The (re)insurance business historically has been a cyclical industry characterized by periods of intense price competition due to excessive underwriting capacity as well as periods when shortages of capacity permitted favorable premium levels. An increase in premium rates is often offset by an increasing supply of (re)insurance capacity, via capital provided by new entrants, new capital market instruments and structures and/or the commitment of additional capital by existing (re)insurers, which may cause prices to decrease. Any of these factors could lead to a significant reduction in premium rates, less favorable policy terms and fewer submissions for our underwriting services. In addition to these considerations, changes in the frequency and severity of losses suffered by insureds and insurers may affect the cycles of the (re)insurance business significantly.

The (re)insurance industry is highly competitive. We compete on an international and regional basis with major U.S., Bermuda, European and other international (re)insurers and underwriting syndicates, including Lloyd's, some of which have greater financial, marketing and management resources than we do. We also compete with new companies that continue to be formed to enter the (re)insurance markets. In addition, capital market participants have recently created alternative products that are intended to compete with reinsurance products. New and alternative capital inflows in the (re)insurance industry and the retention by cedants of more business have recently caused an excess supply of (re)insurance capital. There has been a large amount of merger and acquisition activity in the (re)insurance sector in recent years and we may experience increased competition as a result of that consolidation with consolidated entities having enhanced market power. In addition, there is a risk of continued consolidation in the sector which could result in competition from larger competitors. Increased competition could result in fewer submissions, lower premium rates, less favorable policy terms and conditions and greater costs of customer acquisition and retention. In addition, if industry pricing does not meet our hurdle rate, we may reduce our future underwriting activities. These factors could have a material adverse effect on our growth and profitability.

These events materially reduced our net income in the years noted above. Although we attempt to manage our exposure to such events through the use of underwriting controls and the purchase of third-party reinsurance, catastrophe events are inherently unpredictable and the actual nature of such events when they occur could be more frequent or severe than contemplated in our pricing and risk management expectations. As a result, the occurrence of one or more catastrophe events could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

The frequency and severity of natural catastrophe activity, including hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods and droughts, has been greater in recent years. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have increased dramatically since the industrial revolution and there is debate as to whether this has caused a gradual increase in global average temperatures. Increasing global average temperatures may continue in the future and could impact our business in the long-term.

We attempt to mitigate the risk of financial exposure from climate change through our underwriting risk management practices. This includes sensitivity to geographic concentrations of risks, the purchase of protective reinsurance and selective underwriting criteria which can include, but is not limited to, higher premiums and deductibles and more specifically excluded policy risks. However, due to lack of scientific certainty about the causes of increased frequency and severity of catastrophes and the lack of adequate predictive tools, a continuation and worsening of recent trends may have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

We have substantial exposure to unexpected losses resulting from war, acts of terrorism, political unrest and geopolitical instability in many regions of the world. In certain instances, we specifically (re)insure risks resulting from acts of terrorism.

We have limited terrorism coverage in our own reinsurance program for our exposure to catastrophe losses related to acts of terrorism. Furthermore, although the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (“TRIEA”("TRIEA") provides benefits in the event of certain acts of terrorism, those benefits are subject to a deductible and to other limitations. Under TRIEA, once our losses attributable to certain acts of terrorism exceed 20% of our direct commercial property and liability insurance premiums for the preceding calendar year, the federal government will reimburse us for 85% of such losses in excess of this deductible. Notably, TRIEA does not provide coverage for reinsurance losses. Given the unpredictable frequency and severity of terrorism losses, as well as the limited terrorism coverage in our own reinsurance program, future losses from acts of terrorism could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity in future periods. TRIEA expired at the end of 2014 but was reauthorized, with some adjustments to its provisions, in January 2015 for six years through December 31, 2020. Over the six-year life of the reauthorized program, the federal government reimbursement percentage will drop from 85% to 80%.

