating/corporate governance committee that is composed entirely of independent directors, (iii) we have a compensation committee that is composed entirely of independent directors and (iv) the compensation committee consider certain independence factors when engaging compensation consultants, legal counsel and other committee advisers. In addition, we are not required to hold annual meetings of our common unitholders.shareholders. We have availed ourselves of these exceptions. Accordingly, holders of our common unitsshares do not have the same protections afforded to equityholders of entities that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE.

Our partnership agreement provides that to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law the directors and officers of our general partner will not be liable to us unless they act in bad faith or with criminal intent. However, under the Delaware General Corporation Law, a director or officer would be liable to us for (i) breach of duty of loyalty to us or our equityholders, (ii) intentional misconduct or knowing violations of the law that are not done in good faith, (iii) improper redemption of unitsshares or declaration of dividend or (iv) a transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit. In addition, our partnership agreement provides that we indemnify the directors and officers of our general partner for acts or omissions to the fullest extent provided by law unless they act in bad faith or with criminal intent. However, under the Delaware General Corporation Law, a corporation can only indemnify directors and officers for acts or omissions if the director or officer acted in good faith, in a manner he reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation, and, in criminal action, if the officer or director had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful. Accordingly, our partnership agreement is less protective of the interests of our common unitholders,shareholders, when compared to the Delaware General Corporation Law, insofar as it relates to the exculpation and indemnification of officers and directors.

The market price of our common unitsshares may be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our common unitsshares may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. If the market price of our common unitsshares declines significantly, holders of our common unitsshares may be unable to resell their common unitsshares at or above their purchase price, if at all. The market price of our common unitsshares may fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect the price of our common unitsshares or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common unitsshares include:

In the past few years, stock markets have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. In the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against public companies. This type of litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources.

Common unitholdersshareholders will not directly participate in the performance of our underlying funds, and any benefits from such performance will directly inure to investors in those funds. Our common unitsshares are securities of Ares Management, L.P. only. While our historical consolidated financial information includes financial information, including assets and revenues, of our funds on a consolidated basis, and our future financial information will continue to consolidate certain of these funds, such assets and revenues are available to the fund and not to us except to a limited extent through management fees, performance fees, distributions and other proceeds arising from agreements with funds, as discussed in more detail in this report.Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The market price of our common unitsshares could decline as a result of sales of a large number of common unitsshares in the market in the future or the perception that such sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell common unitsshares in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate. Subject to the lock-up restrictions described below, we may issue and sell in the future additional common units.shares.

As of December 31, 2016,2017, our senior professional owners owned, indirectly, an aggregate of 117,928,313117,576,663 Ares Operating Group Units. We have entered into an exchange agreement with the holders of Ares Operating Group Units so that such holders, subject to any applicable transfer and other restrictions, may up to four times each year from and after May 7, 2016 (the second anniversary of the date of our initial public offering) (subject to the terms of the exchange agreement) exchange their Ares Operating Group Units for our common unitsshares on a one-for-one basis, (provided that Alleghany may exchange all of its Ares Operating Group Units from and after May 7, 2016), subject to customary conversion rate adjustments for splits, unitshare distributions and reclassifications, or, at our option, for cash. A holder of Ares Operating Group Units must exchange one Ares Operating Group Unit in each of the three Ares Operating Group entities to effect an exchange for a common unitshare of Ares Management, L.P. The common unitsshares we issue upon such exchanges would be “restricted securities,” as defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act, unless we register such issuances.

Ares Owners Holdings L.P., ADIA and Alleghany (together with ADIA, the “Strategic Investors”) have the right, under certain circumstances and subject to certain restrictions, to require us to register under the Securities Act common unitsshares delivered in exchange for Ares Operating Group Units or common unitsshares of Ares Management, L.P. otherwise held by them. In addition, we may be required to make available shelf registration statements permitting sales of common unitsshares into the market from time to time over an extended period. Lastly, Ares Owners Holdings L.P. and the Strategic Investors will have the ability to exercise certain piggyback registration rights in respect of common unitsshares held by them in connection with registered offerings requested by other registration rights holders or initiated by us. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence-Investor Rights Agreement.” See “Item 11. Executive Compensation-Director Compensation-Common UnitsShares and Ares Operating Group Units.” However, transfers may occur notwithstanding such restrictions pursuant to transactions or programs approved by our general partner.

Under our 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, we have grantedthere are options outstanding to purchase 24,835,22720,495,025 common unitsshares and 4,936,05113,751,888 restricted unitsshares outstanding to be settled in common units,shares, both of which are subject to specified vesting requirements, and were granted to certain of our senior professionals. During the course of 2016,2017, awards representing 2,367,5601,621,592 common unitsshares were forfeited and became available for issuance under the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan. As of December 31, 2016, 30,397,2802017, 26,284,165 additional common unitsshares were available for award under our 2014 Equity Incentive Plan. We have filed two registration statements and intend to file more registration statements on Form S-8 with the CommissionSEC covering the common unitsshares issuable under our 2014 Equity Incentive Plan. Subject to vesting and contractual lock-up arrangements (including through May 1, 2019 for restricted units

