Ares Management Corp - Annual Report: 2015 (Form 10-K)

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10‑K

ARES MANAGEMENT, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well‑known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐  No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐  No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days: Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S‑T (Section §232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S‑K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10‑K or any amendment to this Form 10‑K. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non‑accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act:

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐  No ☒

The aggregate market value of the common units held by non‑affiliates of the registrant on June 30, 2015, based on the closing price on that date of $18.50 on the New York Stock Exchange, was approximately $853,516,888.  As of February 24, 2016, there were 80,683,942 of the registrant’s common units representing limited partner interests outstanding.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Forward‑Looking Statements

This report contains forward‑looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which reflect our current views with respect to, among other things, future events and financial performance. You can identify these forward‑looking statements by the use of forward‑looking words such as “outlook,” “believes,” “expects,” “potential,” “continues,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “seeks,” “approximately,” “predicts,” “intends,” “plans,” “estimates,” “anticipates” or the negative version of those words or other comparable words. The forward‑looking statements are based on our beliefs, assumptions and expectations of our future performance, taking into account all information currently available to us. Such forward‑ looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties and assumptions relating to our operations, financial results, financial condition, business prospects, growth strategy and liquidity. Some of these factors are described in this report under the headings “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Risk Factors.” These factors should not be construed as exhaustive and should be read in conjunction with the risk factors and other cautionary statements that are included in this report and in our other periodic filings. If one or more of these or other risks or uncertainties materialize, or if our underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect, our actual results may vary materially from those indicated in these forward‑looking statements. New risks and uncertainties arise over time, and it is not possible for us to predict those events or how they may affect us. Therefore, you should not place undue reliance on these forward‑looking statements. Any forward‑looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made. We do not undertake any obligation to publicly update or review any forward‑looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as required by law.

Prior to the reorganization on May 1, 2014 in connection with our initial public offering (the “Reorganization”), our business was conducted through operating subsidiaries held directly or indirectly by Ares Holdings LLC and Ares Investments LLC (or “AI”). These two entities were principally owned by Ares Partners Management Company LLC (“APMC”), the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and its affiliate (collectively, “ADIA”) and an affiliate of Alleghany Corporation (NYSE: Y) (such affiliate, “Alleghany”). ADIA and Alleghany each own minority interests with limited voting rights in our business. Ares Management, L.P. was formed on November 15, 2013 to serve as a holding partnership for our businesses. Prior to the consummation of our initial public offering, Ares Management, L.P. had not commenced operations and had nominal assets and liabilities. Unless the context suggests otherwise, references in this report to (1) “Ares,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to our businesses, both before and after the consummation of our reorganization into a holding partnership structure and (2) our “Predecessors” refer to Ares Holdings Inc. (“AHI”) and Ares Investments LLC, our accounting predecessors, as well as their wholly owned subsidiaries and managed funds, in each case prior to the Reorganization. References in report to “our general partner” refer to Ares Management GP LLC, an entity wholly owned by Ares Partners Holdco LLC, which is in turn owned and controlled by our Co‑ Founders. References in this report to the “Ares Operating Group” refer to, collectively, Ares Holdings L.P. (“Ares Holdings”), Ares Domestic Holdings L.P. (“Ares Domestic”), Ares Offshore Holdings L.P. (“Ares Offshore”), Ares Investments L.P. (“Ares Investments”) and Ares Real Estate Holdings L.P. (“Ares Real Estate”). References in this report to an “Ares Operating Group Unit” or an “AOG Unit” refer to, collectively, a partnership unit in each of the Ares Operating Group entities.

Under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”), we are required to consolidate (a) entities other than limited partnerships and entities similar to limited partnerships in which we hold a majority voting interest or have majority ownership and control over the operational, financial and investing decisions of that entity, including Ares‑affiliates and affiliated funds and co‑investment entities, for which we are presumed to have controlling financial interests, and (b) entities that we concluded are variable interest entities (“VIEs”), including limited partnerships and the CLOs, for which we are deemed to be the primary beneficiary. When a fund is consolidated, we reflect the assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and cash flows of the fund in our condensed consolidated financial statements on a gross basis, subject to eliminations from consolidation, including the elimination of the management fees, performance fees and other fees that we earn from Consolidated Funds. However, the presentation of performance fee compensation and other expenses associated with generating such revenues are not affected by the consolidation process. In addition, as a result of the consolidation process, the net income attributable to third‑party investors in Consolidated Funds is presented as net income attributable to redeemable interests and non‑controlling interests in Consolidated Funds in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

In this report, in addition to presenting our results on a consolidated basis in accordance with GAAP, we present revenues, expenses and other results on a (i) “segment basis,” which deconsolidates these funds and therefore shows the results of our reportable segments without giving effect to the consolidation of the funds and (ii) “Stand Alone basis,” which shows the results of our reportable segments on a combined segment basis together with our Operations Management Group. In addition to our four segments, we have an Operations Management Group (the “OMG”) that consists of five independent, shared resource groups to support our reportable segments by providing infrastructure and administrative support in the areas of accounting/finance, operations/information technology, business development, legal/compliance and human resources. The OMG’s expenses are not allocated to our four reportable segments but we consider the cost structure of the OMG when evaluating our financial performance. This information constitutes non‑GAAP financial information within the meaning of Regulation G, as promulgated by the SEC. Our management uses this information to assess the performance of our reportable segments and our Operations Management Group, and we believe that this information enhances the ability of unitholders to analyze our performance. For more information, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Consolidation and Deconsolidation of Ares Funds,” “—Managing Business Performance—Non‑GAAP Financial Measures” and “—Segment Analysis—ENI and Other Measures.”

When used in this report, unless the context otherwise requires:

Many of the terms used in this report, including AUM, fee earning AUM, ENI, FRE, PRE and distributable earnings, may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies. In addition, our definitions of AUM and fee earning AUM are not based on any definition of AUM or fee earning AUM that is set forth in the agreements governing the investment funds that we manage and may differ from definitions of AUM set forth in other agreements to which we are a party from time to time. Further, ENI, FRE, PRE and distributable earnings are not measures of performance calculated in accordance with GAAP. We use ENI, FRE, PRE and distributable earnings as measures of operating performance, not as measures of liquidity. ENI, FRE, PRE and distributable earnings should not be considered in isolation or as substitutes for operating income, net income, operating cash flows, or other income or cash flow statement data prepared in accordance with GAAP. The use of ENI, FRE, PRE and distributable earnings without consideration of related GAAP measures is not adequate due to the adjustments described above. Our management compensates for these limitations by using ENI, FRE, PRE and distributable earnings as supplemental measures to our GAAP results, to provide a more complete understanding of our performance as our management measures it. Amounts and percentages throughout this report may reflect rounding adjustments and consequently totals may not appear to sum.

 

PART I.

Item 1.  Business

BUSINESS

Overview

Ares is a leading global alternative asset manager with approximately $94 billion of assets under management and approximately 870 employees in over 15 offices across the United States, Europe and Asia. We offer our investors a range of investment strategies and seek to deliver attractive performance to a growing investor base that includes approximately 680 direct institutional relationships and a significant retail investor base across our publicly traded and sub‑advised funds. Since our inception in 1997, we have adhered to a disciplined investment philosophy that focuses on delivering strong risk‑adjusted investment returns through market cycles. Ares believes each of its distinct but complementary investment groups, which as of December 31, 2015 were organized in four business lines comprised of Tradable Credit, Direct Lending, Private Equity and Real Estate, is a market leader based on assets under management and investment performance. In February 2016, we announced the combination of the Tradable Credit and Direct Lending Groups to form the Credit Group and now operate through three business lines. We believe we have created value for our stakeholders not only through our investment performance but also by expanding our product offering, enhancing our distribution channels, increasing our global presence, investing in our non‑investment functions, securing strategic partnerships and completing accretive acquisitions and portfolio purchases.

As shown in the chart below, over the past five and ten years, our assets under management have achieved a compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of 17% and 28%, respectively. Our AUM has grown to approximately $94 billion as of December 31, 2015, from approximately $8 billion a decade earlier. 

We have an established track record of delivering strong risk‑adjusted returns through market cycles. We believe our consistent and strong performance in a broad range of alternative assets has been shaped by several distinguishing features of our platform:

Integrated Investment Platform

We operate our increasingly diversified and global firm as an integrated investment platform with a collaborative culture that emphasizes sharing of knowledge and expertise. We believe the exchange of information enhances our ability to analyze investments, deploy capital and improve the performance of our funds and portfolio companies. Through collaboration, we drive value by leveraging our capital markets relationships and access to deal flow. The management of our operating businesses is currently overseen by our Management Committee, which is comprised of our executive officers and other heads of various investment and operating groups, and ultimately by our Co-Founders. The Management Committee meets bi-weekly to discuss asset deployment, strategy and fundraising. Additionally, we have a Global Markets Committee comprised of over 30 senior investment professionals from various investment groups around the world who meet monthly to discuss market trends and issues affecting specific investment groups. Within this framework, we have established deep and sophisticated independent research capabilities in over 50 industries and insights from active investments in over 1,100 companies, 525 structured assets and 155 properties. Further, our extensive network of investment professionals includes local and geographically positioned individuals with the knowledge, experience and relationships that enable them to identify and take advantage of a wide range of investment opportunities. These professionals are supported by a highly sophisticated operations management team. We believe this broad and deep platform and our operational infrastructure provide us with a scalable foundation to expand our product offering, geographic scope and profitability.

Breadth, Depth and Tenure of our Senior Management

Ares was built upon the fundamental principle that each of our distinct but complementary investment groups benefits from being part of our broader platform. We believe that our strong performance, consistent growth and high talent retention through economic cycles is due largely to the effective application of this principle across our broad

organization of approximately 870 employees. We do not have a centralized investment committee and instead our investment committees are structured with overlapping membership from different investment groups to ensure consistency of approach. Each of our investment groups is led by its own deep leadership team of highly accomplished investment professionals, who average over 23 years of experience managing investments in, advising, underwriting and restructuring companies. While primarily focused on managing strategies within their own investment group, these senior professionals are integrated within our platform through economic, cultural and structural measures. Our senior professionals have the opportunity to participate in the incentive programs of multiple investment groups to reward collaboration across our investment activities. This collaboration takes place on a daily basis but is formally promoted through sophisticated internal systems and widely attended weekly or monthly meetings.

2015 Highlights

Fundraising

In 2015, we raised approximately $23.0 billion in gross new capital for more than 60 different funds. Of the $23.0 billion, approximately $18.5 billion was raised directly from 191 institutional investors (122 existing and 69 new to Ares) and approximately $4.6 billion was raised through intermediaries. 

Capital Deployment

We took advantage of our diverse global platform to invest more than $20.5 billion globally in 2015, including $7.2 billion in U.S. direct lending, $4.1 billion in our long‑only credit strategy, $2.6 billion in European direct lending, $1.9 billion in private equity (including $1.0 billion in corporate private equity and $0.9 billion in power private equity), $1.2 billion in real estate equity and $785 million in real estate debt. Of the $20.5 billion invested, $9.0 billion was tied to our drawdown funds, up from $4.3 billion for the twelve months ended December 31, 2014. Of the $9.0 billion, $3.3 billion was driven by investments in European and U.S. direct lending, $2.4 billion in various tradable credit strategies, $1.7 billion in corporate and power private equity and $1.6 billion in real estate debt and equity strategies.

Strategic Acquisitions

In 2015, we expanded the depth and breadth of our Direct Lending and Private Equity Groups through two strategic and complementary acquisitions.

Energy Investor Funds

On January 1, 2015, we completed the acquisition of Energy Investors Funds (“EIF”), a leading asset manager in the power and energy industry with approximately $4.6 billion of AUM across four commingled, private equity funds and related co‑investment vehicles. The acquisition expands our Private Equity Group’s capabilities into power generation, midstream energy infrastructure and transmission, a complementary and strategically important asset class in the alternative sector. The team that joined Ares from EIF includes approximately 40 professionals.

First Capital Holdings

In the second quarter of 2015, ACF Finco I L.P., a wholly owned subsidiary of Ares Commercial Finance L.P. (“ACF”), a fund within the Direct Lending Group, acquired the asset-based loan portfolio from First Capital Holdings, Inc. (“First Capital”), a leading specialty finance company that provides asset-based loans.  In conjunction with the transaction, we hired 30 commercial finance professionals from First Capital, expanding our commercial finance team to 49 professionals in 5 offices. 

Investment Groups

Each of our investment groups employs a disciplined, credit‑oriented investment philosophy and is managed by a seasoned leadership team of senior professionals with extensive experience investing in, advising, underwriting and restructuring companies, power and energy assets, or real estate properties. In the first quarter of 2016, we announced the combination of our Tradable Credit and Direct Lending Groups to form a single segment called the Ares Credit Group to manage Ares’ broad array of credit products in a more effective manner. 

Tradable Credit Group

Our Tradable Credit Group is a leading participant in the tradable, non‑investment grade corporate credit markets, with approximately $30 billion of assets under management as of December 31, 2015. The group manages various types of investment funds, ranging from commingled and separately managed accounts for institutional investors to publicly traded vehicles and sub‑advised funds for retail investors. A key to our performance is our robust research team of approximately 40 analysts that support our nearly 20 highly respected portfolio managers and traders. Based in Los Angeles, London, and New York, our analysts have on average over ten years of experience and are organized by industry

rather than asset class, which we believe enables them to effectively assess relative value across the capital structure within their areas of expertise, from traditional corporate credit to alternative credit. While each of the group’s 80 funds is tailored to specific investment objectives, mandates can be broadly categorized between long‑only credit and alternative credit investment strategies.

Tradable Credit Group long‑only credit:  Our long‑only investment funds primarily seek to outperform the corresponding performing bank loan or high-yield market indices. This strategy encompasses senior bank loans (principally first lien and secured debt), second lien loans, high yield bonds and unsecured loans.

Primary areas of focus for our Tradable Credit Group’s long‑only credit teams include:

Tradable Credit Group alternative credit:  Our alternative credit investment funds primarily seek to deliver compelling absolute risk‑adjusted returns relative to publicly traded stocks, hedge funds, distressed funds, bank loans, high yield bonds or other investment types. This strategy encompasses dynamic credit and credit opportunities funds, both of which allocate capital across senior secured debt, unsecured debt, stressed/distressed debt and structured assets, subject to our investment professionals’ views of relative value at different points of an economic cycle. Our special situations funds capitalize on current and anticipated stressed and distressed credit opportunities focusing on debtor‑in‑possession loans, exit and rescue financings, post‑reorganization equities, self‑originated investments in specialty finance companies, directly negotiated purchases of non‑performing or non‑core assets divested by financial institutions, collateralized loan obligation vehicles and global structured assets.

Primary areas of focus for our Tradable Credit Group’s alternative credit teams include:

The following table presents the Tradable Credit Group’s AUM, FEAUM and number of funds as of December 31, 2015 per investment strategy (dollars in billions).

 

Direct Lending Group

Our Direct Lending Group is one of the largest self‑originating direct lenders to the U.S. and European markets, with approximately $33 billion of assets under management across approximately 45 funds or investment vehicles as of December 31, 2015. Our Direct Lending Group has a multi‑channel origination strategy designed to address a broad set of investment opportunities in the middle market. We focus on being the lead or sole lender to our portfolio companies, which we believe allows us to exert greater influence over deal terms, capital structure, documentation, fees and pricing, while at the same time securing our position as a preferred source of financing for our transaction partners. The group maintains a flexible investment strategy, with the capability to invest in revolving credit facilities, first and second lien senior loans, mezzanine debt and non‑control equity co‑investments in middle market companies, power generation projects and early stage and emerging growth companies backed by venture capital firms. We manage various types of funds within our U.S. and European Direct Lending teams that include commingled funds, separately managed accounts for large institutional investors seeking tailored investment solutions and joint venture lending programs.

U.S. Direct Lending:  Our U.S. team is comprised of approximately 105 investment professionals in six offices. Our team maintains an active dialogue with more than 400 financial sponsors and provides a wide range of financing solutions to middle‑market companies that typically range from $10 to $100 million in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”). As of December 31, 2015, our U.S. Direct Lending team and its affiliates advised 30 funds totaling, in aggregate, approximately $24.3 billion in AUM. Our U.S. Direct Lending team manages corporate lending activities primarily through our inaugural vehicle and publicly traded business development company, ARCC.

Primary areas of focus for our U.S. Direct Lending teams include:

Ares Capital Corporation:  ARCC is a leading specialty finance company that provides one-stop debt and equity financing solutions to U.S. middle market companies, venture capital backed businesses and power generation projects. As of December 31, 2015, ARCC was the largest business development company by total assets.

 

ARCC and General Electric Capital Corporation and GE Global Sponsor Finance LLC (collectively, "GE") have co-invested in first lien senior secured loans of middle market companies through the Senior Secured Loan Fund LLC (the “SSLP”). As of December 31, 2015, ARCC and GE had agreed to make capital available to the SSLP of $8.7 billion, of which approximately $2.0 billion was funded by ARCC. In August 2015, GE completed the sale of its U.S. Sponsor Finance business, through which GE had participated with ARCC in the SSLP, to Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This sale excluded GE’s interest in the SSLP, and ARCC and GE continue to operate the SSLP. ARCC and GE no longer have an obligation to present senior secured lending investment opportunities to the SSLP and since June 30, 2015, the SSLP has not made any investments related to new portfolio companies. We anticipate that no new investments will be made by the SSLP; however, ARCC and GE may provide capital to support the SSLP’s funding of existing commitments and other amounts to the SSLP’s portfolio companies.

 

In December 2015, ARCC established a new joint venture with Varagon Capital Partners to make certain first lien senior secured loans, including certain stretch senior and unitranche loans, to U.S. middle-market companies. Varagon was formed in 2013 as a lending platform by American International Group, Inc. (NYSE:AIG) and other partners. The new joint venture is called the Senior Direct Lending Program (the “SDLP”). During the year ended December 31, 2015, ARCC entered into an agreement with the SDLP to sell certain of its investments to the SDLP at a

mutually agreed upon price on a future date.