Our credit and political risk insurance line of business protects insureds with interests in foreign jurisdictions in the event governmental action prevents them from exercising their contractual rights and may also protect their assets against physical damage perils. The insurance provided may include cover for loss arising from expropriation, forced abandonment, license cancellation, trade embargo, contract frustration, non-payment, war on land or political violence (including terrorism, revolution, insurrection and civil unrest).

Our ability to underwrite business is dependent upon the quality of our claims paying and financial strength ratings as evaluated by independent rating agencies. A downgrade, withdrawal or negative watch/outlook by any of these institutions could cause our competitive position in the (re)insurance industry to suffer and make it more difficult for us to market our products. If we experience a credit rating downgrade, withdrawal or negative watch/outlook in the future, we could incur higher borrowing costs and may have more limited means to access capital. A downgrade, withdrawal or negative watch/outlook could also result in a substantial loss of business for us, as ceding companies and brokers that place such business may move to other (re)insurers with higher ratings. We would also be required to post collateral under the terms of certain of our policies of reinsurance.

While we believe that our loss reserves at December 31, 20162017 are adequate, new information, events or circumstances, unknown at the original valuation date, may lead to future developments in our ultimate losses being significantly greater or less than the reserves currently provided. The actual final cost of settling claims outstanding at December 31, 20162017 as well as claims expected to arise from the unexpired period of risk is uncertain. There are many other factors that would cause our reserves to increase or decrease, which include, but are not limited to, changes in claim severity, changes in the expected level of reported claims, judicial action changing the scope and/or liability of coverage, changes in the legislative, regulatory, social and economic environment and unexpected changes in loss inflation.

Changes to our previous estimate of prior year loss reserves can adversely impact the reported calendar year underwriting results if reserves prove to be insufficient or favorably impact our reported results if loss reserves prove to be higher than actual claim payments. If our net income is insufficient to absorb a required increase in our loss reserves, we would incur an operating loss and could incur a reduction of our capital.

The performance of our cash and investments portfolio has a significant impact on our financial results. A failure to successfully execute our investment strategy could have a significant impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

Our investment portfolio is subject to a variety of market risks, including risks relating to general economic conditions, interest rate fluctuations, equity price risk, foreign currency movements, pre-payment or reinvestment risk, liquidity risk and credit risk. Although we attempt to manage market risks through, among other things, stressing diversification and conservation of principal and liquidity in our investment guidelines, it is possible that, in periods of economic weakness or periods of turmoil in capital markets, we may experience significant losses in our portfolio.

In addition, a lowlower interest rate environment, such as the current environment can result in reductions in our investment yield as new funds and proceeds from sales and maturities of fixed income securities are re-invested at lower rates. This reduces

Our portfolios of "other investments" and equity securities expose us to market price variability, driven by a number of factors outside our control including, but not limited to, global equity market performance.

Given our reliance on external investment managers, we are also exposed to operational risks, which may include, but are not limited to, a failure to follow our investment guidelines, technological and staffing deficiencies and inadequate disaster recovery plans.

Our derivative instrument counterparties may default on amounts owed to us due to bankruptcy, insolvency, lack of liquidity, adverse economic conditions, operational failure, fraud or other reasons. Even if we are entitled to collateral in circumstances of default, such collateral may be illiquid or proceeds from such collateral when liquidated may not be sufficient to recover the full amount of the obligation.

We seek to mitigate our loss exposure by writingthrough multiple methods. For example, we write a number of our (re)insurance contracts on an excess of loss basis. Excess of loss (re)insurance indemnifies the insured against losses in excess of a specified amount. We generally limit the line size for each client and line of business on our insurance business and purchase reinsurance for many of our lines of business. In the case of proportional reinsurance treaties, we seek per occurrence limitations or loss and loss expense ratio caps to limit the impact of losses from any one event. In proportional reinsurance, the reinsurer shares a proportional part of the premiums and losses of the reinsured. We also seek to limit our loss exposure through geographic diversification. Geographic zone limitations involve significant underwriting judgments, including the determination of the area of the zones and the inclusion of a particular policy within a particular zone’s limits. In addition, various provisions of our insurance policies and reinsurance contracts, such as limitations or exclusions from coverage or choice of forum negotiated to limit our risks may not be enforceable in the manner we intend. We cannot be sure that any of these

loss limitation methods will be effective and mitigate oureffectively prevent a material loss exposure. As a result of these risks, one or more catastrophe or other events could result in claims that substantially exceed our expectations,exposure which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

