MSCI Inc.: 10-K Risk Factor Changes

To the extent that any of MSCI’s operating segments, product lines or MSCI as a whole suffers a reputational or other loss in credibility, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Reputational damage could prompt clients or vendors to reduce use of our products, or terminate or renegotiate contracts. Factors that have affected or could affect our credibility include: real or perceived conflicts of interest; the adequacy, completeness and editorial independence of our index composition and ESG ratings and controversy assessment processes and decisions; allegations of perceived bias or lack of independence; the inappropriate influence, attempted influence or appearance of influence of third parties, including governments, politicians, NGOs and other advocacy groups, and clients (including large asset managers or asset owners), on our editorial decisions; the impact on companies of our indexes, ESG ratings and controversies, risk models or other MSCI content or analytics; the timing and nature of changes to our methodologies or products, including indexes and ESG ratings and controversies; disagreement with our methodologies or models, including for calculating indexes, value-at-risk and other risk measures, climate metrics, and ESG ratings and controversies; the accuracy and completeness of our client data or third-party data, including data voluntarily disclosed by the investment community, corporate issuers and others that is utilized in our products; and controversies, investigations, media attention, or regulatory or other governmental actions affecting our industry, competitors, clients, strategic partners, vendors or other relevant industry participants. We may face public or media scrutiny concerning politically or socially sensitive topics, which could lead to negative media coverage, reputational harm or increased government or regulatory scrutiny, even if such claims lack merit. Views expressed by the media, politicians, other government officials or representatives, regulators, NGOs and other advocacy groups, industry associations or other third parties regarding our company, our industry or our role in the investment process—including allegations or suggestions that we have biases, lack independence or encourage investment in, or divestment from, certain companies, countries or regions or in support of certain causes or trends—and the impact of political and geopolitical tensions relating to countries, industries, companies or issues relevant to our products and services, such as the inclusion of certain Chinese companies in our indexes or the focus on ESG or sustainable investing and climate considerations, could negatively impact our reputation and credibility. Such negative attention or scrutiny could also increase the risk of shareholder activism, including proposals seeking changes to our governance practices, corporate strategy or product offerings. 16 16 16 Table of Contents Table of Contents In some cases, our offerings may insert MSCI into a public spotlight or a public debate regarding investment trends and practices; environmental, social or political issues; geopolitical matters; or corporate governance matters. For example, scrutiny around ESG and climate investment considerations has increased, with anti-ESG and anti-climate advocacy groups, political leaders and industry organizations criticizing ESG or climate-focused risk management practices or investment strategies. Anti-ESG and anti-climate sentiment may impact demand for our products, limit our ability to retain clients or lead to heightened scrutiny of our methodologies or content. Additionally, legislation, litigation, investigations or regulatory action or enforcement activities aimed at curbing ESG or climate investing practices or penalizing institutions perceived as prioritizing ESG or climate considerations could further increase reputational risks to us and reduce the marketability of our products. In addition, increased regulatory and political focus on ESG and climate-related investment considerations has impacted our clients. Certain of our clients use our sustainability and climate data and tools to build and manage portfolios; perform risk management; benchmark their investment performance; and construct and manage ETFs and other indexed financial products. In some cases, these institutional investors are increasingly the subject of additional disclosure requirements, as well as media and regulatory scrutiny, that are focused on preventing “greenwashing” (i.e., holding out an investment product as having “green” or “sustainable” characteristics when this is not, in fact, the case). Our products, and the use of our products by these institutions, could draw MSCI into media attention, political debates, and litigation or regulatory actions related to greenwashing allegations. Factors affecting our reputation and credibility also include perception of our own sustainability and corporate responsibility policies or practices, including as a result of failure to meet publicly disclosed sustainability-related targets or goals, failure to comply with mandatory sustainability disclosure requirements or misalignment with evolving market standards or the methodologies and standards used in our own products and ESG ratings. Certain of our own corporate responsibility policies and practices are based on third-party frameworks and stakeholder expectations, and our adherence to these frameworks may change due to business developments, policy changes or other factors, drawing scrutiny of our corporate responsibility policies and practices. Scrutiny of MSCI competitors could also damage the reputation of the industries that we operate in and, therefore, harm the reputation of the Company or certain of our products. In addition, we believe that MSCI’s corporate culture and reputation positively contribute to our ability to attract and retain talent, and that reputational damage could negatively affect our hiring, employee engagement and retention. Damage to our reputation, brand or credibility could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