 

Other U.S. funds:  Outside of ARCC and its controlled affiliates, the U.S. Direct Lending Group also generates fees from other funds, including Ares Commercial Finance, which makes asset‑based and cash flow loans to middle‑market companies, as well as asset‑based loans and debt investments in specialty finance companies and separately managed accounts for large institutional investors. AUM for these other U.S. Direct Lending Group funds totaled $3.9 billion as of December 31, 2015.

European Direct Lending:  Our European team is comprised of approximately 35 investment professionals in five offices. Our team covers approximately 160 financial sponsors and is one of the most significant participants in the European middle‑market. We provide a wide range of financing opportunities to middle‑market companies that typically range from €10 to €75 million in EBITDA. As of December 31, 2015, our European Direct Lending Group advised 16 commingled funds and managed accounts, aggregating approximately $8.4 billion in AUM.

The following table presents the Direct Lending Group’s AUM, FEAUM and number of funds as of December 31, 2015 (dollars in billions):

 

Private Equity Group

Our Private Equity Group has achieved compelling investment returns for a loyal and growing group of high profile limited partners and as of December 31, 2015 had approximately $21 billion of assets under management. Our Private Equity Group broadly categorizes its investment activities into three strategies: North American/European flexible capital, U.S. power and energy assets and China growth capital. Our private equity professionals have a demonstrated ability to deploy flexible capital, which allows them to stay both active and disciplined in various market environments. The group’s activities are managed by three dedicated investment teams in North America, Europe and China.

The following table presents the Private Equity Group’s AUM, FEAUM and number of funds as of December 31, 2015 (dollars in billions).

 

Real Estate Group

Our Real Estate Group manages comprehensive public and private equity and debt strategies, with approximately $10 billion of assets under management as of December 31, 2015. With our experienced team, along with our expansive network of relationships, our Real Estate Group capitalizes on opportunities across both real estate equity and debt investing. Our equity investments focus on implementing hands‑on value creation initiatives to mismanaged and capital‑starved assets, as well as new development, ultimately selling stabilized assets back into the market. Our debt strategies leverage the Real Estate Group’s diverse sources of capital to directly originate and manage commercial mortgage investments on properties that range from stabilized to requiring hands‑on value creation. The Real Estate Group has achieved significant scale in a short period of time through various acquisitions and successful fundraising efforts. Today, the group provides investors access to its capabilities through several vehicles: U.S. and European real estate private equity commingled funds, real estate equity and debt separately managed accounts and a publicly traded commercial mortgage REIT, ACRE. The group’s activities are managed by dedicated equity and debt teams in the U.S. and Europe.

Real Estate Equity:  Our real estate equity team, with approximately 50 investment professionals across six offices, has extensive private equity experience in the United States and Europe. Our team primarily invests in new developments and the repositioning of assets, with a focus on control or majority‑control investments primarily in the United States and Western Europe. As of December 31, 2015, our Real Estate equity team advised 46 investment vehicles totaling, in aggregate, approximately $7.7 billion in AUM.

Primary areas of focus for our Real Estate Group equity teams include:

Real Estate Debt:  Our real estate debt team has over 20 investment professionals, supported by approximately 100 professionals from ACRE Capital LLC (“ACRE Capital”), a wholly owned subsidiary of ACRE, across six offices. Our team directly originates and invests in a wide range of self‑originated financing opportunities for middle‑market owners and operators of commercial real estate. We primarily target investments in the United States and are expanding our presence into Western Europe. As of December 31, 2015, our Real Estate Group debt team advised three investment vehicles totaling, in the aggregate, approximately $2.6 billion in AUM. We also service a portfolio of over $6 billion in mortgage loans principally through ACRE Capital.

The following table presents the Real Estate Group’s AUM and number of funds as of December 31, 2015 per investment strategy (dollars in billions).

 

Product Offering

To meet investors’ growing demand for alternative asset investments, we manage investments in an increasingly comprehensive range of funds across a spectrum of compelling and complementary strategies. We have demonstrated an ability to consistently generate attractive and differentiated investment returns across these investment strategies and through various market environments. We believe the breadth of our product offering, our expertise in various investment strategies and our proficiency in attracting and satisfying our growing institutional and retail client base has enabled and will continue to enable us to increase our assets under management across each of our investment groups in a balanced manner. Our fundraising efforts historically have been spread across investment strategies and have not been dependent on the success of any one strategy. We offer the following strategies for our investors:

Investor Base and Fundraising

Our diverse investor base includes direct institutional relationships and a significant number of retail investors. Our high‑quality institutional investor base includes large pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, banks and insurance companies and we have grown the number of these relationships from approximately 200 in 2011 to approximately 680 in 2015. As of December 31, 2015, 61% of our approximately $94 billion in AUM was attributable to our direct institutional relationships.

As of December 31, 2015, our $94 billion of AUM was divided by channel, client type and geographic origin as follows:

 

 

 

 

Our investor base is highly diversified across three primary categories: direct institutional (61%), public entities and related (24%) and institutional intermediated (15%). Our investors are located around the world with 58% in North America, 21% in Europe and 21% in other geographies.

As of December 31, 2015, approximately 42% of our investors were committed to more than one fund, and approximately 38% were committed to between two and five funds, an increase from 24% and 22%, respectively, from December 31, 2011. We believe that the growing number of multi‑fund investors demonstrates our investors’ satisfaction with our performance, our disciplined management of their capital and our diverse product offering. Their loyalty has facilitated the growth of our existing businesses and we believe improves our ability to raise new funds and successor funds in existing strategies in the future.

Institutional investors are demonstrating a growing interest in separately managed accounts (“SMAs”) , which include contractual arrangements and single investor vehicles, because these accounts can provide investors with greater levels of transparency, liquidity and control over their investments as compared to more traditional commingled funds. As such, we expect our AUM that is managed through SMAs to continue to grow over time. As of December 31, 2015, approximately $17.9 billion, or 31%, of our direct institutional AUM was managed through SMAs compared to $6.4 billion, or 27%, as of December 31, 2011.

Our publicly traded entities, including ARCC, ACRE and Ares Dynamic Credit Allocation Fund, Inc., account for approximately 14% of our AUM. We have over 375 institutional investors and over 235,000 retail investor accounts across our three publicly traded vehicles.

We believe that client relationships are fundamental to our business and that our performance across our investment groups coupled with our focus on client service has resulted in strong relationships with our investors. Our dedicated and extensive in‑house Business Development Group, comprised of approximately 50 professionals located in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia, is dedicated to raising capital globally across all of our funds, servicing existing fund investors and tailoring offerings to meet their needs, developing products to complement our existing offerings, and deepening existing relationships to expand them across our platform. Our senior Relationship Management team maintains an active and transparent dialogue with an expansive list of investors. This team is supported by Product Managers and Investor Relations professionals, with deep experience in each of our four complementary investment groups, who are dedicated to servicing our existing and prospective investors.

Employees

We believe that one of the strengths and principal reasons for our success is the quality and dedication of our employees. We work to attract, develop and retain highly accomplished professionals across the firm. We believe that we employ individuals with a strong sense of commitment to our firm. As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately 870 employees, comprised of approximately 350 investment professionals and 400 operations management professionals, with the remainder in administrative support, located in over 15 offices across four continents.

Other Events

In the first quarter of 2016, we announced the combination of our Tradable Credit and Direct Lending Groups to form a single segment called the Ares Credit Group in order to manage Ares’ broad array of credit products in a more effective manner.  With total combined AUM of $62.2 billion and fee earning AUM of $50.1 billion as of December 31, 2015, the Credit Group will offer comprehensive and global credit management client solutions and be well positioned to capitalize on future growth opportunities. The Credit Group will specialize in liquid credit strategies, which include corporate loans, high yield bonds, institutional credit, and credit opportunities and illiquid credit strategies, which include special situations and direct lending. We do not expect any material changes to existing strategies, teams or portfolio management as a result of the combination.  Ares will begin reporting the new Credit Group as a single operating segment for the quarter ending March 31, 2016. All information for the year ended December 31, 2015 reflects the four operating segments that were in place during that period.

Organizational Structure

The simplified diagram below (which omits certain wholly owned intermediate holding companies) depicts our organizational structure. Ownership information in the diagram below is presented as of December 31, 2015.  All entities are organized in the state of Delaware unless otherwise indicated. Ares Management, L.P. is a holding partnership and, either directly or through direct subsidiaries, is the general partner of each of the Ares Operating Group entities, and

operates and controls the business and affairs of the Ares Operating Group. Ares Management, L.P. consolidates the financial results of the Ares Operating Group entities, their consolidated subsidiaries and certain consolidated funds.

Holding Partnership Structure

Ares Management, L.P. is treated as a partnership and not as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. An entity that is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes generally incurs no U.S. federal income tax liability at the entity level. Instead, each partner is required to take into account its allocable share of items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit of the partnership in computing its U.S. federal, state and local income tax liability each taxable year, whether or not cash distributions are made. Common unitholders are limited partners of Ares Management, L.P. Accordingly, common unitholders are required to report their allocable share of the income, gain, loss, deduction and credit of Ares Management, L.P., even if Ares Management, L.P. does not make cash distributions. The Ares Operating Group entities are treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, direct subsidiaries of Ares Management, L.P. that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes and that are the holders of Ares Operating Group Units are (and, in the case of Ares Offshore Holdings, Ltd., may be) subject to U.S. federal, state and local income taxes in respect of their interests in the Ares Operating Group entities.

Each of the Ares Operating Group entities has an identical number of partnership units outstanding. Ares Management, L.P. holds, directly or through direct subsidiaries, a number of Ares Operating Group Units equal to the number of common units that Ares Management, L.P. has issued. The Ares Operating Group Units held by Ares Management, L.P. and its subsidiaries are economically identical in all respects to the Ares Operating Group Units that are not held by Ares Management, L.P. and its subsidiaries. Accordingly, Ares Management, L.P. receives the income of the Ares Operating Group to the extent of its equity interest in the Ares Operating Group.

The Ares Operating Group Units and our common units held directly or indirectly by our senior professional owners are generally subject to restrictions on transfer and other provisions. See “Item 11. Executive Compensation.”

Certain Corporate Governance Considerations

Voting Rights.  Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, our common unitholders 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. On those few matters that may be submitted for a vote of our common unitholders, Ares Voting LLC, an entity wholly owned by Ares Partners Holdco LLC, which is in turn owned and controlled by our Co‑Founders, holds a special voting unit that provides it with a number of votes, on any matter that may be submitted for a vote of our common unitholders, 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. We refer to our common units (other than those held by any person whom our general partner may from time to time, with such person’s consent, designate as a non‑voting common unitholder) and our special voting units as “voting units.” Accordingly, on those few matters that may be submitted for a vote of our common unitholders, our public unitholders (other than ADIA) collectively have 5.44% of the voting power of Ares Management, L.P, and our Co‑Founders, through Ares Owners Holdings L.P. and the special voting unit held by Ares Voting LLC, have approximately 78% of the voting power of Ares Management, L.P. Our common unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the provision in our partnership agreement stating that any common units held by a person that beneficially owns 20% or more of any class of our common units then outstanding (other than our general partner, Ares Owners Holdings L.P., a member of Ares Partners Holdco LLC or their respective affiliates, a direct or subsequently approved transferee of our general partner or its affiliates or a person who acquired such common units with the prior approval of our general partner) cannot vote on any matter.

Election of Directors.    In general, our common unitholders have no right to elect the directors of our general partner. However, when our Co‑Founders and other then‑current or former Ares personnel directly or indirectly hold less than 10% of the limited partner voting power, our common unitholders will have the right to vote in the election of the directors of our general partner. This voting power condition will be measured on January 31 of each year, and will be triggered if the total voting power held collectively by (i) holders of the special voting units 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 less than 10% of the voting power of the outstanding voting units of Ares Management, L.P. 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 units deliverable to such persons pursuant to equity awards granted to such persons. Unless and until the foregoing voting power condition is satisfied, our general partner’s board of directors will be elected in accordance with its limited liability company agreement, which provides that directors generally may be appointed and removed by the member of our general partner, an entity owned and controlled by our Co‑Founders. Unless and until the foregoing voting power 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. In the event that the voting power condition is satisfied, the board of directors of our general partner will be responsible for the oversight of our business and operations.

Conflicts of Interest and Duties of Our General Partner.  Although our general partner does not engage in any business activities other than the management and operation of our businesses, conflicts of interest may arise in the future between us or our common unitholders, on the one hand, and our general partner or its affiliates or associates, on the other. The resolutions of these conflicts may not always be in our best interests or that of our common unitholders. In addition, we have fiduciary and contractual obligations to the investors in our funds and we expect to regularly take actions with respect to the purchase or sale of investments in our funds, the structuring of investment transactions for those funds or otherwise that are in the best interests of the investors in those funds but that might at the same time adversely affect our near term results of operations or cash flow.

Our partnership agreement limits the liability of, and reduces or eliminates the duties (including fiduciary duties) owed by, our general partner and its affiliates and associates to us and our common unitholders. Our partnership agreement also restricts the remedies available to common unitholders for actions that might otherwise constitute breaches of our general partner’s or its affiliates’ or associates’ duties (including fiduciary duties). Common unitholders are treated as having consented to the provisions set forth in our partnership agreement, including the provisions regarding conflicts of interest situations that, in the absence of such provisions, might be considered a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law.

Operations Management Group

The OMG consists of five independent, shared resource groups to support our reportable segments by providing infrastructure and administrative support in the areas of accounting/finance, operations/information technology, business development, legal/compliance and human resources. Our clients seek to partner with investment management firms that not only have compelling investment track records across multiple investment products but also possess seasoned infrastructure support functions. As such, significant investments have been made to develop the OMG. We have successfully launched new business lines, integrated acquired businesses into the operations and created scale within the OMG to support a much larger platform in the future.

Structure and Operation of our Funds

We conduct the management of our funds and other similar private vehicles primarily through organizing a partnership or limited liability structure in which entities organized by us accept commitments and/or funds for investment from institutional investors and (to a limited extent) high net worth individuals. Such commitments are generally drawn down from investors on an as needed basis to fund investments over a specified term. Our Tradable Credit funds also include hedge funds or structured funds in which the investor’s capital is fully funded into the fund upon or soon after the subscription for interests in the fund. The CLOs that we manage are structured investment vehicles that are generally private companies with limited liability. Our drawdown funds and hedge funds are generally organized as limited partnerships or limited liability companies, however there are non‑U.S. funds that are structured as corporate or non‑partnership entities under applicable law. We also advise a number of investors through SMA relationships structured as contractual arrangements or single investor vehicles. In the case of our SMAs that are not structured as single investor

vehicles, the investor, rather than us, generally controls custody of the investments with respect to which we advise. Three of the vehicles that we manage are publicly traded corporations. The publicly traded corporations do not have redemption provisions or a requirement to return capital to investors upon exiting the investments made with such capital, except as required by applicable law (including distribution requirements that must be met to maintain RIC or REIT status). However, ACRE’s charter includes certain limitations relating to the ownership or purported transfer of its common stock in violation of the REIT ownership requirements.

Our funds are generally advised by an indirect subsidiary of Ares Management, L.P. registered under the Investment Advisers Act or a wholly owned subsidiary thereof. Responsibility for the day‑to‑day operations of each investment vehicle is typically delegated to the Ares entity serving as investment adviser pursuant to an investment advisory (or similar) agreement. Generally, the material terms of our investment advisory agreements relate to the scope of services to be rendered by the investment adviser to the applicable vehicle, the calculation of management fees to be borne by investors in our investment vehicles and certain rights of termination with respect to our investment advisory agreements. With the exception of certain of the publicly traded corporations, the investment vehicles themselves do not generally register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act of 1940”) in reliance on applicable exemptions thereunder.

The investment management agreements we enter into with clients in connection with contractual SMAs may generally be terminated by such clients with reasonably short prior written notice. Our investment management agreement with ARCC generally must be approved annually by such company’s board of directors (including a majority of such company’s independent directors). In addition to other termination provisions, each investment advisory and management agreement will automatically terminate in the event of its assignment and may be terminated by either party without penalty upon 60 days’ written notice to the other party.

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 or the fund without cause. The governing agreements of some of our funds provide that, subject to certain conditions, third‑party investors have the right to remove the general partner. In addition, the governing agreements of certain of our funds provide that upon the occurrence of certain events, including in the event that certain “key persons” in our funds do not meet specified time commitments, the investment period will be suspended or the investors have the right to vote to terminate the investment period in accordance with specified procedures.

Fee Structure

Management Fees

The investment adviser of each of our funds and certain SMAs generally receives an annual management fee based upon a percentage of the fund’s capital commitments, total assets or invested capital during the investment period and the fund’s invested capital after the investment period, except that the investment advisers to certain of our hedge funds and separately managed accounts receive an annual management fee that is based upon a percentage of invested capital or net asset value throughout the term of the fund. From time to time we also may receive special fees, including commitment and transaction fees and portfolio management or monitoring fees, some of which may be accelerated upon a sale of the underlying portfolio investment.  While not our general practice to receive such fees, when received our policy is to offset such amounts against future management fees relating to the applicable fund.

The investment adviser of each of our CLOs typically receives annual management fees based upon a percentage of each fund’s total assets or invested capital, subject to certain performance measures related to the underlying assets the vehicle owns, and additional management fees which are incentive‑based (that is, subject to meeting certain return criteria). We also classify the ARCC Part I Fees as management fees due to their predictability and frequency of payments without risk of clawback. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Overview of Consolidated Results of Operations—Revenues.”

The management fees we receive from our drawdown style funds are typically payable on a quarterly basis over the life of the fund and do not depend on the investment performance of the fund (other than to reflect the disposition or

decrease in value of assets where the management fees are based on invested capital). The management fees we receive from our hedge funds have similar characteristics, except that such funds often afford investors increased liquidity through annual, semi‑annual or quarterly withdrawal or redemption rights following the expiration of a specified period of time when capital may not be withdrawn and the amount of management fees to which the investment adviser is entitled with respect thereto will proportionately increase as the net asset value of each investor’s capital account grows and will proportionately decrease as the net asset value of each investor’s capital account decreases. The management fees we receive from our SMAs are generally paid on a regular basis (typically quarterly, subject to the termination rights described above) and may alternatively be based on invested capital or proportionately increase or decrease based on the net asset value of the separately managed account.