We purchase reinsurance for our (re)insurance operations in order to mitigate the volatility of losses upon our financial results. From time to time, market conditions have limited, and in some cases have prevented, (re)insurers from obtaining the types and amounts of reinsurance that they consider adequate for their business needs. There is no guarantee that our desired amounts of reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance will be available in the marketplace in the future. In addition to capacity risk, the remaining capacity may not be on terms we deem appropriate or acceptable or with companies with whom we want to do business. 

A reinsurer’s insolvency, or inability or refusal to make payments under the terms of its reinsurance agreement with us, could have a material adverse effect on our business because we remain liable to the insured. We face counterparty risk whenever we purchase reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance. Consequently, the insolvency, inability or unwillingness of any of our

We employ various modeling techniques (e.g. scenarios, predictive, stochastic and/or forecasting) to analyze and estimate exposures, loss trends and other risks associated with our assets and liabilities. We utilize modeled outputs and related analyses to assist us in decision-making, for example related to underwriting and pricing, reserving, reinsurance purchasing and the evaluation of our catastrophe risk through estimates of probable maximum losses, or "PMLs". The modeled outputs and related analyses, both from proprietary and third party models, are subject to various assumptions, professional judgment, uncertainties and the inherent limitations of any statistical analysis, including the use and quality of historical internal and industry data. Consequently, our actual losses from loss events, whether from individual components (e.g. wind, flood, earthquake, etc.) or in the aggregate, may differ materially from our modeled results. If, based upon these models or other factors, we misprice our products or underestimate the frequency and/or severity of loss events, our results of operations or financial condition may be adversely affected.

With respect to the evaluation of our catastrophe risk, our modeling utilizes a mix of historical data, scientific theory and mathematical methods. Output from multiple commercially available vendor models serves as a key input in our PML estimation process. We believe that there is considerable uncertainty in the data and parameter inputs for these vendor models. In that regard, there is no universal standard in the preparation of insured data for use in the models and the running of modeling software. In our view, the accuracy of the models depends heavily on the availability of detailed insured loss data from actual recent large catastrophes. Due to the limited number of events, there is significant potential for substantial differences between the modeled loss estimate and actual company experience for a single large catastrophe event. This potential difference could be even greater for perils with limited or no modeled annual frequency. We perform our own vendor model validation (including sensitivity analysis and backtesting, where possible) and supplement model output with historical loss information and analysis and management judgment. In addition, we derive our own estimates for non-modeled perils. Despite this, our PML estimates are subject to a high degree of uncertainty and our actual losses from catastrophe events may differ materially.

We do not always separately evaluate each of the individual risks assumed under reinsurance treaties, which is common amongst reinsurers. Therefore, we are largely dependent on the original underwriting decisions made by ceding companies. We are subject to the risk that the ceding companies may not have adequately evaluated the risks to be reinsured and that the premiums ceded may not adequately compensate us for the risks we assume. We also have exposure to a range of risks in connection with alternative capital arrangements.