To the extent that any of MSCI’s operating segments, product lines or MSCI as a whole suffers a reputational or other loss in credibility, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Factors that have affected or could affect our credibility include: real or perceived conflicts of interest; the adequacy, completeness and editorial independence of our index composition and ESG rating and assessment processes and decisions; the influence, attempted influence or appearance of influence of third parties, including governments, politicians, political and other advocacy groups and large investors or asset owners, on our editorial decisions; the performance of companies relative to their ESG ratings, index inclusion, risk characteristics or other MSCI content or analytics; the timing and nature of changes to our indexes or ESG ratings and assessments; disagreement with our methodologies or models, including for calculating indexes, value-at-risk and other risk measures, climate metrics, and ESG ratings and assessments, data, information and analysis; and the accuracy and completeness of our or third-party data, including data voluntarily disclosed by the investment community, corporate issuers and others that is utilized in our products. We may also face public or media scrutiny concerning politically or socially sensitive topics, which could lead to negative media coverage, reputational harm or increased government or regulatory scrutiny, even if such claims lack merit. Views expressed by the media, politicians, other government officials or representatives, regulators, political and other advocacy groups or other third parties regarding our company, our industry or our role in the investment process—including allegations or suggestions that we have biases, lack independence or encourage investment in, or divestment from, certain companies, countries or regions or in support of certain causes or trends—and the impact of political and geo-political tensions relating to countries, industries, companies or issues relevant to our products and services, such as the inclusion of certain Chinese companies in our indexes or the focus on ESG or sustainable investing and climate considerations, could negatively impact our reputation and credibility. Such negative attention or scrutiny could also increase the risk of shareholder activism, including proposals seeking changes to our governance practices, corporate strategy or product offerings. In some cases, our sustainability and climate offerings, such as our country and company ESG ratings, our controversies assessments or our Net-Zero Tracker, may insert MSCI into a public spotlight or a public debate regarding the environment, climate change, social concerns, political issues, geo-political matters, governance practices or corporate responsibility. Scrutiny around ESG and climate topics has increased, with anti-ESG and anti-climate advocacy groups, political leaders and industry organizations criticizing ESG or climate-focused products and services. Anti-ESG and anti-climate sentiment may impact demand for our products, limit our ability to retain clients or lead to heightened scrutiny of our methodologies or content. Additionally, legislation, litigation, investigations or regulatory action or enforcement activities aimed at curbing ESG or climate investing practices or penalizing institutions perceived as prioritizing ESG or climate considerations could further increase reputational risks to us and reduce the marketability of our products. In addition, increased regulatory and political focus on ESG and climate-related practices has impacted our clients. Certain of our clients use our ESG and climate data, tools and indexes to benchmark ESG investment performance and to construct and manage ETFs and other indexed financial products. These institutional investors are increasingly the subject of additional disclosure requirements, as well as media and political scrutiny, that are focused on preventing “greenwashing” (i.e., holding out an investment product as having “green” or “sustainable” characteristics when this is not, in fact, the case). Our products, and the use of our products by these institutions, could draw MSCI into debates about and criticisms of greenwashing. 16 16 16 Table of Contents Table of Contents Factors affecting our reputation and credibility also include perception of our own sustainability and corporate responsibility policies or practices, including as a result of failure to meet publicly disclosed sustainability-related targets or goals, failure to comply with mandatory sustainability disclosure requirements or misalignment with evolving market standards or the methodologies and standards used in our own products and ESG ratings. Certain of our own corporate responsibility policies and practices are based on third-party frameworks and stakeholder expectations, and our adherence to these frameworks may change due to business developments, policy changes or other factors, drawing scrutiny of our corporate responsibility policies and practices. Scrutiny of MSCI competitors could also damage the reputation of the industries that we operate in and, therefore, harm the reputation of the Company or certain of our products. In addition, we believe that MSCI’s corporate culture and reputation positively contribute to our ability to attract and retain talent, and that reputational damage could negatively affect our hiring, employee engagement and retention. Damage to our reputation, brand or credibility could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Failure