We also receive management fees in accordance with the investment advisory and management agreements we have with the publicly traded vehicles we manage. Base management fees we receive from ARCC are paid quarterly and proportionately increase or decrease based on ARCC’s total assets (other than cash and cash equivalents). ARCC Part I Fees are also generally paid quarterly and proportionately increase or decrease based on ARCC’s net investment income (before ARCC Part I Fees and ARCC Part II Fees (as defined in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Overview of Consolidated Results of Operations—Revenues”)), subject to a fixed hurdle rate. Management fees we receive from ARDC are generally paid on a regular basis (typically monthly) and proportionately increase or decrease based on the closed‑end funds’ total assets minus such funds’ liabilities (other than liabilities relating to indebtedness). Management fees we receive from ACRE are generally paid on a regular basis (typically quarterly) and proportionately increase or decrease based on ACRE’s stockholders’ equity (as calculated pursuant to the ACRE management agreement).

Performance Fees

We may also receive performance fees from a majority of our funds, which may be either an incentive fee or a special allocation of income, which we refer to as a carried interest, in the event that specified investment returns are achieved by the fund. We may, and do in certain cases, award our employees and senior professionals with participation in such performance fees.

Incentive Fees

The general partners or similar entities of certain of our funds receive performance‑based allocation fees ranging from 10% to 20% of the applicable fund’s net capital appreciation per annum, subject to certain net loss carry‑ forward provisions (known as a “high‑watermark”). In some cases, the investment adviser of each of our hedge funds and certain SMAs is entitled to an incentive fee generally up to 20% of the applicable fund’s net appreciation per annum, subject to a high‑watermark and in some cases a preferred return. Realized incentive fees are generally higher during the second half of the year due to the nature of certain Tradable Credit and Direct Lending funds that typically realize incentive fees annually. Once realized, the fees earned by our hedge funds generally are not subject to clawback. Incentive fees are realized at the end of a measurement period, typically quarterly or annually.

Carried Interest

The general partner or an affiliate of certain of our funds receives carried interest from the fund. Carried interest entitles the general partner (or an affiliate) to a special allocation of income and gains from a fund, and is typically structured as a net profits interest in the applicable fund. Carried interest is generally calculated on a “realized gain” basis, and the general partner of a fund is generally entitled to a carried interest between 10% and 20% of the net realized income and gains (generally taking into account unrealized losses) generated by such fund. Net realized income or loss is not netted between or among funds.

For most funds, the carried interest is subject to a preferred return ranging from 5% to 8%, subject in most cases to a catch‑up allocation to the general partner. Generally, if at the termination of a fund (and in some cases at interim points in the life of a fund), the fund has not achieved investment returns that generally exceed the preferred return threshold or the general partner receives net profits over the life of the fund in excess of its allocable share under the applicable partnership agreement, the general partner will be obligated to repay an amount equal to the extent to which performance fees that were previously distributed to it exceeds the amounts to which the general partner is ultimately entitled. These repayment obligations may be related to amounts previously distributed to us and our senior professionals. This obligation is known as a “clawback” obligation.

Although a portion of any distributions by us to our common unitholders may include carried interest received by us, we do not intend to seek fulfillment of any clawback obligation by seeking to have our common unitholders return any portion of such distributions attributable to carried interest associated with any clawback obligation. Clawback obligations operate with respect to a given fund’s own net investment performance only and performance fees of other funds are not netted for determining this contingent obligation. Although a clawback obligation is several to each person who received a distribution, and not a joint obligation, the governing agreements of our funds generally provide that, if a recipient does not fund his or her respective share, we may have to fund such additional amounts beyond the amount of performance fees we retained, although we generally will retain the right to pursue remedies against those performance fee recipients who fail to fund their obligations.

For additional information concerning the clawback obligations we could face, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—We may need to pay “clawback” obligations if and when they are triggered under the governing agreements with our investors.”

Incentive Fees from Publicly Traded Vehicles

We also are entitled to receive incentive fees accordance with the investment advisory and management agreements we have with ARCC and ACRE. We may receive ARCC Part II Fees, which are calculated at the end of each applicable year by subtracting (a) the sum of ARCC’s cumulative aggregate realized capital losses and aggregate unrealized capital depreciation from (b) its cumulative aggregate realized capital gains, in each case calculated from October 8, 2004. Incentive fees we receive from ACRE are based on a percentage of the difference between ACRE’s core earnings (as defined in ACRE’s management agreement) and an amount derived from the weighted average issue price per share of ACRE’s common stock in its public offerings multiplied by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding. We are not entitled to receive incentive fees from ARDC.

Capital Invested In and Through Our Funds

To further align our interests with those of investors in our funds, we have invested the firm’s capital and that of our professionals in the funds we sponsor and manage. General partner capital commitments to our funds are determined separately with respect to our funds and, generally, are less than 5% of the total commitments of any particular fund. We determine the general partner capital commitments based on a variety of factors, including investor requirements, estimates regarding liquidity over the estimated time period during which commitments will be funded, estimates regarding the amounts of capital that may be appropriate for other opportunities or other funds we may be in the process of raising or are considering raising, prevailing industry standards with respect to sponsor commitments and our general working capital requirements. We may from time to time offer to our senior professionals a part of the general partner commitments to our funds. Our general partner capital commitments are typically funded with cash and not with carried interest or deferral of management fees. For more information, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Sources and Uses of Liquidity.”

Regulatory and Compliance Matters

Our businesses, as well as the financial services industry generally are subject to extensive regulation, including periodic examinations, by governmental agencies and self‑regulatory organizations or exchanges in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions in which we operate relating to, among other things, antitrust laws, anti‑money laundering laws, anti‑bribery laws relating to foreign officials, and privacy laws with respect to client information, and some of our funds invest in businesses that operate in highly regulated industries. 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. Any failure to comply with these rules and regulations could expose us to liability and/or reputational damage. In addition, additional legislation, increasing global regulatory oversight of fundraising activities, changes in rules promulgated by self‑regulatory organizations or exchanges or changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules, either in the United States or elsewhere, may directly affect our mode of operation and profitability. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Businesses—Extensive regulation in the United States affects our activities and creates the potential for significant liabilities and penalties that could adversely affect our businesses and results of operations,” “—Failure to comply with “pay to play” regulations implemented by the Commission and certain states, and changes to the “pay to play” regulatory regimes, could adversely affect our businesses,” “—Regulatory changes and other developments in the United States and regulatory compliance

failures could adversely affect our reputation, businesses and operations” and “—Regulatory changes in jurisdictions outside the United States could adversely affect our businesses.”

Rigorous legal and compliance analysis of our businesses and investments is important to our culture. We strive to maintain a culture of compliance through the use of policies and procedures such as oversight compliance, codes of ethics, compliance systems, communication of compliance guidance and employee education and training. We have a compliance group that monitors our compliance with the regulatory requirements to which we are subject and manages our compliance policies and procedures. Our Chief Compliance Officer, together with our Chief Legal Officer, supervises our compliance group, which is responsible for monitoring all regulatory and compliance matters that affect our activities. Our compliance policies and procedures address a variety of regulatory and compliance risks such as the handling of material non‑public information, position reporting, personal securities trading, valuation of investments on a fund‑specific basis, document retention, potential conflicts of interest and the allocation of investment opportunities.

United States

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) oversees the activities of our subsidiaries that are registered investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) oversees the activities of our subsidiary Ares Investor Services LLC as a registered broker‑dealer. In connection with certain investments made by funds in our Private Equity Group, certain of our subsidiaries 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 of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”),  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), the Investment Company Act, the Commodity Exchange Act and ERISA. These exemptions are sometimes highly complex and may in certain circumstances depend on compliance by third parties who we do not control.

All of our funds are advised by investment advisers that are registered with the Commission (or wholly owned subsidiaries thereof). Registered investment advisers are subject to more stringent requirements and regulations under the Investment Advisers Act than unregistered investment advisers. Such requirements relate to, among other things, fiduciary duties to clients, maintaining an effective compliance program, managing conflicts of interest and general anti‑fraud prohibitions. In addition, the Commission requires investment advisers registered or required to register with the Commission under the Investment Advisers Act that advise one or more private funds and have at least $150 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.

ARDC is a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act. ARCC is a registered investment company that has elected to be treated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act. Each of ARDC and ARCC has elected, for U.S. federal tax purposes, to be treated as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). As such, each of ARDC and ARCC is required to distribute at least 90% of its ordinary income and realized, net short‑term capital gains in excess of realized net long‑term capital losses, if any, to its shareholders. In addition, to avoid excise tax, each of ARDC and ARCC needs to distribute at least 98% of its income (such income to include both ordinary income and net capital gains), which would take into account short‑term and long‑term capital gains and losses. Each of ARDC and ARCC, at its discretion, may carry forward taxable income in excess of calendar year distributions and pay an excise tax on this income. In addition, as a business development company, ARCC must not acquire any assets other than “qualifying assets” specified in the Investment Company Act unless, at the time the acquisition is made, at least 70% of ARCC’s total assets are qualifying assets (with certain limited exceptions). Qualifying assets include investments in “eligible portfolio companies.”

ACRE has elected and qualified to be taxed as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, under the Code. To maintain its qualification as a REIT, ACRE must distribute at least 90% of its taxable income to its shareholders and meet, on a continuing basis, certain other complex requirements under the Code.

Ares Investor Services LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary, is registered as a broker‑dealer with the Commission, and is a member of FINRA. As a broker‑ dealer, this subsidiary is subject to regulation and oversight by the Commission and state securities regulators. In addition, FINRA, a self‑regulatory organization that is subject to oversight by the Commission, promulgates and enforces rules governing the conduct of, and examines the activities of, its member firms. Due to the limited authority granted to our subsidiary in its capacity as a broker‑dealer, it is not required to comply with

certain regulations covering trade practices among broker‑dealers and the use and safekeeping of customers’ funds and securities. As a registered broker‑dealer and member of a self‑regulatory organization, Ares Investor Services LLC is, however, subject to the Commission’s uniform net capital rule. Rule 15c3‑1 of the Exchange Act specifies the minimum level of net capital a broker‑dealer must maintain and also requires that a significant part of a broker‑dealer’s assets be kept in relatively liquid form.

The Commission and various self‑regulatory organizations have in recent years increased their regulatory activities in respect of investment management firms. In July 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd‑Frank Act”). Among other things, the Dodd‑Frank Act imposes significant new regulations on nearly every aspect of the U.S. financial services industry, including oversight and regulation of systemic market risk (including the power to liquidate certain institutions); authorizing the Federal Reserve to regulate nonbank institutions that are deemed systemically important; generally prohibiting 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 any of these types of entities, regardless of geographic location, from conducting proprietary trading or investing in or sponsoring a “covered person,” which includes private equity funds and hedge funds (i.e. the Volcker Rule); and imposing new registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements on private fund investment advisers. Importantly, while several key aspects of the Dodd‑Frank Act have been defined through final rules, many aspects will be implemented by various regulatory bodies over the next several years. While we already have several subsidiaries registered as investment advisers subject to Commission examinations and another subsidiary registered as a broker‑dealer that is subject to FINRA examinations, the imposition of any additional legal or regulatory requirements could make compliance more difficult and expensive, affect the manner in which we conduct our businesses and adversely affect our profitability.

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.” 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. The final Volcker Rule became effective on April 1, 2014 and is subject to a conformance period (currently ending July 21, 2016, subject to extension no later than July 21, 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.

In 2013, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published revised guidance regarding expectations for banks’ leveraged lending activities. This guidance, in addition to the Dodd‑Frank Act risk retention rules approved in October 2014, could further restrict credit availability, as well as potentially restrict the activities of our Tradable Credit Group, which supports many of its portfolio investments from banks’ lending activities.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, regulation of the derivatives market is bifurcated between the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) and the Commission. Under the Dodd‑Frank Act, the CFTC has jurisdiction over swaps and the Commission 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 of commodity pool operators (“CPOs”). Such rules require that an entity that is a CPO must register with the CFTC unless an exemption from registration is available. Previously, the CPO registration rules had applied to the operator of a fund invested in “commodity interests,” meaning that the fund entered into futures or options with respect to commodities. As a result of the CFTC’s revisions to these rules, all swaps (other than security‑based swaps) are now included in the definition of commodity interests. As a result, funds that utilize swaps (whether or not related to a commodity) as part of their business model may fall within the statutory definition of a commodity pool. If a fund qualifies as a commodity pool, then, absent an available exemption, the operator of such a fund is required to register with the CFTC as a CPO. Registration with the CFTC renders such CPO subject to regulation, including with respect to disclosure, reporting, recordkeeping and business conduct.

Certain of our funds may from time to time, directly or indirectly, invest in instruments that meet the definition of a “swap” under the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC’s rules promulgated thereunder. As a result, such funds may qualify as commodity pools, and the operators of such funds may need to register as CPOs unless an exemption

applies. The operators of our funds may therefore seek to rely on no‑action relief or claim an exemption from registration as a CPO with the CFTC, including pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3). CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) provides an exemption from CPO registration for the operator of a fund, or pool, if (among other things) that pool’s trading in commodity interest positions (including both hedging and speculative positions, and positions in security futures) is limited so that either (i) no more than 5% of the liquidation value of the pool’s portfolio is used as initial margin, premiums and required minimum security deposits to establish such positions, or (ii) the aggregate net notional value of the pool’s trading in such positions does not exceed 100% of the pool’s liquidation value. If the operators of our funds are able to rely on an exemption from CPO registration pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3), then unlike a registered CPO, the fund’s operator would not be required to provide prospective investors with a CFTC compliant disclosure document, nor would it be required to provide investors with periodic account statements or certified annual reports that satisfy the requirements of CFTC rules applicable to registered CPOs. As an alternative to the exemption from registration, the operators of one of more of our funds may register as CPOs with the CFTC, in which case such operators may seek to avail themselves of certain disclosure, reporting and record‑keeping relief under CFTC Rule 4.7.

The Dodd‑Frank Act requires the CFTC, the Commission 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. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides expanded enforcement authority to the CFTC and Commission. 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 Commission 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 rules, an entity may be required to register as a major swap participant (“MSP”) if it has substantial swaps positions or has substantial counterparty exposure from its swaps positions. If any of our funds were required to register as an MSP, 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.

The CFTC has issued final rules imposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements on swaps market participants. Such rules are currently effective and could significantly increase operating costs. These additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements may require additional compliance resources and may also have a negative effect on market liquidity, which could negatively impact commodity prices and our ability to hedge our price risks.

Pursuant to a rule finalized by the CFTC in December 2012, 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 us to the credit risk of the clearing house through which any cleared swap is cleared.

 In December 2015, the CFTC approved final rules on margin requirements for uncleared swaps entered into by swap dealers or MSPs that are not subject to prudential regulation.  Among other things, the rules impose  margin requirements on trades between covered swap entities and financial end users.  The full impact of the new rules on our business is yet to be determined.

The CFTC has proposed rules to set position limits for futures, options, and swap contracts in certain commodities. In the future, the CFTC could propose to expand such requirements to other categories of contracts.  These position limits will likely be aggregated among all entities under common control, unless an exemption applies, which could affect our ability and the ability for our funds to enter into derivatives transactions. It is uncertain at this time whether, when, and to what extent the CFTC’s position limits rules will become final and effective.

The CFTC has finalized regulations 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, 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. Such restrictions could limit our ability to recruit and retain investment professionals and senior management executives.

The Dodd‑Frank Act requires public companies to adopt and disclose policies requiring, in the event the company is required to issue an accounting restatement, the clawback of related incentive compensation from current and former executive officers.

The Dodd‑Frank Act amends the Exchange Act to compensate and protect whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information to the Commission 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.

Many of these provisions are subject to further rulemaking and to the discretion of regulatory bodies, such as the Council and the Federal Reserve.

Other Jurisdictions

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 U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). In some circumstances, other Ares entities are or become subject to UK or EU laws, for instance in relation to marketing our funds to investors in the European Economic Area (“EEA”).

In March 2013, the Financial Services Authority published final rules (the “FCA Rules”) for the FCA’s regulation and supervision of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). In particular, the FCA 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. It is uncertain whether corresponding changes will be made to the Euro interbank offered rate (“EURIBOR”) although there is proposed EU legislation to govern benchmarks such as LIBOR and EURIBOR to enhance their robustness and reliability. On November 25, 2015, the European Parliament and the European Council reached political agreement on a proposed regulation.  The European Parliament will vote on this text in April 2016 and it is expected to enter into force in May or June 2016, although it will not apply until 18 months after that date.  A number of pieces of secondary legislation will be required to implement the proposed regulation.

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

The EU Capital Requirements Directive IV and Capital Requirements Regulation (collectively, “CRD IV”) and EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (the “Directive”) legislation 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 prescribed interest in the securitization concerned. Where such securitization arrangements are

managed by Ares‑affiliated undertakings, this risk retention requirement will, at present, need to be 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, the EU Commission published proposals for a new securitization regulation as part of its Capital Markets Union Action Plan.  This includes 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 for EU investors in non-compliant securitizations).  There would also be new investor transparency requirements which would require additional information to be disclosed to investors.  Compliance with the proposed new requirements in the securitization regulation may result in us incurring material costs.

The EU Regulation on OTC derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories (commonly known as the “European Market Infrastructure Regulation” or “EMIR”) will require the mandatory clearing of certain OTC derivatives through central counterparties. This mandatory clearing obligation is coming into force in stages from early 2015 and applies to “financial counterparties” (which includes, for example, an investment firm authorized under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive or an EEA or non‑EEA AIFs managed by an investment fund manager authorized under the Directive) that enters into an eligible derivative transaction with another financial counterparty or a non‑financial counterparty whose OTC derivative exposures exceed a prescribed clearing threshold. An OTC derivative trade is eligible if it meets certain pre‑defined eligibility criteria (such as levels of standardization and liquidity). A central counterparty will typically require the posting of initial and valuation margin in respect of cleared transactions. In addition, EMIR requires certain parties to non‑centrally cleared OTC derivative transactions to mitigate their risks by posting prescribed types and values of initial and variation margin. These margin requirements could increase the cost to us and our funds when transacting in eligible OTC derivatives.