In program business conducted by our insurance segment, following our underwriting, financial, claims and information technology due diligence reviews, we authorize managing general agents, general agents, coverholders and other producers to write business on our behalf within underwriting authorities prescribed by us. Once a programprogram/coverholder commences, we must rely on the underwriting controls of these agentsentities to write business within the underwriting authorities provided by us. Although we monitor our programsprograms/coverholders on an ongoing basis, our monitoring efforts may not be adequate or our agentsthese entities may exceed their underwriting or claims settlement authorities or otherwise breach obligations owed to us. To the extent that our agentsthese entities exceed their authorities or otherwise breach obligations owed to us in the future, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

While technology can streamline many business processes and ultimately reduce the cost of operations, technology initiatives present certain risks. Our business is dependent upon our employees’ and outsourcers’ ability to perform, in an efficient and uninterrupted fashion, necessary business functions such as processing policies and paying claims. A shutdown or inability to access one or more of our facilities, a power outage, or a failure of one or more of our information technology,

While we have not experienced a material breach of cybersecurity to date, we have no assurance that such a breach will not occur in the future. However, overOver time, and particularly recently, the sophistication of these threats continues to increase. While administrative and technical controls, along with other preventativepreventive actions, reduce the risk of cyber incidents and protect our information technology, they may be insufficient to prevent cyber attacks and/or other security breaches to our computer systems. We also operate in a number of jurisdictions with strict data privacy and other related laws, which could be violated in the event of a significant cybersecurity incident, or by personnel. Failure to comply with these obligations can give rise to monetary fines and other penalties which could be significant.

We outsource certain technology and business process functions to third parties and may do so increasingly in the future. If we do not effectively develop and implement our outsourcing strategy, third party providers do not perform as anticipated or we experience technological or other problems with a transition, we may not realize productivity improvements or cost efficiencies and may experience operational difficulties, increased costs and a loss of business. Our outsourcing of certain technology and business process functions to third parties may expose us to enhanced risk related to data security, which could result in monetary and reputational damages. In addition, our ability to receive services from third party providers might be impacted by cultural differences, political instability, unanticipated regulatory requirements or policies. As a result, our ability to conduct our business might be adversely affected.

Our reporting currency is the U.S. dollar. However, a portion of our gross premiums are written in currencies other than the U.S. dollar and a portion of our loss reserves are in non-U.S. currencies. In addition, a portion of our investment portfolio is denominated in currencies other than the U.S dollar. From time to time, we may experience losses resulting from fluctuations in the values of these non-U.S. currencies, which could adversely affect our operating results. Although we attempt to manage our foreign currency exposure through matching of our major foreign-denominated assets and liabilities, as well as through use of currency derivatives, there is no guarantee that we will successfully mitigate our exposure to foreign exchange losses. The sovereignSovereign debt crisisconcerns in Europe and the related financial restructuring efforts, which may cause the value of the euro to deteriorate, and Brexit (defined below), which resultedcaused significant volatility in the strengthening ofcurrency exchange rates, especially between the U.S. dollar againstand the British pound, may magnify these risks.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including rating agency and regulatory requirements, the performance of our investment portfolio, our ability to write new business successfully, the frequency and severity of catastrophe events and our ability to establish premium rates and reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses. We may need to raise additional funds through financings. If we are unable to do so, it may curtail our ability to conduct our business. Any equity or debt financing, if available at all, may be on terms that are not favorable to us. Equity financings could be dilutive to our existing shareholders and could result in the issuance of securities that have rights, preferences and privileges that are senior to those of our other securities. If we cannot obtain adequate capital on favorable terms or at all, our business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Neither AXIS Specialty Bermuda nor AXIS Re SE is licensed or admitted as a (re)insurer in any jurisdiction other than Bermuda, Ireland, Singapore and Brazil. Because the U.S. and some other jurisdictions do not permit insurance companies to take credit on their statutory financial statements for reinsurance obtained from unlicensed or non-admitted insurers unless appropriate security mechanisms are in place, our reinsurance clients in these jurisdictions typically require AXIS Specialty Bermuda and AXIS Re SE to provide letters of credit or other collateral. Our credit facilities are used to post letters of credit. However, if our credit facilities are not sufficient or if we are unable to renew our credit facilities or arrange for other types of security on commercially affordable terms, AXIS Specialty Bermuda and AXIS Re SE could be limited in their ability to write business for some of our clients.

