Blackstone Inc.: 10-K Risk Factor Changes

The potential for governmental policy and/or legislative changes and regulatory reform may create regulatory uncertainty for our investment strategies, may make it more difficult to operate our business, and may adversely affect the profitability of our funds’ portfolio companies. The potential for governmental policy and/or legislative changes and regulatory reform may create regulatory uncertainty for our investment strategies, may make it more difficult to operate our business, and may adversely affect the profitability of our funds’ portfolio companies. Governmental policy and/or legislative changes and regulatory reform could make it more difficult for us to operate our business, including by impeding fundraising or making certain investments or investment strategies unattractive or less profitable. In addition, our ability to identify business and other risks associated with new investments depends in part on our ability to anticipate and accurately assess regulatory, legislative and other changes that may have a material impact on our funds’ investments. Anticipating policy changes and reforms may be particularly difficult during periods of heightened partisanship at the federal, state and local levels, including due to the divisiveness surrounding populist movements, political disputes and socioeconomic issues. The failure to accurately anticipate the possible outcome of such changes and/or reforms could have a material adverse effect on the returns generated from our funds’ investments and our revenues. Governmental policy and/or legislative changes and regulatory reform could make it more difficult for us to operate our business, including by impeding fundraising or making certain investments or investment strategies unattractive or less profitable. In addition, our ability to identify business and other risks associated with new investments depends in part on our ability to anticipate and accurately assess regulatory, legislative and other changes that may have a material impact on our funds’ investments. Anticipating policy changes and reforms may be particularly difficult during periods of heightened partisanship at the federal, state and local levels, including due to the divisiveness surrounding populist movements, political disputes and socioeconomic issues. The failure to accurately anticipate the possible outcome of such changes and/or reforms could have a material adverse effect on the returns generated from our funds’ investments and our revenues. In addition, policy changes impacting the financial services industry could impose additional costs, require significant attention of our senior management and personnel or requires to change, or limit, the manner in which we conduct business. There has been recurring consideration amongst regulators and intergovernmental institutions regarding the role of nonbank institutions in providing credit and, particularly, so-called “shadow banking,” a term generally taken to refer to financial intermediation involving entities and activities outside the regulated banking system. Federal regulatory bodies, such as the FSOC, and international organizations, such as the Financial Stability Board, regularly assess financial stability-related risks associated with, among other things, nonbank lending and certain types of open-ended funds. At this time, whether any rules or regulations related thereto will be proposed is unclear. If nonbank financial intermediation became subject to regulations or oversight standards similar to those applicable to traditional banks, certain of our business activities, including nonbank lending, would be adversely affected and the regulatory burden on us would materially increase, which could adversely impact the implementation of our investment strategy and our returns. so-called In addition, the FSOC has the authority to designate nonbank financial companies as systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”) subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board. Currently, there are no nonbank financial companies with a nonbank SIFI designation. The FSOC has, however, designated certain nonbank financial companies as SIFIs in the past, and additional nonbank financial companies, which may include large asset management companies such as us, may be designated as SIFIs in the future. If we were designated as a nonbank SIFI, including as a result of our asset management or nonbank lending activities, we could become subject to direct supervision by the Federal Reserve Board, and could become subject to enhanced prudential, capital, supervisory and other requirements, such as risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, resolution plan and credit exposure report requirements, concentration limits, a contingent capital requirement, enhanced public disclosures, short-term debt limits and overall risk management requirements. Requirements such as these, which were designed to regulate banking institutions, would likely need to be modified to be applicable to an asset manager, although no proposals have been made indicating how such measures would be adapted for asset managers. In addition, the FSOC has the authority to designate nonbank financial companies as systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”) subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board. Currently, there are no nonbank financial companies with a nonbank SIFI designation. The FSOC has, however, designated certain nonbank financial companies as SIFIs in the past, and additional nonbank financial companies, which may include large asset management companies such as us, may be designated as SIFIs in the future. If we were designated as a nonbank SIFI, including as a result of our asset management or nonbank lending activities, we could become subject to direct supervision by the Federal Reserve Board, and could become subject to enhanced prudential, capital, supervisory and other requirements, such as risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, resolution plan and credit exposure report requirements, concentration limits, a contingent capital requirement, enhanced public disclosures, short-term debt limits and overall risk management requirements. Requirements such as