to comply with any applicable laws, rules, regulations, executive or administrative orders or other governmental requirements, or industry codes of conduct, could subject us to litigation, regulatory actions, sanctions, fines or other penalties, as well as damage our brand and reputation. The financial services industry, within which we and many of our clients operate, is subject to extensive laws, rules and regulations, with direct regulation of certain of our products in some jurisdictions. These laws, rules and regulations are complex, evolve frequently and sometimes quickly and unexpectedly, and are subject to administrative interpretation and judicial construction in ways that are difficult to predict, and could materially adversely affect our business or our clients’ businesses. Additionally, we may be required to comply with multiple and potentially conflicting laws, rules or regulations in various jurisdictions, which could, individually or in the aggregate, result in materially higher compliance costs to us. Laws, rules or regulations could require changes to the way we license and price our products and services. In addition, various government and regulatory bodies from time to time may make inquiries and conduct investigations into our compliance with applicable laws and regulations and our business practices, including those related to our regulated activities and other matters. Changes to the laws, rules and regulations applicable to our clients could limit our clients’ ability to use our products and services or could otherwise impact our clients’ demand for our products and services. As such, to the extent our clients become subject to certain laws, rules or regulations, we may incur higher costs in connection with modifying our products or services. If laws, rules or regulations place new obligations on clients that affect us, restrict our clients’ or vendors’ ability or willingness to provide data to us, or impose new compliance obligations or restrictions on how we access and use such data, our ability to continue to produce products and services, or the costs associated with doing so, could be negatively affected. The regulations and regulatory considerations that most significantly impact us are described below: •Benchmarks. Compliance with regulations affecting benchmarks or their uses, as well as related technical standards and guidance, could negatively impact our business and results of operations. Benchmarks, which include the indexes we provide, are subject to regulations that may require changes in our business practices, product offerings or our ability to offer indexes in certain jurisdictions. Such impacts could include, without limitation, increased costs, including direct regulatory fees and costs; diminished intellectual property rights; methodology requirements or restrictions; product requirements or restrictions; constraints on the fees we charge; constraints on our ability to meet contractual commitments with data providers; or constraints on how we offer our products. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect on our index products. For example, the EU Benchmark Regulation (“EU BMR”) and UK Benchmarks Regulation (“UK BMR”) impose distinct requirements. Following Brexit, the EU BMR provided a transition period until December 31, 2025, allowing EU-regulated entities to use benchmarks from non-EU administrators. Beginning January 1, 2026, most of our indexes fall outside EU supervision and remain under UK oversight. For indexes that remain subject to EU regulation, ESMA’s supervision may result in additional compliance obligations for our business. The UK BMR transition period for non-UK administrators continues until December 31, 2030. In December 2025, the UK HM Treasury launched a consultation on proposals to amend the scope of the UK BMR. Depending on the outcome, these changes could affect the regulatory status of certain of our benchmarks, alter our compliance obligations or impact our ability to offer certain products to UK-regulated clients. Diverging interpretations or future amendments to these regulations may also increase compliance burdens and operational complexity. Additionally, guidance issued by the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) may affect benchmark administrators and their clients. For instance, the ESMA Guidelines on ETFs and other Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (“UCITS”) Issues impose disclosure requirements for indexes used in UCITS funds, such as making index constituents and their respective weightings easily accessible free of charge to investors on a delayed and periodic basis. These requirements could increase the compliance obligations for benchmark administrators, affect the eligibility of certain indexes for use in UCITS funds and influence the demand for specific products. 24 24 24 Table of Contents Table of Contents Globally, the benchmark industry faces heightened scrutiny and potential new regulations. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has recommended that benchmark administrators voluntarily publicly disclose whether they comply with its principles for financial benchmarks. Other jurisdictions have also indicated they may consider potential benchmark regulation or conduct reviews of the benchmark industry. For instance, regulation is being considered or developed in South Africa. Heightened scrutiny and regulatory attention on benchmarks and index providers from regulators, policymakers, and the media in the EU, U.S., and other regions could result in negative publicity or comments about the role or influence of our company or the index industry, which could harm our reputation and credibility. For example, in the past we have made changes or announced proposed changes to our index methodologies that have triggered media and policymaker