On January 29, 2014 the European Commission published a proposal for a new regulation dealing with structural measures to improve the resilience of EU credit institutions, known as the Banking Structural Regulation. Provisions in the proposed regulation would prohibit systemically important EU banks from acquiring, owning, sponsoring or having an exposure to an AIF, unless that AIF is an unleveraged and closed-ended AIF that is either established in the EEA or, if it is not established in the EEA, marketed in the EEA.  There has been considerable political disagreement in relation to the legislative proposals and the precise scope of this proposed regulation and its timescale for coming into force is currently uncertain. However, the European Parliament and European Council are aiming to seek political agreement during 2016.  The final proposals, if adopted, may affect our ability to raise capital in our funds from EU banks.

Our 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.

Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive

The Directive was enacted in July 2011 and took effect on July 22, 2013. The Directive applies to (a) Alternative Investment Fund Managers (“AIFMs”) established in the EEA that manage EEA or non‑EEA AIFs, (b) non‑EEA AIFMs that manage EEA AIFs and (c) non‑EEA AIFMs that market their AIFs to professional investors within the EEA.

Beginning July 22, 2013, the Directive imposed new operating requirements on EEA AIFMs. AIFMs must comply with the requirements of the Directive, including being appropriately authorized by their home‑country regulator. EEA AIFMs and non‑EEA AIFMs seeking to market an AIF within the EEA will need to comply with the Directive’s disclosure and transparency requirements and, in the case of non‑EU AIFMs, jurisdiction specific private placement regimes (which have been modified as a result of the Directive).

The full scope of the Directive may also be extended on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis to non‑EEA AIFMs that wish to market an AIF within the EEA pursuant to a pan‑European marketing passport (instead of under national private placement regimes). In July 2015, the European Securities and Markets Authority recommended that the European Commission may wish to wait until positive assessments have been given in relation to the regulatory regimes of a sufficient number of non-EEA jurisdictions before extending the scope of the marketing passport under the Directive.

Certain of the jurisdiction specific private placement regimes may also be removed when the passport is extended.  It is possible that certain EEA jurisdictions may remove their private placement regimes in relation to all non-EEA AIFMs before the marketing passport has been extended to certain non-EEA jurisdictions. In such a situation, AIFMs in those non-EEA jurisdictions would be unable to market AIFs in the EEA jurisdictions concerned.

The operating requirements imposed by the Directive include, among other things, rules relating to the remuneration of certain personnel, minimum regulatory capital requirements, restrictions on the use of leverage, restrictions on early distributions relating to portfolio companies (so called “asset stripping rules”), disclosure and reporting requirements to both investors and home state regulators, the independent valuation of an AIF’s assets and the appointment of an independent depository to hold assets. As a result, the Directive could in the future have an adverse effect on our businesses by, among other things, increasing the regulatory burden and costs of doing business in or relating to EEA member states, imposing extensive disclosure obligations on, and asset stripping rules with respect to, companies, if any, in which any of our funds invest that are located in EEA member states, significantly restricting marketing activities within the EEA, potentially requiring certain of our funds to change their compensation structures for key personnel, thereby affecting our ability to recruit and retain these personnel, and potentially disadvantaging our funds as investors in private companies located in EEA member states when compared to non‑AIF/AIFM competitors that may not be subject to the requirements of the Directive, thereby potentially restricting our funds’ ability to make investments in such companies.

The Directive allows AIFMs to invest in securitizations on behalf of the alternative investment funds they manage, only if the originator, sponsor or original lender for the securitization has explicitly disclosed that it will retain, on an ongoing basis, a material net economic interest of not less than 5% of the nominal value of the securitized exposures or of the tranches sold to investors and certain due diligence undertakings are made. AIFMs that discover after the assumption of a securitization exposure that the retained interest does not meet the requirements, or subsequently falls below 5% of the economic risk, are required to take such corrective action as is in the best interests of investors. It remains to be seen how this requirement will be addressed by AIFMs should these circumstances arise. These requirements, along with other changes to the regulation or regulatory treatment of securitizations, may negatively affect the value of investments made by our funds.

The Directive could also limit our operating flexibility and our investment opportunities, as well as expose us and/or our funds to conflicting regulatory requirements in the United States (and elsewhere). The final scope and requirements of the Directive remain subject to enactment of EU secondary legislation and national implementing legislation in certain EU member states where implementation has been delayed.

Solvency II

Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking‑up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (“Solvency II”) sets out stronger capital adequacy and risk management requirements for European insurers and reinsurers and, in particular, dictates how much capital such firms must hold against their liabilities and introduces a risk‑based assessment of those liabilities. Solvency II came into force on January 1, 2010 but was only required to be implemented by firms on January 1, 2016. There are also a number of transitional provisions designed to avoid market disruption. Solvency II imposes, among other things, substantially greater quantitative and qualitative capital requirements for insurers and reinsurers as well as other supervisory and disclosure requirements. We are not subject to Solvency II; however, many of our European insurer or reinsurer fund investors are subject to this directive, as applied under applicable domestic law. Solvency II may impact insurers’ and reinsurers’ investment decisions and their asset allocations. In addition, insurers and reinsurers will be subject to more onerous data collation and reporting requirements. As a result, Solvency II could have an adverse indirect effect on our businesses by, among other things, restricting the ability of European insurers and reinsurers to invest in our funds and imposing on us extensive disclosure and reporting obligations for those insurers and reinsurers that do invest in our funds. The final details and requirements of the subsidiary regulations pursuant to Solvency II remain uncertain and are subject to change as a result of enactment both of related EU legislation and national implementing legislation in EU member states.

MiFID II

The recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (collectively referred to as MiFID II) will amend the existing MiFID regime and, amongst other requirements, will introduce new organizational and operational requirements for investment firms in the EEA.  Compliance with these new rules may require updates to existing procedures, systems and controls and the development of new internal systems, which may include substantial automated and electronic systems, and is likely to involve material costs to the business. Although the MiFID II legislation currently states that it will come into effect from January 3, 2017, the European Commission has published a legislative amendment that is now expected to delay its application until January 2018 to give regulators and affected firms sufficient time to implement the requirements. A number of delegated acts that are required under MiFID II have not yet been finalized, but this is expected to occur during 2016.  These delegated acts may impose additional operational requirements upon investment firms.

European Union Referendum in the United Kingdom

 

The United Kingdom will hold a referendum on June 23, 2016 on whether it should remain a member of the European Union (EU).  The implications of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union are unclear at present because it is unclear what would be the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU after withdrawal.   It is likely that this would be a matter negotiated over at least two years from the date of the referendum if the decision is taken to withdraw.  It may be that our ability to: (a) market interests in its funds to EU investors; and/or (b) lend to EU borrowers or invest in EU assets would be adversely affected.  If the UK chooses to remain in the EU it is not expected that the recent negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU on the United Kingdom’s status in the EU will materially affect us.

Competition

The investment management industry is intensely competitive, and we expect it to remain so. We compete both globally and on a regional, industry and asset basis.

We face competition both in the pursuit of fund investors and investment opportunities. Generally, our competition varies across business lines, geographies and financial markets. We compete for outside investors based on a variety of factors, including investment performance, investor perception of investment managers’ drive, focus and alignment of interest, quality of service provided to and duration of relationship with investors, business reputation and the level of fees and expenses charged for services. We compete for investment opportunities based on a variety of factors, including breadth of market coverage and relationships, access to capital, transaction execution skills, the range of products and services offered, innovation and price.

We expect to face competition in our direct lending, trading, acquisitions and other investment activities primarily from business development companies, credit and real estate funds, specialized funds, hedge fund sponsors, financial institutions, private equity funds, corporate buyers and other parties. Many of these competitors in some of our businesses are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical and marketing resources than are available to us. Many of these competitors have similar investment objectives to us, which may create additional competition for investment opportunities. Some of these competitors may also have a lower cost of capital and access to funding sources that are not available to us, which may create competitive disadvantages for us with respect to investment opportunities. In addition, some of these competitors may have higher risk tolerances, different risk assessments or lower return thresholds, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments and to bid more aggressively than us for investments that we want to make. Corporate buyers may be able to achieve synergistic cost savings with regard to an investment that may provide them with a competitive advantage in bidding for an investment. 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.

Competition is also intense for the attraction and retention of qualified employees. Our ability to continue to compete effectively in our businesses will depend upon our ability to attract new employees and retain and motivate our existing employees.

For additional information concerning the competitive risks that we face, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Businesses—The investment management business is intensely competitive.”

Available Information

Ares Management, L.P. was formed as a Delaware limited partnership on November 15, 2013. Our principal executive offices are located at 2000 Avenue of the Stars, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067, and our telephone number is (310) 201‑4100.

Our website address is http://www.aresmgmt.com. Information on our website is not a part of this report and is not incorporated by reference herein. We make available free of charge on our website or provide a link on our website to our Annual Report on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q and Current Reports on Form 8‑K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after those reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. To access these filings, go to the “Investor Resources” section of our website and then click on “SEC Filings.” You may also read and copy any document we file with the SEC at the SEC’s public reference room located at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549. Please call the SEC at 1‑800‑SEC‑0330 for further information on the public reference room. In addition, these reports and the other documents we file with the SEC are available at a website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.

 

ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS

Summary of Risks

Our businesses are subject to a number of inherent risks. We believe that the primary risks affecting our businesses and an investment in our common units are:

Risks Related to Our Businesses

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.

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, the possibility of changes to tax laws in either the United States or any non-U.S. jurisdiction and regulations on 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 August and September 2015 and then again in January 2016, following the decision of the People’s Bank of China to reduce the foreign exchange value of the renminbi.  Concerns over significant declines in the commodities markets, concerns over increasing interest rates, particularly short-term rates, increases in the foreign exchange value of the U.S. dollar, 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.

The ongoing weakness in commodity prices, especially of crude oil, and the uncertainty regarding the stability of the oil and gas markets have resulted in a tightening of the credit market across multiple sectors.  Mark-to-market losses on commodity-related debt pulled overall credit returns into negative territory in 2015 and increased financing costs for businesses in unrelated sectors.  In addition, following a sustained period of historically low interest rate levels, the Federal Reserve raised the federal funds rate in December 2015. These developments, along with the U.S. government’s credit and deficit concerns, the European sovereign debt crisis and the economic slowdown in China, caused borrowing costs to rise and generally constained access to leverage. 

Given the broader macroeconomic headwinds in place resulting from a slowing global economy, we believe the widening credit spread generally experienced since the second half of 2015 may continue over the near-term and may further weaken the non-investment grade credit markets.

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 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 the fact that we may not be able to find suitable investments for the funds to effectively deploy capital, which could adversely affect our ability to raise new funds and thus adversely impact our prospects for future growth.

Political and regulatory conditions, including the effects of negative publicity surrounding the financial industry in general and proposed legislation, could adversely affect our businesses or cause a material increase in our tax liability.

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 Commission, the CFTC or other U.S. governmental regulatory authorities or self-regulatory organizations that supervise the financial markets. We also may be adversely affected by changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules by these governmental authorities and self-regulatory organizations. See “—Regulatory changes and other developments in the United States and regulatory compliance failures could adversely affect our reputation, businesses and operations.”

On several occasions in recent years, the U.S. Congress has considered legislative proposals that, if enacted, would repeal the exception from taxation as a corporation currently available to certain publicly traded partnerships. If these proposals or any similar legislation or regulation were to be enacted and to apply to us, we would incur a material increase in our tax liability and our cash available for distribution would be reduced, which could reduce the value of our common units. Over the past years, members of the U.S. Congress have also proposed amendments to the Code, and the rules and regulations thereunder that, if enacted, would raise the tax on carried interest and treat carried interest as ordinary income as well as change the tax treatment of investment managers and investment structures. A number of similar legislative proposals have been introduced in state legislatures. The Obama administration has also proposed to tax carried interest as ordinary income in its budget proposal for fiscal year 2017 and prior fiscal years. If these proposals or any similar legislation or regulation were to become law, our effective tax rate could increase significantly, and such legislation could materially increase the amount of taxes that we, our professionals and other key personnel would be required to pay. See “—Risks Related to Taxation.”

Congress, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) and other government agencies in jurisdictions where we and our affiliates invest or do business have maintained a focus on issues related to the taxation of businesses, including multinational entities. The OECD, which represents a coalition of member countries, is contemplating changes to numerous long-standing tax principles through its base erosion and profit shifting project, which is focused on a number of issues, including the shifting of profits between affiliated entities in different jurisdictions. On December 21, 2015, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued proposed 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. Additionally, the Obama administration has announced proposals for potential reform to the U.S. federal income tax rules for businesses, including reducing the deductibility of interest for corporations that are part of a multinational group and anti-inversion rules. Several of these proposals for reform, if enacted by the United States or by other countries in which we or our affiliates invest or do business or, even if not enacted, due to the perception of increased focus on prevention of base erosion and profit

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

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 conditions, 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, and our ability to raise capital for existing and future funds depends on our funds’ performance. If economic and market conditions deteriorate, 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 our Co-Founders, senior professionals and other key personnel, and our ability to retain them and attract additional qualified personnel is critical to our success and our growth prospects.

We depend on the diligence, skill, judgment, business contacts and personal reputations of our Co-Founders, 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, 2015, we incurred equity compensation expenses of $32.2 million and we expect these costs to continue to increase in the future as we increase the use of equity compensation awards to attract, retain and compensate employees.

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

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 funds to invest in a single portfolio company, for example where the fund that made an initial investment no longer has capital available to invest. We may also cause different funds that we advise to purchase different classes of securities in the same portfolio company. For example, in the normal course of business our Tradable Credit funds acquire debt positions in companies in which our Private Equity funds own common equity securities. A direct conflict of interest could arise between the debt holders and the equity holders if such a company were to develop insolvency concerns, and we would have to carefully manage that conflict. In addition, our Tradable Credit funds could be restricted from selling their positions in such companies for extended periods because investment professionals in the Private Equity Group sit on the boards of such companies.  Certain funds in different groups may invest alongside each other in the same security. The different investment objectives or fund terms of such funds may result in a potential conflict of interest. In addition, conflicts of interest may exist in the valuation of our investments and regarding decisions about the allocation of specific investment opportunities among us and our funds and the allocation of fees and costs among us, our funds and their portfolio companies. 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, our decision to permit the investments to occur in the first instance or our judgment on how to minimize the conflict could be challenged. If we fail to appropriately address any such conflicts, it could negatively impact our reputation and ability to raise additional funds and the willingness of counterparties to do business with us or result in potential litigation against us.

The investment management business is intensely competitive.

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:

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 managers on the basis of price when fundraising, we may not be able to maintain our current fund fee and carried interest terms. We have historically competed primarily on the performance of our funds, and not on the level of our fees or carried interest relative to those of our competitors. However, there is a risk that fees and carried interest in the investment management industry will decline, without regard to the historical performance of a manager. Fee or carried interest reductions on existing or future funds, without corresponding decreases in our cost structure, would adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

In addition, the attractiveness of investments in our funds relative to other investment products could decrease depending on economic conditions. This competitive pressure could adversely affect our ability to make successful investments and limit our ability to raise future funds, either of which would adversely impact our businesses, revenues, results of operations and cash flow.

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.

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

We derive revenues in part from:

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. 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.

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

The management fees we receive from ARCC (including fees attributable to ARCC Part I Fees) comprise  a significant percentage of our management fees. 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 ’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 clawback) 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 of the fees we receive from ARCC, including the base management fee and the ARCC Part I Fees, would also decline significantly and/or may be subject to deferral, which could have an adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations. In addition, because the ARCC Part II Fees are not paid unless ARCC achieves cumulative realized capital gains (net of realized capital losses and unrealized capital depreciation), ARCC’s Part II Fees payable to us are variable and not predictable.

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 agreement would reduce our revenues significantly and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

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

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. We cannot assure holders of our common units that we will succeed 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.”

Investors in our funds may be unwilling to commit new capital to our funds because we are a public company, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

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, 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 could inhibit our ability to achieve our investment objectives and may have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

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

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

We intend, if market conditions warrant, to grow 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. 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 for holders of our common units all the risks we may face and the potential adverse consequences on us and their investment that may result from any attempted expansion.

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

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 and (f) our ability to properly manage conflicts of interest. This strategy also contemplates the use of our publicly traded common units as acquisition consideration. Volatility or declines in the trading price of our common units may make our common units 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 units may be adversely affected.

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

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 Commission oversees the activities of our subsidiaries that are registered investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Investment Advisers Act”). Since the first quarter of 2014, FINRA as well as the Commission has overseen the activities of our wholly owned subsidiary Ares Investor Services LLC 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, we could be subject to regulatory action or third-party claims, which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses. For example, in 2013 the Commission 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 Commission. 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.

The Commission 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 Commission staff has noted that if a firm receives fees from a fund portfolio company in connection with the acquisition, disposition or recapitalization of such portfolio company, such activities could raise broker-dealer concerns under applicable regulations related to broker dealers. If we receive such transaction fees and the Commission takes the position that such activities render us a “broker” under the applicable rules and regulations of the Exchange Act, we could be subject to additional regulation. If receipt of transaction fees from a portfolio company is determined to require a broker-dealer license, receipt of such transaction fees in the past or in the future during any time when we did not or do not have a broker-dealer license could subject us to liability for fines, penalties or damages.

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 the integrity of the financial markets. They are not designed to protect our common unitholders.

Even if a sanction is imposed against us, one of our subsidiaries or our personnel by a regulator for a small monetary amount, the costs incurred in responding to such matters could be material, the adverse publicity related to the sanction could harm our reputation, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our businesses in a number of ways, making it harder for us to raise new funds and discouraging others from doing business with us.

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.  Notably, in 2015, there were 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 in 2016.  This increased enforcement activity may cause us to reevaluate certain practices and adjust our compliance control function as necessary and appropriate. 