In addition, our partnership agreement authorizes us to issue an unlimited number of additional partnership securities

Distributions on the Series A Preferred UnitsShares are discretionary and non-cumulative. Holders of our Series A Preferred UnitsShares will only receive distributions when, as and if declared by the board of directors of our general partner. Consequently, if the board of directors of our general partner does not authorize and declare a distribution for a distribution period, holders of the Series A Preferred UnitsShares would not be entitled to receive any distribution for such distribution period, and such unpaid distribution will not be payable in such distribution period or in later distribution periods. We will have no obligation to pay distributions for a distribution period if the board of directors of our general partner does not declare such distribution before the scheduled record date for such period, whether or not distributions are declared or paid for any subsequent distribution period with respect to the Series A Preferred UnitsShares or any other preferred unitsshares we may issue. This may result in holders of the Series A Preferred UnitsShares not receiving the full amount of distributions that they expect to receive, or any distributions, and may make it more difficult to resell Series A Preferred UnitsShares or to do so at a price that the holder finds attractive. The board of directors of our general partner may, in its sole discretion, determine to suspend distributions on the Series A Preferred Units,Shares, which may have a material adverse effect on the market price of the Series A Preferred Units.Shares. There can be no assurances that our operations will generate sufficient cash flows to enable us to pay distributions on the Series A Preferred Units.Shares. Our financial and operating performance is subject to prevailing economic and industry conditions and to financial, business and other factors, some of which are beyond our control.

The OECD, which represents a coalition of member countries, has issued guidance through its BEPS project that contemplates changes to longstanding international tax norms that determine each country’s jurisdiction to tax cross-border international trade and profits. OnIn June 29, 2016,2017, almost 70 countries (excluding the Treasury Department andUnited States) formally signed the IRS issued final regulations that would require the parent entity of certain U.S. multinational enterprise groups to file an annual report that would provide information on a country-by-country basis related to the group’s income and taxes paid.Convention. These changes in law or guidance and additional proposals for reform, if enacted by the United States or by other countries in which we or our affiliates invest or doconduct business, or, even if not enacted, could adversely affect our investment returns, including, for example, by eliminating certain tax treaty benefits and increasing our tax compliance costs. Whether these or other proposals will be enacted by the United States or any foreign jurisdiction and in what form is unknown, as are the ultimate consequences of any such proposed legislation.

To comply with the publicly traded partnership rules under U.S. federal income tax law and other requirements,Effective March 1, 2018, we hold our interest in certain of our businesses through AHI and Ares Offshore Holdings Ltd., which are treatedhave elected to be taxed as corporationsa corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and may hold additional interests in other businesses through other entities treated as corporations. Such corporationspurposes. We could be liable for significant U.S. federal income taxes and applicable state and local taxes that would not otherwise be incurred if we were treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which could reduce the amount of cash available for distributions to holders of our common unitsshares and adversely affect the value of their investment.

In addition, the GP Mirror Units pay the same 7.00% rate per annum to our wholly owned subsidiaries, including AHI,us that we pay on our Series A Preferred Units.Shares. Although income allocated in respect of distributions on the GP Mirror Units made to AHIus is subject to tax, cash distributions to holders of Series A Preferred unitsShares will not be reduced on account of any income taxes owed by AHI.

Under Sections 1471 to 1474 of the Code (such Sections, along with the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, commonly referred to as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act or “FATCA”), a broadly defined class of foreign financial institutions are required to comply with a U.S. tax reporting regime or be subject to certain U.S. withholding taxes. The reporting obligations imposed under FATCA require foreign financial institutions to enter into agreements with the IRS to obtain and disclose information about certain account holders and investors to the IRS (or in the case of certain foreign financial institutions that are resident in a jurisdiction that has entered into an intergovernmental agreement (the “IGA”) to implement this legislation, to comply with comparable non-U.S. laws implementing the IGA). Additionally, certain non-U.S. entities that are not foreign financial institutions are required to provide certain certifications or other information regarding their U.S. beneficial ownership or be subject to certain U.S. withholding taxes under FATCA. Failure to comply with these requirements could expose us and/or our investors to a 30% withholding tax on certain U.S. payments (and beginning in 2019, a 30% withholding tax on gross proceeds from the sale of U.S. stocks and securities), and possibly limit our ability to open bank accounts and secure funding in the global capital markets. There are uncertainties regarding the implementation of FATCA and it is difficult to determine at this time what impact any future administrative guidance may have. The administrative and economic costs of compliance with FATCA may discourage some foreign investors from investing in U.S. funds, which could adversely affect our ability to raise funds from these investors or reduce the demand for our units.shares. Moreover, we expect to incur additional expenses related to our compliance with FATCA, which could increase our tax compliance costs generally. Other countries, such as the United KingdomUK and the Cayman Islands, have implemented regimes similar to that of FATCA.

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

For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, our deduction of net business interest expenses for each taxable year is limited generally to 30% of our direct subsidiaries“adjusted taxable income,” which is an amount that are treatedis similar to EBITDA for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022, and similar to earnings before interest and taxes (“EBIT”) for taxable years beginning after