attention. Further, laws, rules or regulations affecting users of our indexes, such as sanctions that prohibit users of our indexes from investing or transacting in markets or securities included in our indexes, can have an indirect impact on our indexes, including their construction and composition. •ESG Ratings. The EU has adopted a new regulation requiring market participants providing ESG ratings in the EU to become authorized and supervised by ESMA. The regulation becomes effective in July 2026 and imposes requirements relating to governance, conflicts of interest, transparency of methodologies and ongoing supervisory obligations. Certain of our Sustainability and Climate products are expected to be in scope. We may incur significant costs to achieve and maintain authorization, modify our operations or product offerings and comply with ongoing supervisory requirements. •The UK has adopted separate legislation to regulate ESG ratings providers beginning in June 2028, the requirements of which are still being developed. A number of other jurisdictions, including Japan, Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, India and Singapore, have completed, or are in the process of developing, legislation or codes of conduct for ESG rating or data providers. Regulation of ESG ratings and data providers could impose significant compliance burdens and costs on our Sustainability and Climate products and services. Furthermore, the potential for inconsistent or conflicting requirements across jurisdictions may create implementation challenges, increase compliance risks and result in inadvertent noncompliance, which could materially impact our operations and reputation. •Data Privacy and AI. Laws, rules, regulations and standards governing privacy, data collection and AI impact our ability to collect, manage, store, use and otherwise process personal data and other information. We operate across jurisdictions with differing and often conflicting data privacy laws, including extraterritorial requirements, which continue to expand in scope and complexity. Compliance with these laws requires significant resources to ensure data security and regulatory adherence. Furthermore, we frequently have privacy compliance requirements as a result of our contractual obligations with counterparties. Emerging AI regulations, such as the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, impose requirements for transparency, fairness and oversight of AI systems. These regulations may directly affect our operations, including the use of AI in hiring, employee performance monitoring and client-facing applications, by requiring audits, documentation and human oversight. Compliance with evolving AI regulatory frameworks may increase costs, impact our product development, restrict the use of certain applications of AI and expose us to liability for violations of applicable laws, regulations or contracts. •Advisory Services. Regulators have examined the role of various types of third-party information providers, including index and model providers and proxy advisors, in the asset-management ecosystem. Regulatory or legislative developments that expand or alter the definition of investment advice, proxy advice, or that subject index providers, model providers or ESG ratings providers to fiduciary or adviser-style obligations, could affect our businesses. For instance, in the United States, the SEC has previously sought public comment on the role of index providers and whether they are acting as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act. If any of our businesses were deemed to be providing investment advice or otherwise to have fiduciary or adviser-style obligations, this could significantly increase the costs and complexity of our business and potentially conflict with obligations under other regulations. Our ability to comply with applicable laws and regulations depends on maintaining an effective compliance program, which can be time-consuming and costly, as well as on our ability to attract and retain qualified compliance personnel. In some instances, in connection with the provision of data and services, we have incurred additional costs to implement processes and systems at the request of our clients to ensure their use of our data complies with applicable regulations. U.S. Executive Orders and related agency directives may also indirectly influence client mandates and market accessibility, require rapid adjustments and result in additional compliance obligations for our business. For example, a U.S. Executive Order prohibiting many of our clients from transacting in the securities of certain Chinese companies resulted in our decision to remove these companies from relevant indexes to support our clients’ needs for indexes to be replicable in investment portfolios. To the extent that our clients are subject to increased requirements or regulation, we may be indirectly impacted, leading to lower revenues or higher costs that could reduce the profitability of certain products or services. Because the financial services industry is highly regulated, we could become subject to other existing or new regulatory frameworks in the jurisdictions where we operate, which could increase our costs and risks, require changes to our products and services, or otherwise impact our business. Additionally, there has been increased attention on and scrutiny of index providers and 25 25 25 Table of Contents Table of Contents ESG ratings and data providers by politicians, regulators, policymakers and the media. This heightened attention may result in new or expanded regulations, investigations or other regulatory actions, which could increase compliance costs, impose operational constraints, or otherwise materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Failure to comply with any applicable laws, rules, orders, regulations, codes or