 

While the SEC’s recent list of examination priorities includes such items as cyber security compliance and controls and conducting risk-based examinations of never-before-examined investment advisory firms, it is generally expected that the SEC’s oversight of alternative asset managers will continue to focus substantially on concerns related to transparency and investor disclosure practices.   Although the SEC has cited improvements in disclosures and industry practices in this area, it has also indicated that there is room for improvement in particular areas, including fees and expenses (and the allocation of such fees and expenses) and co-investment practices.  To this end, many firms have received inquiries during examinations or directly from the SEC Division of Enforcement regarding various transparency-related topics, including the acceleration of monitoring fees, the allocation of broken-deal expenses, the disclosure of operating partner or operating executive compensation, outside business activities of firm principals and employees, group purchasing arrangements and general conflicts of interest disclosures.  In addition, our private equity funds have engaged in the past and may engage from time to time advisors who often work with our investment teams during due diligence, provide board-level governance and support and advise portfolio company leadership. Advisors generally are third parties and typically retained by us pursuant to consulting agreements. In some cases, an operating executive may be retained by a portfolio company directly and in such instances the portfolio company may compensate the operating executive directly (meaning that investors in our private equity funds may indirectly bear the operating executive’s compensation).  While we believe we have made appropriate and timely disclosures regarding the engagement and compensation of these advisors, the SEC staff may disagree.

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

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, each of our publicly traded vehicles has 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. 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.

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

In recent years, the Commission 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 Commission

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 Commission 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.

Similar rule-making and investigations have also occurred in New York. In March 2007, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (the “N.Y. Attorney General”) commenced an industry-wide investigation into pay to play allegations and undisclosed conflicts of interest at public pension funds, including the New York State Common Retirement Fund. As a consequence of the N.Y. Attorney General’s investigation, the N.Y. Attorney General adopted a Public Pension Fund Reform Code of Conduct (the “Reform Code of Conduct”) for U.S. public pension funds. This Reform Code of Conduct, among other things, restricts the use of third-party intermediaries and placement agents with respect to the solicitation of funds from U.S. public pension funds. In 2010, we agreed to adopt the Reform Code of Conduct, acknowledging that the Reform Code of Conduct would enhance transparency in fundraising activities before public pension funds on a national basis. As a signatory to the Reform Code of Conduct, we may be at a disadvantage to other fund sponsors that are not similarly restricted from engaging third-party solicitors, notwithstanding that many states and public pension funds have adopted similar restrictions. FINRA also recently proposed its own set of “pay to play” regulations that are similar to the SEC’s regulations.

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.

The short-term and long-term impact of the new Basel III capital standards is uncertain.

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 European Union, 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 current capital framework. Implementation of Basel III will require implementing regulations and guidelines by member countries. In July 2013, the U.S. federal banking regulators announced the adoption of final regulations to implement Basel III for U.S. banking organizations, subject to various transition periods. The EU implemented Basel III in June 2013 CRD IV. In April 2014, U.S. regulators adopted rules requiring enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards beginning in January 2018, which would impose capital requirements more stringent than those of the Basel III standards for the most systematically significant banking organizations in the U.S. In January 2016, the Basel Committee published its revised capital requirements for market risk, known as Fundamental Review of the Trading Book, or FRTB, which are expected to generally result in higher global capital requirements for banks that could, in turn, reduce liquidity and increase financing and hedging costs. The impact of FRTB will not be known until after any resulting rules are finalized by the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies. Compliance with the Basel III standards, the supplemental regulatory standards adopted by U.S. regulators and FRTB may result in significant costs to banking organizations, which in turn may result in higher borrowing costs for the private sector and reduced access to certain types of credit.

Regulatory changes and other developments in the United States and regulatory compliance failures could adversely affect our reputation, businesses and operations.

In July 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, imposes significant new regulations on nearly every aspect of the U.S. financial services industry, including oversight and regulation of systemic market risk (including the power to liquidate certain institutions); authorizing the Federal Reserve to regulate nonbank institutions that are deemed systemically important; generally prohibiting 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 any of these types of entities, regardless of geographic location, from conducting proprietary trading or investing in or sponsoring a “covered fund,” which includes private equity funds and hedge funds (i.e. the Volcker Rule); and imposing new registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements on private fund investment advisers. Importantly, while several key aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act have been defined through final rules, many aspects will be implemented by various regulatory bodies over the next several years. While we already have several subsidiaries registered as investment advisers subject to Commission examinations and another subsidiary registered as a broker-dealer subject to Commission and FINRA examinations, the imposition of any additional legal or regulatory requirements could make compliance more difficult and expensive, affect the manner in which we conduct our businesses and adversely affect our profitability.

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 subject to a conformance period (currently ending July 21, 2016, subject to extension to July 21, 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.

In 2013, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published revised guidance regarding expectations for banks’ leveraged lending activities. This guidance, in addition to the Dodd-Frank risk retention rules approved in October 2014, could further restrict credit availability, as well as potentially restrict the activities of our Tradable Credit Group, which supports many of its portfolio investments from banks’ lending activities. This could also negatively affect the terms and availability of credit to our funds and their portfolio companies. See “—Our use of leverage to finance our businesses exposes us to substantial risks” and “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.”

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, regulation of the U.S. derivatives market is bifurcated between the CFTC and the Commission. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has jurisdiction over swaps and the Commission 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 of CPOs. Previously, the CPO registration rules had applied to the operator of a fund invested in “commodity interests,” meaning that the fund entered into futures or options with respect to commodities. As a result of the CFTC’s revisions to these rules, all swaps (other than security-based swaps) are now included in the definition of commodity interests. As a result, funds that utilize swaps (whether or not related to a physical commodity) as part of their business model may fall within the statutory definition of a commodity pool. If a fund qualifies as a commodity pool, then, absent an available exemption, the operator of such fund is required to register with the CFTC as a CPO. Registration with the CFTC renders such CPO subject to regulation, including with respect to disclosure, reporting, recordkeeping and business conduct.

Certain of our funds may from time to time, directly or indirectly, invest in instruments that meet the definition of a “swap” under the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC’s rules promulgated thereunder. As a result, such funds may qualify as commodity pools, and the operators of such funds may need to register as CPOs unless an exemption applies. The operators of our funds may therefore seek to rely on no-action relief or claim an exemption from registration as a CPO with the CFTC, including pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3). CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) provides an exemption from CPO registration for the operator of a fund, or pool, if (among other things) that pool’s trading in commodity interest positions (including both hedging and speculative positions, and positions in security futures) is limited so that either (i) no more than 5% of the liquidation value of the pool’s portfolio is used as initial margin, premiums and required minimum security deposits to establish such positions, or (ii) the aggregate net notional value of the pool’s trading in such positions does not exceed 100% of the pool’s liquidation value. If the operators of our funds are able to rely on an exemption from CPO registration pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3), then unlike a registered CPO, the fund’s operator would not be required to provide prospective investors with a CFTC compliant disclosure document, nor would it be required to provide investors with periodic account statements or certified annual reports that satisfy the requirements of CFTC rules applicable to registered CPOs. As an alternative to the exemption from registration, the operators of one of more of our funds may register as CPOs with the CFTC, in which case such operators may seek to avail themselves of certain disclosure, reporting and record-keeping relief under CFTC Rule 4.7.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFTC, the Commission 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 Commission. 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 Commission 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 rules, an entity may be required to register as a MSP if it has substantial swaps positions or has substantial counterparty exposure from its swaps positions. If any of our funds were required to register as an MSP, 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.

The CFTC has issued final rules imposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements on swaps market participants. Such rules are currently effective and could significantly increase operating costs. These additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements may require additional compliance resources and may also have a negative effect on market liquidity, which could negatively impact commodity prices and our ability to hedge our price risks.

Pursuant to a rule finalized by the CFTC in December 2012, 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 us to the credit risk of the clearing house through which any cleared swap is cleared. In addition, with respect to any uncleared

swaps that we enter into, the CFTC or applicable federal banking regulatory authorities may impose credit support documentation and margin requirements. At this time, rules with respect to the margining of uncleared swaps are in proposed form and therefore the application of those rules to us is uncertain at this time.

The CFTC has proposed rules to set position limits for futures, options and swap contracts in certain commodities. It is possible that the CFTC could propose to expand such requirements to other types of contracts in the future.  These position limits will likely be aggregated among all entities under common control, unless an exemption applies, which could affect our ability and the ability for our funds to enter into derivatives transactions. It is uncertain at this time, though, whether, when and to what extent the CFTC’s position limits rules will become final and effective.

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, 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. Such restrictions could limit our ability to recruit and retain investment professionals and senior management executives.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires public companies to adopt and disclose policies requiring, in the event the company is required to issue an accounting restatement, the clawback of related incentive compensation from current and former executive officers.

The Dodd-Frank Act amends the Exchange Act to compensate and protect whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information to the Commission 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 Commission requires investment advisers registered or required to register with the Commission 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.

Many of these provisions are subject to further rulemaking and to the discretion of regulatory bodies, such as the Council and the Federal Reserve.

It is difficult to determine the full extent of the impact on us of 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.

Regulatory changes in jurisdictions outside the United States could adversely affect our businesses.

Certain of our subsidiaries operate outside the United States and must comply with additional restrictions regarding, among other things, the marketing of investment products and solicitation of investors to do business with investors in those countries. In the United Kingdom, Ares Management Limited and Ares Management UK Limited are subject to regulation by the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (which replaced the U.K. Financial Services Authority in April 2013).

In March 2013, the Financial Services Authority published the FCA Rules for the FCA’s regulation and supervision of the LIBOR. In particular, the FCA 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. It is uncertain whether corresponding changes will be made to EURIBOR although there is proposed EU legislation to govern benchmarks such as LIBOR and EURIBOR to enhance their robustness and reliability.  On November 25, 2015, the European Parliament and the Council reached political agreement on a proposed regulation. The European Parliament will vote on this text in April 2016 and it is expected to enter into force in May or June 2016, although it will not apply until 18 months after that date.  A number of pieces of secondary legislation will be required to implement the proposed regulation.

European Union legislation and/or changing European regulatory or supervisory focus could impact our business in the United Kingdom and in other EU member states where we have operations. The following measures are of particular relevance to our business.

The Directive and CRD IV legislation could restrict the ability of banks and 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 prescribed interest in the securitization concerned. Where such securitization arrangements are managed by Ares-affiliated undertakings, this risk retention requirement will, at present, need to be 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, the EU Commission published proposals for a new securitization regulation as part of its Capital Markets Union Action Plan. This includes 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 for EU investors in non-compliant securitizations). There would also be new investor transparency requirements that would require additional information to be disclosed to investors.  Compliance with the proposed new requirements in the securitization regulation may result in us incurring material costs.

The EU regulation on OTC derivative transactions, central counterparties and trade repositories (commonly known as EMIR) requires the mandatory clearing of certain over-the counter (“OTC”) derivatives through central counterparties. This mandatory clearing obligation is coming into force in stages and will apply to “financial counterparties” (which includes, for example, an investment firm authorized under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive or an EEA or non-EEA AIF managed by an investment fund manager authorized under the Directive) that enters into an eligible derivative transaction with another financial counterparty or a non-financial counterparty whose OTC derivative exposures exceed a prescribed clearing threshold. An OTC derivative trade is eligible if it meets certain pre-defined eligibility criteria (such as levels of standardization and liquidity). A central counterparty will typically require the posting of initial and valuation margin in respect of cleared transactions. In addition, EMIR requires certain parties to non-centrally cleared OTC derivative transactions to mitigate their risks by posting prescribed types and values of initial and variation margin. These margin requirements could increase the cost to us and our funds when transacting in eligible OTC derivatives.

On January 29, 2014, the European Commission published a proposal for a new regulation dealing with structural measures to improve the resilience of EU credit institutions, known as the Banking Structural Reform Regulation. Provisions in the proposed regulation would prohibit systemically important EU banks from acquiring, owning, sponsoring or having an exposure to an AIF, unless that AIF is an unleveraged and closed-ended AIF that is either established in the EEA or, if it is not established in the EEA, marketed in the EEA.  There has been considerable political disagreement in relation to the legislative proposals and the precise scope of this proposed regulation and its timescale for coming into force is currently uncertain. However, the European Parliament and European Council are aiming to seek political agreement during 2016. The final proposals, if adopted, may affect our ability to raise capital in 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.

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. We are involved regularly in trading activities that implicate a broad number of foreign (as well as U.S.) securities law regimes, including laws governing trading on inside information and 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 or prohibitions on our activities and damage to our reputation, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our businesses in a number of ways, making it harder for us to raise new funds and discouraging others from doing business with us. In addition, increasing global regulatory oversight of fundraising activities, including local registration requirements in various jurisdictions and the addition of new compliance regimes, could make it more difficult for us to raise new funds or could increase the cost of raising such funds.

Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive

The Directive was enacted in July 2011 and took effect on July 22, 2013. The Directive applies to (a) AIFMs established in the EEA that manage EEA or non-EEA AIFs, (b) non-EEA AIFMs that manage EEA AIFs and (c) non-EEA AIFMs that market their AIFs to professional investors within the EEA.

Beginning July 22, 2013, the Directive imposed new operating requirements on EEA AIFMs. AIFMs must comply with all the requirements of the Directive, including becoming appropriately authorized by their home-country regulator. EEA AIFMs and non-EEA AIFMs seeking to market an AIF within the EEA need to comply with the Directive’s disclosure and transparency requirements and, in the case of non-EEA AIFMs, jurisdiction specific private placement regimes (which have been modified as a result of the Directive).

The full scope of the Directive may also be extended on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis to non-EEA AIFMs that wish to market an AIF within the EEA pursuant to a pan-European marketing passport (instead of under national private placement regimes). In July 2015, the European Securities and Markets Authority recommended that the European Commission may wish to wait until positive assessments have been given in relation to the regulatory regimes of a sufficient number of non-EEA jurisdictions before extending the scope of the marketing passport under the Directive. Certain of the jurisdiction specific private placement regimes may also be removed when the passport is extended. It is possible that certain EEA jurisdictions may remove their private placement regimes in relation to all non-EEA AIFMs before the marketing passport has been extended to certain non-EEA jurisdictions. In such a situation, AIFMs in those non-EEA jurisdictions would be unable to market AIFs in the EEA jurisdictions concerned.

The operating requirements imposed by the Directive include, among other things, rules relating to the remuneration of certain personnel, minimum regulatory capital requirements, restrictions on the use of leverage, restrictions on early distributions relating to portfolio companies (so-called “asset stripping” rules), disclosure and reporting requirements to both investors and home state regulators, the independent valuation of an AIF’s assets and the appointment of an independent depository to hold assets. As a result, the Directive could in the future have an adverse effect on our businesses by, among other things, increasing the regulatory burden and costs of doing business in or relating to EEA member states, imposing extensive disclosure obligations on, and asset stripping rules with respect to, companies, if any, in which any of our funds invest that are located in EEA member states, significantly restricting marketing activities

within the EEA, potentially requiring certain of our funds to change their compensation structures for key personnel, thereby affecting our ability to recruit and retain these personnel, and potentially disadvantaging our funds as investors in private companies located in EEA member states when compared to non-AIF/AIFM competitors that may not be subject to the requirements of the Directive, thereby potentially restricting our funds’ ability to make investments in such companies.

The Directive allows AIFMs to invest in securitizations on behalf of the alternative investment funds they manage only if the originator, sponsor or original lender for the securitization has explicitly disclosed that it will retain, on an ongoing basis, a material net economic interest of not less than 5% of the nominal value of the securitized exposures or of the tranches sold to investors and certain due diligence undertakings are made. AIFMs that discover after the assumption of a securitization exposure that the retained interest does not meet the requirements, or subsequently falls below 5% of the economic risk, are required to take such corrective action as is in the best interests of investors. It remains to be seen how this requirement will be addressed by AIFMs should these circumstances arise. These requirements, along with other changes to the regulation or regulatory treatment of securitizations, may negatively affect the value of investments made by our funds.

The Directive could also limit our operating flexibility and our investment opportunities, as well as expose us and/or our funds to conflicting regulatory requirements in the United States (and elsewhere). The final scope and requirements of the Directive remain subject to enactment of EU secondary legislation and national implementing legislation in certain EU member states where implementation has been delayed.

Solvency II

Solvency II sets out stronger capital adequacy and risk management requirements for European insurers and reinsurers and, in particular, dictates how much capital such firms must hold against their liabilities and introduces a risk-based assessment of those liabilities. Solvency II came into force on January 1, 2010 but was only required to be implemented by firms on January 1, 2016. There are also a number of transitional provisions designed to avoid market disruption. Solvency II imposes, among other things, substantially greater quantitative and qualitative capital requirements for insurers and reinsurers as well as other supervisory and disclosure requirements. We are not subject to Solvency II; however, many of our European insurer or reinsurer fund investors are subject to this directive, as applied under applicable domestic law. Solvency II may impact insurers’ and reinsurers’ investment decisions and their asset allocations. In addition, insurers and reinsurers will be subject to more onerous data collation and reporting requirements. As a result, Solvency II could have an adverse indirect effect on our businesses by, among other things, restricting the ability of European insurers and reinsurers to invest in our funds and imposing on us extensive disclosure and reporting obligations for those insurers and reinsurers that do invest in our funds. The final details and requirements of the subsidiary regulations pursuant to Solvency II remain uncertain and are subject to change as a result of enactment both of related EU legislation and national implementing legislation in EU member states.

MiFID II

The recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (collectively referred to as MiFID II) will amend the existing MiFID regime and, amongst other requirements, will introduce new organizational and operational requirements for investment firms in the EEA. Compliance with these new rules may require updates to existing procedures, systems and controls and the development of new internal systems, which may include substantial automated and electronic systems, and is likely to involve material costs to the business. Although the MiFID II legislation currently states that it will come into effect from January 3, 2017, the European Commission has published a legislative amendment that is now expected to delay its application until January 2018 to give regulators and affected firms sufficient time to implement the requirements. A number of delegated acts that are required under MiFID II have not yet been finalized, but this is expected to occur during 2016. These delegated acts may impose additional operational requirements upon investment firms.

European Union Referendum in the United Kingdom

 

The United Kingdom will hold a referendum on June 23, 2016 on whether it should remain a member of the

European Union (EU).  The implications of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union are unclear at present because it is unclear what would be the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU after withdrawal.   It is likely that this would be a matter negotiated over at least two years from the date of the referendum if the decision is taken to withdraw.  It may be that our ability to: (a) market interests in its funds to EU investors; and/or (b) lend to EU borrowers or invest in EU assets would be adversely affected.  If the UK chooses to remain in the EU it is not expected that the recent negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU on the United Kingdom’s status in the EU will materially affect us.