In a time of financial uncertainty or a prolonged economic downturn or recession, regulators may choose to adopt more restrictive insurance laws and regulations, which may result in lower revenues and/or higher costs and thus could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

Our (re)insurance subsidiaries conduct business globally and we are subject to varying degrees of regulation and supervision from these jurisdictions. The laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which our (re)insurance subsidiaries are domiciled require, among other things, that our subsidiaries maintain minimum levels of statutory capital and liquidity, meet solvency standards, participate in guaranty funds and submit to periodic examinations of their financial condition and compliance with underwriting and other regulations. These laws and regulations also limit or restrict payments of dividends and reductions in capital. Statutes, regulations and policies may also restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to write (re)insurance contracts, to make certain investments and to distribute funds. The purpose of insurance laws and regulations generally is to protect insureds and ceding insurance companies, not our shareholders. We may not be able to comply fully with, or obtain appropriate exemptions from, these statutes and regulations. Failure to comply with or to obtain appropriate authorizations and/or exemptions under any applicable laws could result in restrictions on our ability to do business or undertake activities that are regulated in one or more of the jurisdictions in which we conduct business and could subject us to fines and other sanctions. In addition, changes in the laws or regulations to which our (re)insurance subsidiaries are subject or in the interpretation thereof by enforcement or regulatory agencies could have an adverse effect on our business.

Government intervention and the possibility of future government intervention have created uncertainty in the (re)insurance markets. Government and regulators are generally concerned with having (re)insurers with high solvency ratios and localized capital to ensure the protection of policyholders to the possible detriment of other constituents, including shareholders of (re)insurers. An example of such intervention was the December 2007 extension of the material provisions of TRIA for an additional seven years to December 31, 2014 and expansion of coverage to include domestic acts of terrorism. TRIEA expired at the end of 2014 but was reauthorized, with some adjustments to its provisions, in January 2015 for six years through December 31, 2020.

In recent years certain U.S. and non-U.S. judicial and regulatory authorities, including U.S. Attorney’s Offices and certain state attorneys general, have commenced investigations into other business practices in the insurance industry. In addition, although the U.S. federal government has not historically regulated insurance, there have been proposals from time to time, and especially after the most recent global financial crisis, to impose federal regulation on the U.S. insurance industry. For example, in 2010, Dodd-Frank established a Federal Insurance Office ("FIO") within the U.S. Treasury. The FIO has limited regulatory authority and is empowered to gather data and information regarding the insurance industry, and has conducted and submitted a study to the U.S. Congress on how to modernize and improve insurance regulation in the U.S. This study's findings are not expected to have a significant impact on the Company. Further, Dodd-Frank gives the Federal Reserve supervisory authority over a number of U.S. financial services companies, including insurance companies, if they are designated by a two-thirds vote of a Financial Stability Oversight Council as ‘systemically important’. While we do not believe that we are systemically important, as defined in Dodd-Frank, Dodd-Frank or additional federal or state regulation that is adopted in the future could impose significant burdens on us, impact the ways in which we conduct our business and govern our subsidiaries, increase compliance costs, increase the levels of capital required to operate our subsidiaries, duplicate state regulation and/or result in a competitive disadvantage.

Certain of our European legal entities becameare subject local laws that implement to the Solvency II Directive on January 1, 2016.Directive. Solvency II is a consolidation and modernization of existing European Commission (“E.C.”) Solvency I (re)insurance regulation and supervision. The new regulation covers three main areas: (i) the valuation of assets and liabilities on a Solvency II economic basis and risk based solvency and capital requirements; (ii) governance requirements including key function of compliance, internal audit, actuarial and risk management; and (iii) new supervisory legal entity and group reporting and disclosure requirements including public disclosures. The BMA has been granted full “equivalence”"equivalence" under the Solvency II Directive for Bermuda's commercial insurance sector, including Class 4 insurers, with an effective date of January 1, 2016.