other requirements could subject us to litigation, regulatory actions, sanctions, fines or other penalties, as well as damage our brand and reputation. The financial services industry, within which we and many of our clients operate, is subject to extensive laws, rules and regulations, with direct regulation of certain of our products in some jurisdictions. These laws, rules and regulations are complex, evolve frequently and sometimes quickly and unexpectedly, and are subject to administrative interpretation and judicial construction in ways that are difficult to predict, and could materially adversely affect our business or our clients’ businesses. Additionally, we may be required to comply with multiple and potentially conflicting laws, rules or regulations in various jurisdictions, which could, individually or in the aggregate, result in materially higher compliance costs to us. Laws, rules or regulations could require changes to the way we license and price our products and services. In addition, various government and regulatory bodies from time to time may make inquiries and conduct investigations into our compliance with applicable laws and regulations and our business practices, including those related to our regulated activities and other matters. Changes to the laws, rules and regulations applicable to our clients could limit our clients’ ability to use our products and services or could otherwise impact our clients’ demand for our products and services. As such, to the extent our clients become subject to certain laws, rules or regulations, we may incur higher costs in connection with modifying our products or services. If laws, rules or regulations restrict our clients’ or vendors’ ability or willingness to provide data to us, or impose new compliance obligations or restrictions on how we access and use such data, our ability to continue to produce products and services, or the costs associated with doing so, could be negatively affected. The regulatory requirements and regulatory developments that most significantly impact us are described below: •Regulation Affecting Benchmarks. Compliance with regulations affecting benchmarks or their uses, as well as related technical standards and guidance, could negatively impact our business and results of operations. Benchmarks, which include the indexes we provide, are subject to regulations that may require changes in our business practices, product offerings or our ability to offer indexes in certain jurisdictions. Such impacts could include, without limitation, increased costs, including direct regulatory costs; diminished intellectual property rights; constraints on the fees we charge; constraints on our ability to meet contractual commitments with data providers; or constraints on how we offer our products. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect on our index products. For example, the EU Benchmark Regulation (“EU BMR”) and UK Benchmarks Regulation (“UK BMR”) impose distinct requirements. Following Brexit, the EU BMR provides a transition period until December 31, 2025, allowing EU-regulated entities to use benchmarks from non-EU administrators, while the UK BMR extends this period to December 31, 2030 for non-UK administrators. Diverging interpretations or future amendments to these regulations may increase compliance burdens and operational complexity. Additionally, guidance issued by the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) may affect benchmark administrators and their clients. For instance, the ESMA Guidelines on ETFs and other UCITS Issues impose disclosure requirements for indexes used in UCITS funds, such as making index constituents and their respective weightings easily accessible free of charge to investors on a delayed and periodic basis. These requirements could increase the compliance obligations for benchmark administrators, affect the eligibility of certain indexes for use in UCITS funds and influence the demand for specific products. 23 23 23 Table of Contents Table of Contents Globally, the benchmark industry faces heightened scrutiny and potential new regulations. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has recommended that benchmark administrators voluntarily publicly disclose whether they comply with its principles for financial benchmarks. Other jurisdictions have also indicated they may consider potential benchmark regulation or conduct reviews of the benchmark industry. For instance, the EU is amending the scope of the EU BMR and regulation is being considered or developed in India and South Africa. Heightened scrutiny and regulatory attention on benchmarks and index providers from regulators, policymakers, and the media in the EU, U.S., and other regions could result in negative publicity or comments about the role or influence of our company or the index industry, which could harm our reputation and credibility. Further, laws, rules or regulations affecting users of our indexes, such as sanctions that prohibit users of our indexes from investing or transacting in securities included in our indexes, can have an indirect impact on our indexes, including their construction and composition. •ESG Ratings. The EU has adopted a new regulation requiring market participants providing ESG ratings in the EU to become authorized and supervised by ESMA, and certain of our ESG products are in scope for the regulation. A number of other jurisdictions, including the UK, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, India and Singapore, have completed, or are in the process of developing, legislation and/or codes of conduct for ESG rating and/or data providers. Regulatory regimes or initiatives relating to ESG ratings and data providers could impose significant compliance burdens and costs on our ESG and Climate products and services. Furthermore, the potential for inconsistent or