Regulations governing ARCC’s operation as a business development company affect its ability to raise, and the way in which it raises, additional capital.

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 to issue senior securities only in amounts such that its asset coverage, as defined in the Investment Company Act, equals at least 200% after each issuance of senior securities. 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.

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

Many of our funds depend on the services of prime brokers, custodians, counterparties, administrators and other agents to carry out certain securities and derivatives transactions. The terms of these contracts are often customized and complex, and many of these arrangements occur in markets or relate to products that are not subject to regulatory oversight, although the Dodd-Frank Act provides for new regulation of the derivatives market. In particular, some of our funds utilize prime brokerage arrangements with a relatively limited number of counterparties, which has the effect of concentrating the transaction volume (and related counterparty default risk) of these funds with these counterparties.

Our funds are subject to the risk that the counterparty to one or more of these contracts defaults, either voluntarily or involuntarily, on its performance under the contract. Any such default may occur suddenly and without notice to us. Moreover, if a counterparty defaults, we may be unable to take action to cover our exposure, either because we lack contractual recourse or because market conditions make it difficult to take effective action. This inability could occur in times of market stress, which is when defaults are most likely to occur.

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

Although we have risk-management models and processes to ensure that we are not exposed to a single counterparty for significant periods of time, given the large number and size of our funds, we often have large positions with a single counterparty. For example, most of our funds have credit lines. If the lender under one or more of those credit lines were to become insolvent, we may have difficulty replacing the credit line and one or more of our funds may face liquidity problems.

In the event of a counterparty default, particularly a default by a major investment bank or a default by a counterparty to a significant number of our contracts, one or more of our funds may have outstanding trades that they cannot settle or are delayed in settling. As a result, these funds could incur material losses and the resulting market impact of a major counterparty default could harm our businesses, results of operation and financial condition.

In the event of the insolvency of a prime broker, custodian, counterparty or any other party that is holding assets of our funds as collateral, our funds might not be able to recover equivalent assets in full as they will rank among the prime broker’s, custodian’s or counterparty’s unsecured creditors in relation to the assets held as collateral. In addition, our funds’ cash held with a prime broker, custodian or counterparty generally will not be segregated from the prime broker’s, custodian’s or counterparty’s own cash, and our funds may therefore rank as unsecured creditors in relation thereto. If our derivatives transactions are cleared through a derivatives clearing organization, the CFTC has issued final rules regulating the segregation and protection of collateral posted by customers of cleared and uncleared swaps. The CFTC is also working to provide new guidance regarding prime broker arrangements and intermediation generally with regard to trading on swap execution facilities.

The counterparty risks that we face have increased in complexity and magnitude as a result of disruption in the financial markets in recent years. For example, the consolidation and elimination of counterparties has increased our concentration of counterparty risk and decreased the universe of potential counterparties, and our funds are generally not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of their transactions with one counterparty. In addition, counterparties have generally reacted to recent market volatility by tightening their underwriting standards and increasing their margin requirements for all categories of financing, which has the result of decreasing the overall amount of leverage available and increasing the costs of borrowing.

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

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 units 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 units or increased volatility in the price of our common units generally.

The timing and amount of performance fees generated by our funds is uncertain and will contribute 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.

With respect to our funds that pay an incentive fee, the incentive fee is generally paid annually. In many cases, we earn this incentive fee only if the net asset value of a fund has increased or, in the case of certain funds, increased beyond a particular threshold. Some of our funds also have “high water marks”. If the high water mark for a particular fund is not surpassed, we would not earn an incentive fee with respect to such fund during a particular period even if such fund had positive returns in such period as a result of losses in prior periods. If such fund experiences losses, we will not be able to earn an incentive fee from such fund until it surpasses the previous high water mark. The incentive fees we earn are, therefore, dependent on the net asset value of the fund’s investments, which could lead to significant volatility in our results. Finally, the timing and amount of incentive fees generated by our closed-end funds are uncertain and will contribute to the volatility of our net income. Incentive fees depend on our closed-end funds’ investment performance and opportunities for realizing gains, which may be limited.

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.

We may be subject to litigation risks and may face liabilities and damage to our professional reputation as a result.

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.

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.

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. Further, our employees are subject to various internal policies including a Code of Ethics

and policies covering information systems, business continuity and information security. The violation of these obligations, standards and policies by any of our employees could adversely affect investors in our funds and us. Our businesses often require that we deal with confidential matters of great significance to companies in which our funds may invest. If our employees or former employees were to use or disclose confidential information improperly, we could suffer serious harm to our reputation, financial position and current and future business relationships. It is not always possible to detect or deter employee misconduct, and the extensive precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in all cases. If one or more of our employees or former employees were to engage in misconduct or were to be accused of such misconduct, our businesses and our reputation could be adversely affected and a loss of investor confidence could result, which would adversely impact our ability to raise future funds.

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

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Commission have devoted greater resources to enforcement of the FCPA. In addition, the United Kingdom has recently significantly expanded the reach of its anti-bribery law, 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 have developed and implemented policies and procedures designed to ensure strict compliance by us and our personnel with the FCPA and UK Bribery Act, such policies and procedures may not be effective in all instances to prevent violations. Any determination that we have violated the FCPA, the UK Bribery Act or other applicable anti-corruption laws could subject us to, among other things, civil and criminal penalties, material fines, profit disgorgement, injunctions on future conduct, securities litigation and a general loss of investor confidence, any one of which could adversely affect our business prospects, financial position or the market value of our common units.

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 (“FERC”) or Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) 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.

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

As of December 31, 2015, we had $110.0 million in borrowings outstanding under our credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) and $250 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 those 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 of any of these risks 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.  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 April 2019 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 either refinance them by entering into new facilities or issuing additional debt, which could result in higher borrowing costs, or issuing equity, which would dilute existing common unitholders. We could also repay these borrowings by using cash on hand, cash provided by our continuing operations or cash from the sale of our assets, which could reduce distributions to our common unitholders. We may be unable to enter into new facilities or issue debt or equity in the future on attractive terms, or at all. Borrowings under the Credit Facility are LIBOR-based obligations. As a result, an increase in short-term interest rates will increase our interest costs if such borrowings have not been hedged into fixed rates.

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.”

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

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 Tradable Credit Group, and to a lesser extent our Private Equity Group, is highly dependent on our ability to process and evaluate, on a daily basis, transactions across markets and geographies in a time-sensitive, efficient and accurate manner. 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.

Furthermore, we depend on our headquarters in Los Angeles, where a substantial portion of our personnel are located, for the continued operation of our businesses. An earthquake or other disaster or a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our businesses, including a disruption involving electronic communications, our internal human resources systems or other services used by us or third parties with whom we conduct business, or directly affecting our headquarters, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue to operate our businesses without interruption. Although we have disaster recovery programs in place, these may not be sufficient to mitigate the harm that may result from such a disaster or disruption. In addition, insurance and other safeguards might only partially reimburse us for our losses, if at all.

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.

Cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents may adversely affect our business by causing a disruption to our operations, a compromise or corruption of our confidential information and/or damage to our business relationships, all of which could negatively impact our business, financial condition and operating results.

A cyber incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information resources. These incidents may be an intentional attack or an unintentional event and could involve gaining unauthorized access to our information systems for purposes of misappropriating assets, stealing confidential information, corrupting data or causing operational disruption. The result of these incidents may include disrupted operations, misstated or unreliable financial data, liability for stolen assets or information, increased cybersecurity protection and insurance costs, litigation and damage to our business relationships. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed to our information systems, both internal and those provided by third-party service

providers. We have implemented processes, procedures and internal controls designed to mitigate cybersecurity risks and cyber intrusions, but these measures, as well as our increased awareness of the nature and extent of a risk of a cyber-incident, do not guarantee that a cyber-incident will not occur and/or that our financial results, operations or confidential information will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

Risks Related to Our Funds

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

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. Therefore, holders of our common units should not conclude that positive performance of the funds we advise will necessarily result in positive returns on an investment in common units. 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. An investment in our common units 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, including risks of the industries and businesses in which a particular fund invests.

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

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. 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. 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 valuation of these assets will change from period to period, and the valuation for any particular period may not be realized at the time of disposition. In addition, because our funds often hold large positions in their portfolio companies, the disposition of these securities often takes place over a long period of time, which can further expose us to volatility risk. Even if we hold a quantity of public securities that may be difficult to sell in a single transaction, we do not discount the market price of the security for purposes of our valuations.

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.

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

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, the general state of the securities markets and other material events, such

as significant management changes, financings, refinancings, 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.

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

Cyclicality is important to our businesses. Weak economic environments have tended to afford us our best investment opportunities and our best 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 found their best 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 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.

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.

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 of their operations may suffer if such markets experience dislocations, contractions or volatility. Any such events could adversely impact the availability of credit to businesses generally and could lead to an overall weakening of the U.S. and global economies. In 2015, interest rates increased and the credit markets tightened, decreasing 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. 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 those investments. Future increases in interest rates could also make it more difficult to locate and consummate investments because other potential buyers, including operating companies acting as strategic buyers, may be able to bid for an asset at a higher price due to a lower overall cost of capital or their ability to benefit from a higher amount of cost savings following the acquisition of the asset. In addition, a portion of the indebtedness used to finance investments often includes high yield debt securities issued in the capital markets. Availability of capital from the high yield debt markets is subject to significant volatility, and there may be times when we are unable to access those markets at attractive rates, or at all, when completing an investment. Certain investments may also be financed through borrowings on fund-level debt facilities, which may or may not be available for a refinancing at the end of their respective terms. Finally, the interest payments on the indebtedness used to finance our funds’ investments are generally deductible expenses for income tax purposes, subject to limitations under applicable tax law and policy. Any change in such tax law or policy to eliminate or substantially limit these income tax deductions, as has been discussed from time to time in various jurisdictions, would reduce the after-tax rates of return on the affected investments, which may have an adverse impact on our businesses and financial results. See “—Our funds make investments in companies that are based outside of the United States, which may expose us to additional risks not typically associated with investing in companies that are based in the United States.”

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 Direct Lending and Tradable Credit Groups, 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 issue senior securities in amounts such that its asset coverage ratio equals at least 200% after each issuance of senior securities. ARCC’s ability to pay dividends will be restricted if its asset coverage ratio falls below at least 200% and any amounts that it uses to service its indebtedness are not available for dividends to its common stockholders. An increase in interest rates could also decrease the value of fixed-rate debt investments that our funds make. Any of the foregoing circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Many of our funds invest in securities that are not publicly traded. In many cases, our funds may be prohibited by contract or by applicable securities laws from selling such securities for a period of time. Our funds generally cannot sell these securities publicly unless either their sale is registered under applicable securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available. Accordingly, our funds may be forced, under certain conditions, to sell securities at a loss. The ability of many of our funds, particularly our private equity funds, to dispose of these investments is heavily dependent on the public equity markets. For example, the ability to realize any value from an investment may depend upon the ability of the portfolio company in which such investment is held to complete an initial public offering. Even if the securities are publicly traded, large holdings of securities can often be disposed of only over a substantial period of time. Moreover, because the investment strategy of many of our funds, particularly our private equity funds, often entails our having representation on our funds’ public portfolio company boards, our funds can effect such sales only during limited trading windows, exposing the investment returns to risks of downward movement in market prices during the intended disposition period. In addition, our Tradable Credit Funds may hold investments in portfolio companies of such private equity funds on which we have board representation and be restricted for extended periods of time from selling their investments.  As such, we may fail to realize any profits from our investments in the funds that hold these securities for a considerable period of time or at all, and we may lose some or all of the principal amount of our investments.

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

Certain of our funds in our Tradable 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.

A central feature of our distressed investment strategy is our ability to effectively anticipate the occurrence of certain corporate events, such as debt and/or equity offerings, restructurings, reorganizations, mergers, takeover offers and

other transactions, that we believe will improve the condition of the business. Similarly, we perform significant analysis of the company’s capital structure, operations, industry and ability to generate income, as well as market valuation of the company and its debt, and develop a strategy with respect to a particular distressed investment based on such analysis. In furtherance of that strategy our funds seek to identify the best position in the capital structure in which to invest. If the relevant corporate event that we anticipate is delayed, changed or never completed, or if our analysis or investment strategy is inaccurate, the market price and value of the applicable fund’s investment could decline sharply.

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

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.

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

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 the terminated plan. Similarly, joint and several liability may be imposed for certain pension plan related obligations in connection with the complete or partial withdrawal by an employer from a multiemployer pension plan. Depending on a number of factors, including the level of ownership held by our funds in a particular portfolio company, a fund may be considered to be a member of a portfolio company’s “controlled group” for this purpose, and thus may be liable for the underfunded pension liabilities of such portfolio company.

In Sun Capital Partners III L.P. v. New England Teamster and Trucking Industry Pension Fund, the First Circuit Court of Appeal held that a fund was engaged in a “trade or business” with a portfolio company for purposes of the ERISA rules and was thus liable for underfunded pension liabilities. If this decision is applied generally to private equity investing, our funds could be exposed to liability for certain benefit plan contributions, a liability that could be significant if the portfolio company’s pension plan is significantly underfunded.

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

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 six 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 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 investments with underlying exposure to the commodities markets to deploy hedging strategies to protect against pricing fluctuations but such strategies may or may not protect our investments. Global commodity prices declined significantly in 2015 and impacted the value of securities held by our funds.  Continued volatility could result in lower returns than we anticipated at the time certain of our investments were made.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Many of our funds make investments in companies that we do not control.

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.

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

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 will not be challenged by our supervising regulatory bodies. If our supervising regulators were to determine that we have improperly allocated such expenses, we could be required to refund amounts to the funds and could be subject to regulatory censure, litigation from our fund investors and/or reputational harm, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

We may need to pay “clawback” obligations if and when they are triggered under the governing agreements with our funds.

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 was previously distributed to us exceeds the amounts to which we are ultimately entitled. This obligation is known as a “clawback” 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, 2015, 2014 and 2013, if the funds were liquidated at their fair values at that date, there would have been no clawback obligation or liability. There can be no assurance that we will not incur a clawback obligation in the future. At December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, had we assumed all existing investments were worthless, the amount of carried interest, net of tax, subject to clawback would have been approximately $322.2 million, $295.7 million and $346.4 million, respectively, of which approximately $247.9 million, $239.3 million and $280.5 million, respectively, is reimbursable to the Company by certain professionals. Although a clawback obligation is several to each person who received a distribution, and not a joint obligation, if a recipient does not fund his or her respective share of a clawback obligation, we may have to fund such additional amounts beyond the amount of carried interest we retained, although we generally will retain the right to pursue remedies against those carried interest recipients who fail to fund their obligations. We may need to use or reserve cash to repay such clawback obligations instead of using the cash for other purposes. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Contingent Obligations,” Note 2 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” and Note 13 “Commitments and Contingencies” to the consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this report.

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

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 to 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.

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

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 “clawback” 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 event could have a significant negative impact on our revenue, net income and cash flow of such fund. The governing agreements of our funds may also provide that upon the occurrence of events, including in the event that certain “key persons” in our funds do not meet specified time commitments with regard to managing the fund, investors in those funds have the right to vote to terminate the investment period, including in certain cases by a simple majority vote in accordance with specified procedures. In addition to having a significant negative impact on our revenue, net income and cash flow, the occurrence of such an event with respect to any of our funds would likely result in significant reputational damage to us and could negatively impact our future fundraising efforts.

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 connection with managing such account or company would immediately cease, which could result in a significant adverse impact on our revenues.

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.

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

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, liquidity in the credit markets was 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 or 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 would 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.

Our funds may face risks relating to undiversified investments.

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 slowdowns affecting a particular asset class, geographic region 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.

The performance of our investments may fall short of our expectations and the expectations of the investors in our funds.

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 out with respect to an investment opportunity may not reveal or highlight all relevant facts that may be necessary or helpful in evaluating such investment opportunity.

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 be forced to dispose of investments at a disadvantageous time.

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.

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

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, prices in 2015 often remain below peaks reached in late 2007 or early 2008.

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 activities, including risks relating to the availability and timely receipt of zoning and other regulatory or environmental approvals, the cost and timely completion of construction (including risks beyond the control of our fund, such as weather or labor conditions or material shortages) and the availability of both construction and permanent financing on favorable terms. Additionally, our funds’ properties may be managed by a third party, which makes us dependent upon such third parties and subjects us to risks associated with the actions of such third parties. Any of these factors may cause the value of the investments in our real estate funds to decline, which may have a material impact on our results of operations.

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

 

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 (“OPEC”), energy conservation, domestic and foreign governmental regulation and taxation and the

availability of local, intrastate and interstate transportation systems. The Obama administration has proposed a surcharge for every barrel of oil produced to be paid by oil companies to fund clean energy transportation systems.

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

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

While such hedging arrangements may reduce certain risks, such arrangements themselves may entail certain other risks. These arrangements may require the posting of cash collateral at a time when a fund has insufficient cash or illiquid assets such that the posting of the cash is either impossible or requires the sale of assets at prices that do not reflect their underlying value. Moreover, these hedging arrangements may generate significant transaction costs, including potential tax costs, that reduce the returns generated by a fund. 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.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

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

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

We believe that we are engaged primarily in the business of providing investment management services and not primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. We hold ourselves out as an asset management firm and do not propose to engage primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Accordingly, we do not believe that we are an “orthodox” investment company as defined in Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act and described in the first bullet point above. Furthermore, we have no material assets other than interests in certain 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 of the general partners of our funds in their respective funds are neither securities nor investment securities, we believe that less than 40% of Ares Management, L.P.’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis are composed of assets that could be considered investment securities. Accordingly, we do not believe that Ares Management, L.P. is an inadvertent investment company by virtue of the 40% test in Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act as described in the second bullet point above.