these, which were designed to regulate banking institutions, would likely need to be modified to be applicable to an asset manager, although no proposals have been made indicating how such measures would be adapted for asset managers. In addition, future reviews by the FSOC of nonbank financial companies for designation as SIFIs may focus on other types of products and activities, such as nonbank lending activities conducted by certain of our businesses. If any of our activities were identified by the FSOC as posing potential risks to U.S. financial stability, such activities could be subject to modified or enhanced regulation or supervision by U.S. regulators with jurisdiction over such activities, although no proposals have been made indicating how such measures would be applied to any such identified activities. In addition, future reviews by the FSOC of nonbank financial companies for designation as SIFIs may focus on other types of products and activities, such as nonbank lending activities conducted by certain of our businesses. If any of our activities were identified by the FSOC as posing potential risks to U.S. financial stability, such activities could be subject to modified or enhanced regulation or supervision by U.S. regulators with jurisdiction over such activities, although no proposals have been made indicating how such measures would be applied to any such identified activities. 42 42 Table of Contents Table of Contents Trade negotiations and related government actions may create regulatory uncertainty for our funds’ portfolio companies and our investment strategies and adversely affect the profitability of our funds’ portfolio companies. In recent years, the U.S. government has taken substantial actions with respect to international trade policy, including seeking to renegotiate certain existing bilateral or multi-lateral trade agreements and treaties with foreign countries. The U.S. government has also imposed, and may in the future impose further, tariffs on certain foreign goods, such as steel and aluminum, from various countries, including China, Canada and Mexico. Some foreign governments, including China, Canada, and Mexico, have threatened or instituted retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. goods. In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that many of the tariffs recently imposed by the U.S. government exceeded its authority, thereby invalidating many, but not all, of such tariffs. Subsequent to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, the U.S. Presidential administration raised potential alternative means through which the administration could impose tariffs and subsequently imposed a global tariff under a different law. The outlook on further trade policy actions, including trade agreements and potential retaliatory tariffs is unclear. Increased tariffs on goods imported from China, Canada, Mexico and other countries could further increase, costs, decrease margins and reduce the competitiveness of products and services offered by our portfolio companies. This has and could further adversely impact the revenues and profitability of select companies that have substantial sales of physical goods in the U.S. or whose businesses rely on goods imported from countries that are subject to significant tariffs. Further governmental actions related to the imposition of tariffs or other trade barriers or changes to international trade agreements or policies in respect of other jurisdictions could also have a similar adverse impact. The U.S. has also implemented a number of economic sanctions programs and export controls that specifically target Chinese entities and nationals on national security grounds, including, for example, with respect to China’s response to political demonstrations in Hong Kong and China’s conduct concerning the treatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in its Xinjiang province. Moreover, the U.S. has implemented additional sanctions against entities participating in China’s military industrial complex and providing support to the country’s military, intelligence, and surveillance apparatuses. These sanctions impose certain restrictions on U.S. persons and entities buying or selling publicly traded securities of these designated entities. Further escalation of the “trade war” between the U.S. and China, the countries’ inability to reach further trade agreements, or the continued use of reciprocal sanctions by each country, may negatively impact opportunities for investment as well as the rate of global growth, particularly in China, which has and continues to exhibit signs of slowing growth. Such slowing growth could adversely affect the revenues and profitability of our funds’ portfolio companies. There is uncertainty as to further actions that may be taken under the current U.S. Presidential administration with respect to U.S. trade policy, including in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling. See “—Laws and regulations on foreign direct investment applicable to us and our funds’ portfolio companies, both within and outside the U.S., may make it more difficult for us to deploy capital in certain jurisdictions or to sell assets to certain buyers.” Our provision of products and services to insurance companies subjects us to a variety of risks and uncertainties. We have increasingly undertaken initiatives to deliver to insurance companies customizable and diversified portfolios of Blackstone products and strategies across asset classes, including investment grade and non-investment grade credit, with a focus on real estate, corporate, asset based and private credit. Our insurance initiatives include partial or full management of insurance companies’ general account or reinsurance assets. This strategy has in recent years contributed to meaningful growth in our Assets Under Management, including in Perpetual Capital Assets Under Management. BXCI’s insurance platform currently manages assets for a number of insurance companies and certain of their respective affiliates pursuant to several investment management agreements. Our insurance platform also manages or sub-manages assets for certain insurance-dedicated funds and special purpose vehicles, and has developed, and may continue to develop, other capital-efficient products for insurance companies. The continued success of our insurance platform will depend in large part on further developing investment partnerships with insurance company clients and maintaining existing asset management arrangements, including those described above. If we fail to deliver or originate high-quality, high-performing products, strategies or assets that help our insurance company clients meet long-term policyholder obligations, we may not be successful in retaining existing investment partnerships, developing new investment partnerships or originating or selling capital-efficient assets or products. Such failure may have a material adverse effect on our business, results and financial condition. 