conflicting requirements across jurisdictions may create implementation challenges, increase compliance risks and result in inadvertent noncompliance, which could materially impact our operations and reputation. •Data Privacy and AI Regulation. Laws, rule, regulations and standards governing privacy, data collection, and AI impact our ability to collect, manage, store, and use personal data and other information. We operate across jurisdictions with differing and often conflicting data privacy laws, including extraterritorial requirements, which continue to expand in scope and complexity. Compliance with these laws requires significant resources to ensure data security and regulatory adherence. Furthermore, we frequently have privacy compliance requirements as a result of our contractual obligations with counterparties. Emerging AI regulations, such as the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, introduce new requirements for transparency, fairness and oversight of AI systems. These regulations may directly affect our operations, including the use of AI in hiring, employee performance monitoring and client-facing applications, by requiring audits, documentation and human oversight. Compliance with evolving AI regulatory frameworks may increase costs, impact our product development, restrict the use of certain applications of AI and expose us to liability for violations of applicable laws, regulations or contracts. •Investment Advisers Act. Except for certain products provided by MSCI ESG Research LLC and certain of its designated foreign affiliates, we believe our products and services do not constitute or provide investment advice as contemplated by the Advisers Act. See Part I, Item 1. “Business—Regulation” above. The Advisers Act imposes fiduciary duties, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, disclosure requirements, limitations on agency and principal transactions between an adviser and advisory clients, as well as general anti-fraud prohibitions. Changes in legal or regulatory requirements or changes to our product lines could require additional entities in our corporate family to register as investment advisers or comply with similar requirements in other jurisdictions. In the U.S., the SEC has sought public comment on the role of certain third-party information providers to the asset management industry, including index providers and model providers, and whether information providers are acting as investment advisers under the Advisers Act. If our index business were to be deemed an investment adviser, we could be deemed a fiduciary to our clients, increasing the costs and complexity of our business. This could also conflict with obligations under other benchmark regulations. The SEC has also proposed a rule that would prohibit SEC-registered investment advisers from outsourcing certain services or functions to service providers that do not meet minimum due diligence, monitoring and record-keeping requirements, and index providers, among others, are identified as service providers that could fall within the scope of the proposed requirements. If adopted, this rule could result in additional compliance obligations for our business. Our ability to comply with applicable laws and regulations depends on maintaining an effective compliance program, which can be time-consuming and costly, as well as on our ability to attract and retain qualified compliance personnel. In some instances, in connection with the provision of data and services, we have incurred additional costs to implement processes and systems at the request of our clients to ensure their use of our data complies with applicable financial regulations. For example, a U.S. Executive Order prohibiting many of our clients from transacting in the securities of certain Chinese companies resulted in our decision to remove these companies from relevant indexes to support our clients’ needs for indexes to be replicable in investment portfolios. To 24 24 24 Table of Contents Table of Contents the extent that our clients are subject to increased regulation, we may be indirectly impacted, leading to higher costs that could reduce the profitability of certain products. Additionally, there has been increased attention on and scrutiny of index providers and ESG ratings and data providers by politicians, regulators, policymakers and the media. This heightened attention may result in new or expanded regulations, investigations or other regulatory actions, which could increase compliance costs, impose operational constraints, or otherwise materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

We operate in highly competitive markets that continually change to meet client needs. To remain competitive, we must continually introduce new products and services; enhance existing products and services delivered through our own systems and 22 22 22 Table of Contents Table of Contents through third-party platforms; collect, organize, analyze and protect large amounts of information to generate insights; and effectively generate client demand for new and enhanced products and services. We may not be successful in developing, introducing, implementing, marketing, pricing, launching or licensing new products or enhancements on a timely or cost-effective basis or without impacting the stability and efficiency of existing products and services. Any new products or services and enhancements may not adequately meet the requirements of the marketplace or industry standards or achieve market acceptance. The process of enhancing existing, and developing new, products and services and expanding our offerings to new client types is complex and may become increasingly complex and expensive in the future, including due to new technology and AI, competition for talent, workforce costs and evolving client expectations. Expansion into new product