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

Our common unitholders 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 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 units 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 units 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 units 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. In the event that 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 unitholders 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 unitholders 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 be elected in accordance with its limited liability company agreement, which provides that directors may be appointed and removed by Ares Partners Holdco LLC, the member of our general partner. Ares Partners Holdco LLC is owned by our Co-Founders and managed by a board of managers, which is composed of our Co-Founders. Decisions by the board of managers generally are made by a majority of the Co-Founders, which majority, subject to a minimum ownership requirement, must include Antony P. Ressler. As a result, our common unitholders have limited ability to influence decisions regarding our businesses.

Our Co-Founders will be able to determine the outcome of those few matters that may be submitted for a vote of our common unitholders.

Ares Voting LLC, an entity wholly owned by Ares Partners Holdco LLC, which is in turn owned and controlled by our Co-Founders, holds a special voting unit that provides it with a number of votes, on any matter that may be submitted for a vote of our common unitholders (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. Our Co-Founders, through Ares Owners Holdings L.P. and the special voting unit held by Ares Voting LLC, hold approximately 78% of the voting power of Ares Management, L.P. Accordingly, our Co-Founders have sufficient voting power to determine the outcome of those few matters that may be submitted for a vote of our common unitholders.

Our common unitholders’ voting rights are further restricted by the provision in our partnership agreement that states that any common units held by a person that beneficially owns 20% or more of any class of our common units then

outstanding (other than our general partner, Ares Owners Holdings L.P., a member of Ares Partners Holdco LLC or their respective affiliates, a direct or subsequently approved transferee of our general partner or its affiliates or a person who acquired such common units with the prior approval of our general partner) cannot be voted on any matter. In addition, our partnership agreement contains provisions limiting the ability of our common unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the ability of our common unitholders to influence the manner or direction of our management. Our partnership agreement also does not restrict our general partner’s ability to take actions that may result in our being treated as an entity taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal (and applicable state) income tax purposes. Furthermore, the common unitholders are not be entitled to dissenters’ rights of appraisal under our partnership agreement or applicable Delaware law in the event of a merger or consolidation, a sale of substantially all of our assets or any other transaction or event.

As a result of these matters and the provisions referred to under “—Our common unitholders 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 unitholders may be deprived of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common units in the future through a sale of Ares Management, L.P., and the trading prices of our common units may be adversely affected by the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Potential conflicts of interest may arise among our general partner, its affiliates or associates and us. Our general partner and its affiliates and associates have limited fiduciary duties to us and our common unitholders, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of us and our common unitholders.

Conflicts of interest may arise among our general partner or its affiliates or associates, on the one hand, and us or our common unitholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our general partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates or associates (including the Co-Founders) over our interests or the interests of our common unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following:

See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.”

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce or eliminate duties (including fiduciary duties) of our general partner and its affiliates and associates and limit remedies available to common unitholders for actions that might otherwise constitute a breach of duty. It is difficult for a common unitholder to successfully challenge a resolution of a conflict of interest by our general partner or by its conflicts committee.

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 common unitholders 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 Co-Founders, and has no duty or obligation (fiduciary or otherwise) to give any consideration to any interest of or factors affecting us or any common unitholders 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 common unitholders 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 common unitholders 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 common unitholders because they restrict the remedies available to common unitholders 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 common unitholder 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, the resolution will be conclusively deemed approved by us and our common unitholders 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 common unitholders. 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. Common unitholders are treated as having consented to the provisions set forth in our partnership agreement, including provisions regarding conflicts of interest situations that, in the absence of such provisions, might be considered a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable state law. As a result, common unitholders will, as a practical matter, not be able to successfully challenge an informed decision by the conflicts committee. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.”

The potential requirement to convert our financial statements from being prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States to International Financial Reporting Standards may strain our resources and increase our annual expenses.

As a public entity, the Commission 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.

The requirements of being a public entity and sustaining growth may strain our resources.

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 Commission or violations of applicable NYSE listing rules, and result in a breach of the covenants under the agreements governing any of our financing arrangements.  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.

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.

The control of our general partner may be transferred without common unitholder consent.

Our general partner may transfer all or any part of its general partner interest without the consent of our common unitholders. 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. 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.

Our ability to pay regular distributions to our common unitholders may be limited by our holding partnership structure, applicable provisions of Delaware law and contractual restrictions or obligations.

As a holding partnership, 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. may declare on the common units. 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. Because the direct subsidiaries of Ares Management, L.P. that are taxable as U.S. corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes are subject to entity-level income taxes and may be obligated to make payments under the tax receivable agreement, the amounts ultimately distributed by Ares Management, L.P. to common unitholders are generally expected to be less, on a per unit basis, than the amounts distributed by the Ares Operating Group to the holders of Ares Operating Group Units in respect of their Ares Operating Group Units.

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 unitholders 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 unitholders 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 units on the terms and conditions determined by our general partner in its sole discretion at any time without common unitholder 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.

We will be required to pay the TRA Recipients for most of the benefits relating to any additional tax depreciation or amortization deductions we may claim as a result of the tax basis step-up we receive in subsequent sales or exchanges of Ares Operating Group Units and related transactions. In certain circumstances, payments to the TRA Recipients may be accelerated and/or could significantly exceed the actual tax benefits we realize.

The holders of Ares Operating Group Units, subject to any applicable transfer restrictions and other provisions, may, on a quarterly basis, 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 units 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 five Ares Operating Group entities to effect an exchange for a common unit of Ares Management, L.P. Subsequent 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 otherwise be required to pay in the future, although the IRS may challenge all or part of these deductions and tax basis increases, and a court could sustain such a challenge.

We have entered into a tax receivable agreement with certain direct and indirect holders of AOG Units (the “TRA Recipients”) that provides for the payment by the corporate taxpayers to the TRA Recipients of 85% of the amount of cash tax savings, if any, in U.S. federal, state, local and foreign income tax or franchise tax that the corporate taxpayers actually realize (or are deemed to realize in the case of an early termination payment by the corporate taxpayers or a change of control, as discussed below) as a result of increases in tax basis and certain other tax benefits related to our entering into the tax receivable agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the tax receivable agreement. The payments our corporate taxpayers may make to the TRA Recipients could be material in amount and we may need to incur debt to finance payments under the tax receivable agreement if our cash resources are insufficient to meet our obligations under the tax receivable agreement as a result of timing discrepancies or otherwise. Assuming that the market value of a common unit were to be equal to $12.93 per common unit, which is the closing price per common unit as of December 31, 2015, and that LIBOR were to be 1.25%, we estimate that the aggregate amount of these termination payments would be approximately $444.0 million. The foregoing amount is merely an estimate and the actual payments could differ materially.

If the IRS were to challenge a tax basis increase(or the amortizability of such increase), the TRA Recipients will not reimburse us for any payments previously made to them under the tax receivable agreement. The corporate taxpayers’ 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’ cash tax savings.

In addition, the tax receivable agreement provides that, upon a change of control, or if, at any time, the corporate taxpayers elect an early termination of the tax receivable agreement, the corporate taxpayers’ obligations under the tax receivables agreement with respect to exchanged or acquired units (whether exchanged or acquired before or after such change of control) would be based on certain assumptions, including that the corporate taxpayers 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 units at the time of termination. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Tax Receivable Agreement.”

Tax consequences to the direct and indirect holders of Ares Operating Group Units may give rise to conflicts of interests.

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, the 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, our Co-Founders 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 limited partnership and as a result will qualify for and intend to rely on exceptions from certain corporate governance and other requirements under the rules of the NYSE.

We are a 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. We have availed ourselves of these exceptions. Accordingly, holders of our common units do not have the same protections afforded to equityholders of entities that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE.

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

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 units 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, when compared to the Delaware General Corporation Law, insofar as it relates to the exculpation and indemnification of officers and directors.

Ownership limitations may restrict change of control or business combination opportunities in which our common unitholders might receive a premium for their common units.

For Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC to continue to qualify as a REIT, among other requirements, no more than 50% in value of its outstanding limited liability company interests may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals during the last half of any calendar year. “Individuals” for this purpose includes natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts and some charitable trusts. To preserve Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC’s REIT qualification, which we believe confers certain tax benefits to us and our common unitholders, including reducing the state income tax filing requirements of our common unitholders while minimizing to the extent possible the

imposition of corporate-level taxes, our partnership agreement generally prohibits any person (except for existing owners who would otherwise exceed the ownership limit but who we expect to be subject to an excepted holder limit) from beneficially or constructively owning, applying certain attribution rules under the Code, more than the lesser of 7.5% of the number of all outstanding common units and the value of all outstanding units. This ownership limitation could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common units might receive a premium for their common units over the then prevailing market price or which unitholders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

Risks Related to Our Common Units

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

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

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.

The tax attributes of our common units may cause mutual funds to limit or reduce their holdings of common units.

U.S. mutual funds that are treated as regulated investment companies (“RICs”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes generally are required, among other things, to distribute at least 90% of their investment company taxable income to their shareholders to maintain their favorable U.S. income tax status. RICs generally are required to meet this distribution requirement regardless of whether their investments generate cash distributions equal to their taxable income. Accordingly, these investors have a strong incentive to invest in securities in which the amount of cash generated is at least equal to the amount of taxable income recognized. Our common unitholders, however, may be allocated an amount of income and gain for U.S. federal income tax purposes that exceeds the amount of cash we distribute to them. Additionally, for non-U.S.

investors in RICs, certain complex rules may limit the benefits of investing in a RIC to the extent that such RIC’s holdings include our common units. This may make it difficult for RICs to maintain a meaningful portion of their portfolio in our common units and may force those RICs that do hold our common units to sell all or a portion of their holdings of our common units. These actions could increase the supply of, and reduce the demand for, our common units, which could cause the price of our common units to decline.

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

Common unitholders 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 units 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.

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

The market price of our common units could decline as a result of sales of a large number of common units 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 units 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.

As of December 31, 2015, our senior professional owners owned, indirectly, an aggregate of 119,905,131 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 units 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), subject to customary conversion rate adjustments for splits, unit 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 five Ares Operating Group entities to effect an exchange for a common unit of Ares Management, L.P. The common units 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 units delivered in exchange for Ares Operating Group Units or common units 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 units 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 units 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.” In addition, the common units received by our award recipients in connection with our initial public offering are not vested and are subject to transfer restrictions for five years following our initial public offering. See “Item 11. Executive Compensation—Director Compensation—Common Units 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 granted options to purchase 24,835,227 common units and 4,936,051 restricted units to be settled in common units, which are subject to specified vesting requirements, to certain of our senior professionals. During the course of 2015, awards representing 1,420,342 common units were forfeited and became available for issuance under the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan. As of December 31, 2015, 29,030,975 additional common

units 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 Commission covering the common units issuable under our 2014 Equity Incentive Plan. Subject to vesting and contractual lock-up arrangements, upon effectiveness of the relevant registration statement on Form S-8, such common units are freely tradable.

In addition, our partnership agreement authorizes us to issue an unlimited number of additional partnership securities and options, rights, warrants and appreciation rights relating to partnership securities for the consideration and on the terms and conditions determined by our general partner in its sole discretion without the approval of any limited partners. In accordance with the Delaware Limited Partnership Act and the provisions of our partnership agreement, we may also issue additional partnership interests that have certain designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties that are different from, and may be senior to, those applicable to common units. Similarly, the governing agreements of the Ares Operating Group entities authorize the direct subsidiaries of Ares Management, L.P. which are the general partners of those entities to issue an unlimited number of additional units of the Ares Operating Group entity with such designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties that are different from, and may be senior to, those applicable to the Ares Operating Group Units, and which may be exchangeable for our common units.

We cannot assure holders of our common units that our intended distributions will be paid each quarter or at all.

Our intention is to distribute to our common unitholders on a quarterly basis substantially all of Ares Management, L.P.’s share of distributable earnings, net of applicable corporate taxes and amounts payable under the tax receivable agreement, in excess of amounts determined by our general partner to be necessary or appropriate to provide for the conduct of our businesses, to make appropriate investments in our businesses and our funds, to comply with applicable law, any of our debt instruments or other agreements or to provide for future distributions to our common unitholders for any ensuing quarter, subject to a base quarterly distribution in a target range of 80% to 90% of distributable earnings. The declaration, payment and determination of the amount of quarterly distributions, if any, will be at the sole discretion of our general partner, which may change our distribution policy at any time. We cannot assure our common unitholders that any distributions, whether quarterly or otherwise, can or will be paid. In making decisions regarding our quarterly distribution, our general partner considers 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, legal, tax, regulatory and other restrictions that may have implications on the payment of distributions by us to our common unitholders or by our subsidiaries to us, and such other factors as our general partner may deem relevant.

Risks Related to Taxation

The U.S. Congress has considered legislative proposals that, if enacted, would subject us to U.S. federal income tax as a corporation on our net income which would materially increase our U.S. federal income tax liability, could materially reduce the amount available for distribution to common unitholders and would materially alter the tax considerations in connection with an investment in, the ownership of and the disposition of our common units.

On several occasions in recent years, the U.S. Congress has considered legislative proposals that, if enacted, would repeal the exception from taxation as a corporation currently available to certain publicly traded partnerships. Enactment of any such legislation likely would materially increase our entity-level tax liability, and therefore reduce amounts otherwise available for us to distribute to common unitholders. In addition, if we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, ownership of our common units would have the same U.S. federal income tax considerations as ownership of common stock of a corporation. As a result, any such proposal that was ultimately enacted into law would materially alter the U.S. federal income tax considerations in connection with an investment in, the ownership of and the disposition of our common units. As of the date of this report, it is not possible to predict if, whether or when any proposal previously introduced, or a similar proposal, might be enacted, in what form or with what effective date. Investors should discuss with their own tax advisors the possibility that we might cease to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes and other possible changes in tax law.

Over the past several years, there have been legislative proposals that, if enacted, would tax certain common unitholders with respect to certain of our income and gains at increased rates. If such legislation, or similar legislation, were to be enacted, a substantial portion of our income, as well as gain from the disposition of common units, could be taxed at a higher rate to certain common unitholders.

Over the past several years, there have been proposals by both Congress and the executive branch, as well as from states and other jurisdictions, that, if enacted, generally would cause, among other things, some or all of a partner’s share of certain partnership income and certain income realized upon a disposition of partnership interests, that, in each case, otherwise would be treated as long-term capital gains for U.S. federal income tax purposes to be recharacterized as ordinary income, and therefore potentially subject to a higher rate of U.S. federal income tax (or higher state or local tax rates). It is unclear when or whether Congress will pass such legislation or what provisions will be included in any legislation, if enacted.

Some legislative and administrative proposals have provided that, for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment (or, in some cases, beginning ten years after the date of enactment), income derived with respect to carried interest would not meet the qualifying income requirements under publicly traded partnership rules. Therefore, if similar legislation is enacted, following such enactment (or such ten-year period), we would be precluded from qualifying as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we were taxed as a U.S. corporation, our effective tax rate would increase significantly. The federal statutory tax rate for corporations is currently 35%. In addition, we could be subject to increased state and local taxes. Furthermore, common unitholders could be subject to tax on our conversion into a corporation. As of the date of this report, it is not possible to predict whether or when any proposal previously introduced, or a similar proposal, might be enacted, in what form or with what effective date. If such proposals, or similar proposals, were to be enacted, the tax liability of certain of our common unitholders could increase significantly and our ability to fund cash distributions could be reduced.

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

Congress, the OECD and other government agencies in jurisdictions where we and our affiliates invest or do business have maintained a focus on issues related to the taxation of businesses, including multinational entities. The OECD, which represents a coalition of member countries, is contemplating changes to numerous long-standing tax principles through its base erosion and profit shifting project, which is focused on a number of issues, including the shifting of profits between affiliated entities in different jurisdictions. On December 21, 2015, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued proposed 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. Additionally, the Obama administration has announced proposals for potential reform to the U.S. federal income tax rules for businesses, including reducing the deductibility of interest for corporations that are part of a multinational group and anti-inversion rules. Several of these proposals for reform, if enacted by the United States or by other countries in which we or our affiliates invest or do business or, even if not enacted, due to the perception of increased focus on prevention of base erosion and profit sharing, could adversely affect our investment returns, including by 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.

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

The U.S. federal income tax treatment of our common unitholders depends in some instances on determinations of fact and interpretations of complex provisions of U.S. federal income tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. Additionally, changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws and interpretations thereof could make it more difficult or impossible to satisfy the requirements for us to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes that is not taxable as a corporation, affect or cause us to change our investments and commitments, affect the tax considerations of an investment in us, change the character or treatment of portions of our income and adversely affect an investment in our common units. Additionally, our organizational documents and governing agreements permit our general partner to modify our partnership agreement from time to time, without the consent of our common unitholders, to address

certain changes in U.S. federal income tax regulations, legislation or interpretation. In some circumstances, such revisions could have a material adverse impact on some or all of our common unitholders.

If, pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (the “2015 Act”), any audit by the IRS of our income tax returns for any fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2017 results in any adjustments, the IRS may collect any resulting taxes, including any applicable penalties and interest, directly from us, in which case the cash available for distributions to our common unitholders may be substantially reduced.

Under current law, when the IRS audits a partnership tax return, the IRS generally determines tax adjustments at the partnership level, but is required to collect any additional taxes, interest and penalties from each of the partners.  The 2015 Act changed this procedure for partnership tax audits and audit adjustments for partnership returns for fiscal years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Pursuant to the 2015 Act, if any audit by the IRS of our income tax returns for any fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2017 results in any adjustments, the IRS may collect any resulting taxes, including any applicable penalties and interest, directly from us.  Generally, we will have the ability to collect such tax liability from our common unitholders in accordance with their percentage interests during the year under audit, but there can be no assurance that we will elect to do so or be able to do so under all circumstances.  If we do not collect such tax liability from our common unitholders in accordance with their percentage interests in the tax year under audit, our available cash for quarterly distributions to current common unitholders may be substantially reduced.  Accordingly, our current common unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such common unitholders did not own common units during the tax year under audit. 

 Further guidance from the IRS is expected, which may significantly impact the application of these rules.