43 Trade negotiations and related government actions may create regulatory uncertainty for our funds’ portfolio companies and our investment strategies and adversely affect the profitability of our funds’ portfolio companies. In recent years, the U.S. government has taken substantial actions with respect to international trade policy, including seeking to renegotiate certain existing bilateral or multi-lateral trade agreements and treaties with foreign countries. The U.S. government has also imposed, and may in the future impose further, tariffs on certain foreign goods, such as steel and aluminum, from various countries, including China, Canada and Mexico. Some foreign governments, including China, Canada, and Mexico, have threatened or instituted retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. goods. In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that many of the tariffs recently imposed by the U.S. government exceeded its authority, thereby invalidating many, but not all, of such tariffs. Subsequent to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, the U.S. Presidential administration raised potential alternative means through which the administration could impose tariffs and subsequently imposed a global tariff under a different law. The outlook on further trade policy actions, including trade agreements and potential retaliatory tariffs is unclear. Increased tariffs on goods imported from China, Canada, Mexico and other countries could further increase, costs, decrease margins and reduce the competitiveness of products and services offered by our portfolio companies. This has and could further adversely impact the revenues and profitability of select companies that have substantial sales of physical goods in the U.S. or whose businesses rely on goods imported from countries that are subject to significant tariffs. Further governmental actions related to the imposition of tariffs or other trade barriers or changes to international trade agreements or policies in respect of other jurisdictions could also have a similar adverse impact. The U.S. has also implemented a number of economic sanctions programs and export controls that specifically target Chinese entities and nationals on national security grounds, including, for example, with respect to China’s response to political demonstrations in Hong Kong and China’s conduct concerning the treatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in its Xinjiang province. Moreover, the U.S. has implemented additional sanctions against entities participating in China’s military industrial complex and providing support to the country’s military, intelligence, and surveillance apparatuses. These sanctions impose certain restrictions on U.S. persons and entities buying or selling publicly traded securities of these designated entities. Further escalation of the “trade war” between the U.S. and China, the countries’ inability to reach further trade agreements, or the continued use of reciprocal sanctions by each country, may negatively impact opportunities for investment as well as the rate of global growth, particularly in China, which has and continues to exhibit signs of slowing growth. Such slowing growth could adversely affect the revenues and profitability of our funds’ portfolio companies. There is uncertainty as to further actions that may be taken under the current U.S. Presidential administration with respect to U.S. trade policy, including in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling. See “—Laws and regulations on foreign direct investment applicable to us and our funds’ portfolio companies, both within and outside the U.S., may make it more difficult for us to deploy capital in certain jurisdictions or to sell assets to certain buyers.” Our provision of products and services to insurance companies subjects us to a variety of risks and uncertainties. We have increasingly undertaken initiatives to deliver to insurance companies customizable and diversified portfolios of Blackstone products and strategies across asset classes, including investment grade and non-investment grade credit, with a focus on real estate, corporate, asset based and private credit. Our insurance initiatives include partial or full management of insurance companies’ general account or reinsurance assets. This strategy has in recent years contributed to meaningful growth in our Assets Under Management, including in Perpetual Capital Assets Under Management. BXCI’s insurance platform currently manages assets for a number of insurance companies and certain of their respective affiliates pursuant to several investment management agreements. Our insurance platform also manages or sub-manages assets for certain insurance-dedicated funds and special purpose vehicles, and has developed, and may continue to develop, other capital-efficient products for insurance companies. The continued success of our insurance platform will depend in large part on further developing investment partnerships with insurance company clients and maintaining existing asset management arrangements, including those described above. If we fail to deliver or originate high-quality, high-performing products, strategies or assets that help our insurance company clients meet long-term policyholder obligations, we may not be successful in retaining existing investment partnerships, developing new investment partnerships or originating or selling capital-efficient assets or products. Such failure may have a material adverse effect on our business, results and financial condition. 43