and service offerings and client types also increases the complexity of our go-to-market, product development, operational and regulatory requirements and may require substantial additional investment. This process often requires effective collaboration across various functions and product lines, and ineffective or insufficient collaboration may harm our ability to meet our business objectives. In particular, serving new client types may require new capabilities, additional product features and use cases, specialized distribution and implementation, and different contractual and licensing arrangements, all of which can increase time to market and execution risk. In addition, our reputation could be harmed if we are perceived as not innovating rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of investors or their advisors. These changing needs include a greater expectation that information be delivered with a higher degree of customization and service quality. We must make long-term investments and commit significant resources before knowing whether these investments will eventually result in new or enhanced products and services that satisfy our clients’ needs, including new client types, and generate adequate revenues. We also incur costs to integrate existing products and services and transition clients to enhanced products and services, which also present execution risks and could lead to price reductions or other concessions. The increased presence of AI in the market could also lead to increased expectations from clients and market participants regarding the quality, features, timeliness and use cases of our products and services. If we are unable to effectively manage the development of new or enhanced products and services for our clients, we may not be able to remain competitive and our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

We operate in highly competitive markets that continually change to meet client needs. To remain competitive, we must continually introduce new products and services; enhance existing products and services delivered through our own systems and through third-party platforms; collect, organize, analyze and protect large amounts of information to generate insights; and effectively generate client demand for new and enhanced products and services. We may not be successful in developing, introducing, implementing, marketing, pricing, launching or licensing new products or enhancements on a timely or cost-effective basis or without impacting the stability and efficiency of existing products and systems. Any new products and enhancements may not adequately meet the requirements of the marketplace or industry standards or achieve market acceptance. The process of developing and enhancing our products and services is complex and may become increasingly complex and expensive in the future, including due to the introduction of new technology, the costs of our workforce and the expectations of our clients. This process often requires effective collaboration across various functions and product lines, and ineffective or insufficient collaboration may harm our ability to meet our business objectives. In addition, our reputation could be harmed if we are perceived as not innovating rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of investors or their advisors. These changing needs include a greater expectation that information be delivered with a higher degree of customization and service quality. We must make long-term investments and commit significant resources before knowing whether these investments will eventually result in new or enhanced products and services that satisfy our clients’ needs and generate adequate revenues. We also incur costs to integrate existing products and services and transition clients to enhanced products and services, which also present execution risks and could lead to price reductions or other concessions. If we are unable to effectively manage the development of new or enhanced products and services, we may not be able to remain competitive and our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Our global presence and operations and any future expansion are expected to continue to place significant demands on our personnel, management and other resources, and there can be no assurance that we will effectively attract, develop and retain talent and effective leaders across locations; expand our sales activities; operate our physical facilities and information technology infrastructure; scale our legal and compliance infrastructure; meet our regulatory obligations; develop and maintain appropriate operational and financial systems, procedures and controls; integrate acquired businesses; or otherwise adequately manage our global presence and operations and any future expansion. Our global presence and operations and our ability to deliver our products and services to our clients also expose us to political, economic, legal, regulatory, operational, reputational, franchise and other risks resulting from operating and selling in many countries. These include the risk that geopolitical tensions, trade policy changes and related policy responses may restrict or limit our ability to offer certain products, services or content in particular jurisdictions, affect our access to the technology on which our operations depend, or reduce client demand for our products and services in affected markets. We also may face such impacts from product constraints, capital controls, exchange controls, customs duties, tariffs, retaliatory trade measures, sanctions compliance, tax penalties, levies or assessments, legal uncertainty, regulatory intervention and other restrictive governmental actions such as export restrictions, requirements favoring local competitors, limits on foreign ownership or investment, limits on the use of foreign