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

An entity that would otherwise be classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes may nonetheless be treated as, and taxable as, a corporation if it is a “publicly traded partnership” unless an exception to such treatment applies. An entity that would otherwise be classified as a partnership is a publicly traded partnership if interests in the entity are traded on an established securities market or interests in the entity are readily tradable on a secondary market or the substantial equivalent thereof, and we believe we are publicly traded for this purpose. However, a publicly traded partnership can avoid being treated as a corporation by satisfying the “Qualifying Income Exception,” which requires at least 90% of such entity’s gross income (determined under specific tax rules) for every taxable year that it is a publicly traded partnership consist of qualifying income (which generally includes certain interest income, dividends, real property rents, gains from the sale or other disposition of real property, and gain from the sale or disposition of a capital asset or other property held for the production of income that otherwise constitutes qualifying income), and the entity must not be required to register under the Investment Advisers Act. We intend to manage our affairs so that we will meet the Qualifying Income Exception in 2016 and each succeeding taxable year to be treated as a partnership and not as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

If we failed to meet the requirements described above and, as a result, we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes in any taxable year, we would be subject to U.S. corporate income tax on our U.S. taxable income at regular corporate rates and our cash available for distribution would be reduced. Accordingly, our being treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes could materially reduce our common unitholders’ after-tax return and thus could substantially reduce the value of the common units.

Our common unitholders will be required to take into account their allocable share of our taxable income and gain, regardless of whether they receive any cash distributions from us.

As long as we are treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a partnership, and not as a publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation, our common unitholders will be required to take into account their allocable share of

our items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit on an annual basis in calculating their U.S. federal income taxable income.

As a result, our common unitholders may be subject to U.S. federal income tax on their allocable share of our items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit (including our allocable share of those items of any entity in which we invest that is treated as a partnership or is otherwise subject to tax on a flow through basis) for each of our taxable years ending with or within their taxable years, regardless of whether or not our common unitholders receive cash distributions from us. Additionally, our common unitholders may not receive cash distributions equal to their allocable share of our net taxable income or gain, or even the amount of their U.S. federal, state and local income tax liability that results from that income or gain. Also, certain of our holdings, such as stock in a controlled foreign corporation or a passive foreign investment company or an entity that is fiscally transparent or a financial conduit for U.S. federal income tax purposes, may produce taxable income prior to the receipt of cash relating to such income, and common unitholders that are U.S. taxpayers generally will be required to take such income into account in determining their U.S. federal taxable income. In the event of an inadvertent termination of our partnership status, and provided that the IRS were to grant to us limited relief available under statute, each holder of our common units would be obligated to make adjustments as required by the IRS to maintain our status as a partnership. In such a circumstance, such adjustments may require persons holding our common units to recognize additional amounts of taxable income in respect of the taxable years to which such allocations applied.

Common unitholders will be subject to state and local taxes and return filing requirements as a result of owning our common units.

In addition to U.S. federal income taxes, our common unitholders may be subject to other taxes, including state and local taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes, that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we do business or own property now or in the future, even if our common unitholders do not reside in any of those jurisdictions. Our common unitholders may be required to file state and local income tax returns in some or all of these jurisdictions and may be required to pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these jurisdictions. Further, common unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those requirements. It is the responsibility of each unitholder to file all U.S. federal, state and local tax returns that may be required of such common unitholder.

Certain of our businesses are held through entities treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which will reduce the amount available for distributions to holders of our common units in respect of such investments and could adversely affect the value of our common unitholders’ investment.

To comply with the publicly traded partnership rules under U.S. federal income tax law and other requirements, we hold our interest in certain of our businesses through AHI, Ares Domestic Holdings Inc., Ares Offshore Holdings Ltd. and Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC, which are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and may hold additional interests in other businesses through other entities treated as corporations. Such corporations could be liable for significant U.S. federal income taxes and applicable state and local taxes that would not otherwise be incurred, which could reduce the amount of cash available for distributions to holders of our common units and adversely affect the value of their investment. However, Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC has elected to qualify to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. See “—Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC’s failure to remain qualified as a REIT would subject it to U.S. federal income tax and potentially state and local taxes, and would adversely affect the amount of cash available for distribution to our common unitholders.”

Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC’s failure to remain qualified as a REIT would subject it to U.S. federal income tax and potentially state and local taxes, and would adversely affect the amount of cash available for distribution to our common unitholders.

One of our direct subsidiaries, Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC, elected and qualified to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with its taxable year ending December 31, 2014. Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC’s qualification as a REIT depends upon its satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. We intend to structure the activities of Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC in a manner designed to continue to satisfy all the requirements for qualification as a REIT.

However, the REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex and administrative and judicial interpretations of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC will be successful in operating so it can remain qualified as a REIT. Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC’s ability to satisfy the asset tests depends on an analysis of the characterization and fair market values of Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC’s assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which it will not obtain independent appraisals. Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC’s compliance with the REIT income or quarterly asset requirements also depends on its ability to successfully manage the composition of its income and assets on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, if certain of its operations were to be recharacterized by the IRS, such recharacterization could jeopardize its ability to satisfy all the requirements for continued qualification as a REIT. Furthermore, future legislative, judicial or administrative changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws could be applied retroactively, which could result in its disqualification as a REIT. We have not requested and do not plan to request a ruling from the IRS that Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC qualifies as a REIT. Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC may terminate its REIT status if the general partner of Ares Management, L.P. determines that not qualifying as a REIT is in the best interests of Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC and Ares Management, L.P., or as a result of failure to comply with the REIT qualification requirements that is not cured.

If Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC fails to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year, and it does not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC will be subject to U.S. federal and state income tax on its taxable income at corporate rates. In addition, Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC would generally be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year of losing its REIT qualification. The loss by Ares Real Estate Holdings LLC’s of its REIT qualification could reduce our net earnings available for investment or distribution to common unitholders.

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

If our common unitholders sell their common units, they will generally recognize a taxable gain or loss equal to the difference between the amount realized and their adjusted tax basis in those common units. Prior distributions to our common unitholders in excess of the total net taxable income allocated to them, which decreased the tax basis in their common units, will in effect become taxable income or gain to the holders of our common units if the common units are sold at a price greater than the unitholder’s tax basis in those common units, even if the price is less than the original cost. A portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, may be ordinary income to the common unitholder.

Our common units may not be uniform, which could result in IRS examination of our tax returns and the tax returns of our common unitholders, and could have a negative impact on the value of our common unitholder’s investment.

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

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

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

The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profit interests within a 12-month period will result in the termination of our partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our termination would, among other things, result

in the closing of our taxable year for all common unitholders and may result in more than 12 months of our taxable income or loss being includable in the holder’s taxable income for the year of termination. A termination could also result in penalties if we were unable to determine that the termination had occurred.

Non-U.S. persons could face different U.S. tax issues from owning common units than U.S. persons, and such differences may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

Some of our investment activities may cause us to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business for U.S. federal income tax purposes, in which case some portion of our income would be treated as effectively connected income (“ECI”) with respect to a non-U.S. Holders. A “non-U.S. Holder” is a beneficial owner of the common units that is not a U.S. Holder (generally, a common unitholder that is a “United States person” within the meaning of Section 7701(a)(30) of the Code) and is not an entity treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Moreover, dividends received from an investment that we make in a REIT that are attributable to gains from the sale of U.S. real property interests and sales of certain investments in interests in U.S. real property, including stock of certain U.S. corporations owning significant U.S. real property, may be treated as ECI with respect to non-U.S. Holders that are not qualified pension plans, entities wholly owned by qualified pension plans or certain foreign publicly traded entities. In addition, certain income of non-U.S. Holders from U.S. sources not connected to any such U.S. trade or business conducted by us could be treated as ECI. To the extent our income is treated as ECI, non-U.S. Holders generally would be subject to withholding tax on their allocable shares of such income, would be required to file a U.S. federal income tax return for such year reporting their allocable shares of income effectively connected with such trade or business and any other income treated as ECI, and would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular U.S. tax rates on any such income. Non-U.S. Holders that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes may also be subject to a 30% branch profits tax on their allocable share of such income. In addition, certain income from U.S. sources that is not ECI allocable to non-U.S. Holders will be reduced by withholding taxes imposed at the highest effective applicable tax rate. Finally, if we are treated as being engaged in a U.S. trade or business, a portion of any gain recognized by non-U.S. unitholders on the sale or exchange of common units may be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as ECI, and hence such non-U.S. unitholders could be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the sale or exchange of common units.

Generally, under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980 (“FIRPTA”) provisions of the Code, certain non-U.S. persons are subject to U.S. federal income tax in the same manner as U.S. persons on any gain realized on the disposition of an interest, other than an interest solely as a creditor, in U.S. real property. In December 2015, the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 was signed into law providing some exemptions from FIRPTA tax for certain types of non-U.S. persons. An interest in U.S. real property includes stock in a U.S. corporation (except for certain stock of publicly traded U.S. corporations) if interests in U.S. real property constitute 50% or more by value of the sum of the corporation’s assets used in a trade or business, its U.S. real property interests and its interests in real property located outside the United States (a “United States Real Property Holding Corporation” or “USRPHC”). The FIRPTA tax applies to certain non-U.S. holders holding an interest in a partnership that realizes gain in respect of an interest in U.S. real property or an interest in a USRPHC. We may, from time to time, make certain investments (other than direct investments in U.S. real property), for example, through one of our investment funds held by Ares Investments that could constitute investments in U.S. real property or USRPHCs. If we make such investments certain non- U.S. holders will be subject to U.S. federal income tax under FIRPTA on such holder’s allocable share of any gain we realize on the disposition of a FIRPTA interest and will be subject to the tax return filing requirements regarding ECI discussed above.

Non-U.S. persons may face adverse tax consequences in their countries of residence from owning common units.

Ares Management, L.P. will own interests in one or more entities in which no member has unlimited liability and which is treated as a fiscally transparent pass-through entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or a “hybrid entity,” such as a limited liability company. It is possible that a non-U.S. jurisdiction will treat such a hybrid entity as fiscally opaque. In that case, a non-U.S. Holder could be subject to different results in respect of timing and character of income and gain recognition, as well as the availability of losses, credits or deductions, including in respect of any taxes paid or deemed paid by or on behalf of the non-U.S. Holder, in such non-U.S. jurisdiction.

Tax-exempt entities face special U.S. federal income tax issues from owning common units that may result in adverse tax consequences to them.

A tax-exempt partner of a partnership generally must include in computing its “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”) its pro rata share (whether or not distributed) of such partnership’s gross income derived from a trade or business conducted by such partnership which is unrelated to the exempt function of the tax-exempt partner. Moreover, a tax-exempt partner of a partnership could be treated as earning UBTI to the extent that such partnership derives income from “debt-financed property,” or if the partnership interest itself is debt financed. Debt-financed property means property held to produce income with respect to which there is “acquisition indebtedness” (i.e., indebtedness incurred in acquiring or holding property). We are under no obligation to minimize UBTI, and a U.S. Holder of our common units that is a tax-exempt organization for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, therefore, generally exempt from U.S. federal income taxation, may be subject to “unrelated business income tax” to the extent, if any, that its allocable share of our income consists of UBTI.

We may not be able to furnish to each common unitholder specific tax information within 90 days after the close of each calendar year, which means that our common unitholders who are U.S. taxpayers may anticipate the need to file annually a request for an extension of the due date of their income tax return. In addition, it is possible that common unitholders who are otherwise required to file U.S. federal income tax returns may be required to file amended income tax returns.

We have agreed to furnish to each common unitholder, as soon as reasonably practicable after the close of each taxable year, tax information (including Schedule K-1), which describes on a U.S. dollar basis such holder’s share of our taxable income, gain, loss, deduction and credit for our preceding taxable year. It may require longer than 90 days after the end of our fiscal year to obtain the requisite information from all lower-tier entities. Consequently, holders of our common units who are U.S. taxpayers or otherwise required to file U.S. tax returns may need to file annually with the IRS (and, if applicable, certain states) a request for an extension past April 15 or the otherwise applicable due date of their income tax return for the taxable year. In addition, each common unitholder generally is required to file U.S. federal and state tax returns consistently with the information provided by us for the taxable year for all relevant tax purposes. In preparing this information, we will use various accounting and reporting conventions, some of which have been mentioned in the previous discussion, to determine such holder’s share of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit. The IRS or state tax authorities may successfully contend that certain of these reporting conventions are impermissible, which could result in an adjustment to such holder’s income or loss and could result in an increase in overall tax due. Additionally, we may be audited by taxing authorities from time to time. Adjustments resulting from a tax audit may require a holder to adjust a prior year’s tax liability and possibly may result in an audit of such holder’s own tax return. Any audit of such holder’s tax return could result in adjustments not related to our tax returns as well as those related to our tax returns, and could result in an increase in overall tax due.

We may hold or acquire certain investments through entities classified as PFICs or CFCs for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Certain of our investments may be in foreign corporations or may be acquired through a foreign subsidiary that would be classified as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Such an entity may be a passive foreign investment company (a “PFIC”) or a controlled foreign corporation (a “CFC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. U.S. holders of common units considered to own an interest in a PFIC or a CFC may experience adverse U.S. federal and state income tax consequences and significantly more complex filing obligations.

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

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 (“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 common units. 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 Kingdom and the Cayman Islands, have implemented regimes similar to that of FATCA.

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

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

 

Items of deductions or losses may be adjusted (including by reallocation to other Ares Operating Group entities) or disallowed in a manner that could materially increase the tax liability of our direct subsidiaries that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, in particular AHI.

 

While we have and will continue to allocate items of deductions or losses in good faith and in accordance with our expense allocation policy or practice in effect from time to time, there is no guarantee that our policies or practices will not be challenged by the IRS or state taxing authorities.   If the IRS or state taxing authorities were to determine that we have improperly allocated such items of deductions or losses among the Ares Operating Group entities, such items of deductions or losses could be adjusted (including by reallocation to other Ares Operating Group entities) or disallowed in a manner that could materially increase the tax liability of our direct subsidiaries that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, in particular AHI.

 

 

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

 

Item 2.  Properties

Our principal executive offices are located in leased office space at 2000 Avenue of the Stars, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California. We also lease office space in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York City, Washington, D.C., Dubai, Frankfurt, London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Paris, Stockholm, Chengdu, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney,  Mill Valley, Needham, Buffalo, Tarrytown, Williamsville and Amsterdam. We do not own any real property. We consider these facilities to be suitable and adequate for the management and operation of our businesses.

 

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings

From time to time we are involved in various legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims incidental to the conduct of our business, some of which may be material. Our businesses are also subject to extensive regulation, which may result in regulatory proceedings against us.

 

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures

None.

 

PART II.

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

Market Information

Our common units representing limited partner interests in Ares Management, L.P. are traded on the NYSE under the symbol “ARES.” Our common units began trading on the NYSE on May 2, 2014.

The following table sets forth the high and low intra‑day sales prices per unit of our common units, for the periods indicated, as reported by the NYSE.

The number of holders of record of our common units as of February 24, 2016 was 4. This does not include the number of unitholders that hold shares in “street name” through banks or broker‑dealers.

The table below presents purchases made by or on behalf of Ares Management, L.P. or any “affiliated purchaser” (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Exchange Act) of our common units during each of the indicated periods.

 

Distribution Policy for Common Units

During 2015, we paid quarterly distributions of $0.13, $0.26, $0.25 and $0.24 per common unit (totaling $0.88 per common unit) to record holders of common units, or approximately $71.0 million, and in February 2015, the board of directors of our general partner declared an additional distribution of $0.20 per common unit, or $16.1 million, to common unitholders in respect of the fourth quarter of 2015 payable on March 28, 2016 to holders of record of common units at the close of business on March 14, 2016.

We expect to distribute to our common unitholders on a quarterly basis substantially all of Ares Management, L.P.’s share of distributable earnings, net of applicable corporate taxes and amounts payable under the tax receivable agreement, in excess of amounts determined by our general partner to be necessary or appropriate to provide for the conduct of our businesses, to make appropriate investments in our businesses and our funds, to comply with

applicable law, any of our debt instruments or other agreements or to provide for future distributions to our common unitholders for any ensuing quarter, subject to a base quarterly distribution target range of 80% to 90% of distributable earnings. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Segment Analysis—Reconciliation of Certain Non‑GAAP Measures to Consolidated GAAP Financial Measures” for a reconciliation of our distributable earnings to our income before provision for income taxes presented in accordance with GAAP.

In most years, the aggregate amounts of distributions to our common unitholders do not equal our distributable earnings for that year. Our distributable earnings are only a starting point for the determination of the amount to be distributed to our common unitholders because, as noted above, in determining the amount to be distributed, we subtract from our distributable earnings any amounts determined by our general partner to be necessary or appropriate to provide for the conduct of our businesses, to make appropriate investments in our businesses and our funds, to comply with applicable law, any of our debt instruments or other agreements or to provide for future distributions to our common unitholders for any ensuing quarter.

Because Ares Management, L.P. is a holding partnership and has no material assets other than its ownership of Ares Operating Group Units (held through wholly owned subsidiaries in the case of Ares Holdings, Ares Domestic, Ares Offshore and Ares Real Estate), we fund distributions by Ares Management, L.P., if any, in three steps:

Because our direct subsidiaries that are corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes must pay corporate income and franchise taxes and make payments under the tax receivable agreement, the amounts ultimately distributed by us to our common unitholders are expected to be less, on a per unit basis, than the amounts distributed by the Ares Operating Group entities to their respective partners in respect of their Ares Operating Group Units.

In addition, governing agreements of the Ares Operating Group entities provide for cash distributions, which we refer to as “tax distributions,” to the partners of such entities if the general partners of the Ares Operating Group entities determine that the taxable income of the relevant Ares Operating Group entity gives rise to taxable income for its partners. Generally, these tax distributions are computed based on our estimate of the net taxable income of the relevant entity multiplied by an assumed tax rate equal to the highest effective marginal combined U.S. federal, state and local income tax rate prescribed for an individual or corporate resident in Los Angeles, California or New York, New York, whichever is higher (taking into account the non‑deductibility of certain expenses and the character of our income). The Ares Operating Group makes tax distributions only to the extent distributions from such entities for the relevant year were otherwise insufficient to cover such tax liabilities.

Under the Delaware Limited Partnership Act, Ares Management, L.P. may not make a distribution to a partner if after the distribution all of 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, under the Credit Facility, certain subsidiaries of the Ares Operating Group are prohibited from making distributions in certain circumstances, including if an Event of Default (as defined in the Credit Facility) has occurred and is continuing.