While we cannot predict the exact nature, timing or scope of possible governmental initiatives, such proposals could adversely affect our business by, among other things:

In accordance with industry practice, we pay amounts owed on claims under our (re)insurance contracts to brokers, and these brokers pay these amounts over to the clients that have purchased (re)insurance from us. Although the law is unsettled and depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case, in some jurisdictions, if a broker fails to make such a payment, we might remain liable to the insured or ceding insurer for the deficiency.

Conversely, in certain jurisdictions, when the insured or ceding insurer pays premiums for these policies to brokers for payment over to us, these premiums might be considered to have been paid to us and the insured or ceding insurer will no longer be liable to us for those amounts, whether or not we have actually received the premiums from the broker. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with brokers with whom we transact business. These risks are heightened during periods characterized by financial market instability and/or an economic downturn or recession.

Insolvency, liquidity problems, distressed financial condition or the general effects of economic recession may increase the risk that policyholders or intermediaries, such as insurance brokers, may not pay a part of or the full amount of premiums owed to us, despite an obligation to do so. The terms of our contracts may not permit us to cancel our insurance even though we have not received payment. If non-payment becomes widespread, whether as a result of insolvency, lack of liquidity, adverse economic conditions, operational failure or otherwise, it could have a material adverse impact on our revenues and results of operations.

Our success depends on our ability to retain the services of our existing key executives and to attract and retain additional qualified personnel in the future. The loss of the services of any of our key executives or the inability to hire and retain other highly qualified personnel in the future could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in identifying, hiring or retaining successors on terms acceptable to us.

AXIS Capital is a holding company and has no direct operations of its own. AXIS Capital has no significant operations or assets other than its ownership of the shares of its operating (re)insurance subsidiaries, AXIS Specialty Bermuda, Ventures Re, AXIS Re SE, AXIS Specialty Europe, Compagnie Belge d'Assurances, Aviation NV/SA, Aviabel Re S.A., the Members of Lloyd's (AXIS Corporate Capital UK Limited and Novae Corporate Underwriting Limited), AXIS Re U.S., AXIS Specialty U.S., AXIS Surplus and AXIS Insurance Co. (collectively, our “Insurance Subsidiaries”"Insurance Subsidiaries"). Dividends and other permitted distributions from our Insurance Subsidiaries (in some cases through our subsidiary holding companies), are our primary source of funds to meet ongoing cash requirements, including debt service payments and other expenses, and to pay dividends to our shareholders. Our Insurance Subsidiaries are subject to significant regulatory restrictions limiting their ability to declare and pay dividends and make distributions. The inability of our Insurance Subsidiaries to pay dividends in an amount sufficient to enable us to meet our cash requirements at the holding company level could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to pay dividends and make payments on our indebtedness.

AXIS Capital is incorporated pursuant to the laws of Bermuda and our business is based in Bermuda. In addition, some of our directors and officers reside outside the U.S., and all or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of such persons are located in jurisdictions outside the U.S. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible to effect service of process within the U.S. upon those persons or to recover against us or them on judgments of U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws. Further, it may not be possible to bring a claim in Bermuda against us or our directors and officers for violation of U.S. federal securities laws because these laws may have no extraterritorial application under Bermuda law and do not have force of law in Bermuda. A Bermuda court may, however, impose civil liability, including the possibility of monetary damages, on us or our directors and officers if the facts alleged in a complaint constitute or give rise to a cause of action under Bermuda law.

Our bye-laws generally provide that shareholders have one vote for each common share held by them and are entitled to vote, on a non-cumulative basis, at all meetings of shareholders. However, the voting rights exercisable by a shareholder may be limited so that certain persons or groups are not deemed to hold 9.5% or more of the voting power conferred by our shares. Under these provisions, some shareholders may have the right to exercise their voting rights limited to less than one vote per share. Moreover, these provisions could have the effect of reducing the voting power of some shareholders who would not otherwise be subject to the limitation by virtue of their direct share ownership. In addition, our board of directors may limit a shareholder’s exercise of voting rights where it deems it necessary to do so to avoid adverse tax, legal or regulatory consequences.

We also have the authority under our bye-laws to request information from any shareholder for the purpose of determining whether a shareholder’s voting rights are to be limited pursuant to the bye-laws. If a shareholder fails to respond to our

Our board of directors may decline to register a transfer of any common shares under some circumstances, including if they have reason to believe that any non-de minimis adverse tax, regulatory or legal consequences to us, any of our subsidiaries or any of our shareholders may occur as a result of such transfer. Our bye-laws also provide that if our board of directors determines that share ownership by a person may result in non-de minimis adverse tax, legal or regulatory consequences to us, any of our subsidiaries or any of our shareholders, then we have the option, but not the obligation, to require that shareholder to sell to us or to third parties to whom we assign the repurchase right for fair value the minimum number of common shares held by such person which is necessary to eliminate the non-de minimis adverse tax, legal or regulatory consequences.

Before a person can acquire control of a U.S. insurance company, prior written approval must be obtained from the insurance commissioner of the state where the domestic insurer is domiciled. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of a domestic insurer, the state insurance commissioner will consider such factors as the financial strength of the acquirer, the integrity and management of the acquirer’s board of directors and executive officers, the acquirer’s plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control. Generally, state statutes provide that control over a domestic insurer is presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing, 10% or more of the voting securities of the domestic insurer. Because a person acquiring 10% or more of our common shares would indirectly control the same percentage of the stock of the AXIS U.S. Subsidiaries, the insurance change of control laws of Connecticut, Illinois and New York would likely apply to such a transaction.

In addition, the Insurance Acts and Regulations in Ireland require that anyone acquiring or disposing of a direct or indirect holding in an Irish authorized (re)insurance company (such as AXIS Specialty Europe or AXIS Re SE) that represents 10% or more of the capital or of the voting rights of such company or that makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of such company, or anyone who proposes to decrease or increase that holding to specified levels, must first notify the CBI of their intention to do so. They also require any Irish authorized (re)insurance company that becomes aware of any acquisitions or disposals of its capital involving the specified levels to notify the CBI. The specified levels are 20%, 33% and 50% or such other level of ownership that results in the company becoming the acquirer’s subsidiary within the meaning of article 20 of the European Communities (non-Life Insurance) Framework Regulations 1994.

The CBI has three months from the date of submission of a notification within which to oppose the proposed transaction if the CBI is not satisfied as to the suitability of the acquirer in view of the necessity “to"to ensure prudent and sound management of the (re)insurance undertaking concerned.”" Any person owning 10% or more of the capital or voting rights or an amount that makes it possible to exercise a significant influence over the management of AXIS Capital would be considered to have a “qualifying holding”"qualifying holding" in AXIS Specialty Europe and AXIS Re SE.

While our bye-laws limit the voting power of any shareholder to less than 9.5%, there can be no assurance that the applicable regulatory body would agree that a shareholder who owned 10% or more of our shares did not, because of the limitation on the voting power of such shares, control the applicable Insurance Subsidiary. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent a change of control of the Company, including transactions that some or all of our shareholders might consider to be desirable.

Our bye-laws contain provisions that may make it more difficult for shareholders to replace directors and could delay or prevent a change of control that a shareholder might consider favorable. These provisions include a staggered board of directors, limitations on the ability of shareholders to remove directors other than for cause, limitations on voting rights and restrictions on transfer of our common shares. These provisions may prevent a shareholder from receiving the benefit from any premium over the market price of our shares offered by a bidder in a potential takeover. Even in the absence of an

We maintain office facilities in Bermuda, the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia,Canada, Singapore, Latin America and the Middle East. We own the property in which our offices are located in Dublin, Ireland, and we lease office space in the other countries. We renew and enter into new leases in the ordinary course of business as required. Our global headquarters is located at 92 Pitts Bay Road, AXIS House, Pembroke HM 08, Bermuda. We believe that our office space is sufficient for us to conduct our operations for the foreseeable future.