technology, requirements applicable to particular types of data services and processing, data localization rules and restrictions on cross-border transfers of data and services, as well as the outbreak of hostilities or political and governmental instability. As we operate in multiple jurisdictions, our ability to repatriate cash to the U.S. could also be impacted by foreign currency controls, restrictions on cash transfers, or limits on converting currency or paying dividends from non-U.S. subsidiaries, as well as adverse tax consequences. In addition, the majority of our employees are located in offices outside of the U.S., and a number of those employees are located in emerging market locations. The cost of establishing and maintaining these offices, including costs related to information technology, as well as the costs of attracting, training and retaining employees in these locations may be higher, or may increase at a faster rate, than we anticipate. Additionally, social and health conditions, such as public health epidemics impacting the global economy or our employees, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The laws and regulations in many countries applicable to our business are uncertain and evolving, and it may be difficult or costly for us to determine and remain compliant with the exact requirements of local laws in every market. Our inability to maintain consistent internal policies and procedures across our offices and remain in compliance with local laws in a particular market could have a significant and negative effect not only on our businesses in that market but also on our reputation. 23 23 23 Table of Contents Table of Contents Demand for our products and services is still nascent in many parts of the world, particularly in certain emerging markets where investment management practices, including risk management and sustainability and climate integration, are less established. In addition, the data required to model local securities in some emerging markets might be difficult to source and local investment product nuances may be difficult or costly to model. If we do not appropriately tailor our products and services to fit the needs of the local market, we may be unable to effectively grow sales of our products and services. Any failure to effectively manage expansion or to effectively manage our business globally could damage our brand and reputation, result in increased costs and litigation and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our global operations and any future expansion are expected to continue to place significant demands on our personnel, management and other resources, and there can be no assurance that we will effectively attract, develop and retain qualified personnel and effective leaders across locations; operate our physical facilities and information technology infrastructure; scale our legal and compliance infrastructure; develop and maintain appropriate operational and financial systems, procedures and controls; integrate acquired businesses; or otherwise adequately manage our global operations and any future expansion. Our global operations and our ability to deliver our services to our clients also expose us to political, economic, legal, operational, reputational, franchise and other risks resulting from operating in many countries, including risks of possible capital controls, exchange controls, customs duties, sanctions compliance, tax penalties, levies or assessments, legal uncertainty, broad regulatory discretion and other restrictive governmental actions, as well as the outbreak of hostilities or political and governmental instability. As we operate in multiple jurisdictions, our ability to repatriate cash to the U.S. could also be impacted by foreign currency controls, restrictions on cash transfers, or limits on converting currency or paying dividends from non-U.S. subsidiaries, as well as adverse tax consequences. In addition, the majority of our employees are located in offices outside of the U.S., and a number of those employees are located in emerging market locations. The cost of establishing and maintaining these offices, including costs related to information technology, as well as the costs of attracting, training and retaining employees in these locations may be higher, or may increase at a faster rate, than we anticipate. Additionally, social and health conditions, such as public health epidemics impacting the global economy or our employees, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The laws and regulations in many countries applicable to our business are uncertain and evolving, and it may be difficult or costly for us to determine and remain compliant with the exact requirements of local laws in every market. Our inability to maintain 22 22 22 Table of Contents Table of Contents consistent internal policies and procedures across our offices and remain in compliance with local laws in a particular market could have a significant and negative effect not only on our businesses in that market but also on our reputation. Demand for our products and services is still nascent in many parts of the world, particularly in emerging markets, where risk management and sustainability and climate integration practices are less established. In addition, the data required to model local securities in some emerging markets might be difficult to source and local investment product nuances may be difficult or costly to model. If we do not appropriately tailor our products and services to fit the needs of the local market, we may be unable to effectively grow sales of our products and services. Any failure to effectively manage expansion or to effectively manage our business globally could damage our brand and reputation, result in increased costs and litigation and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our credit ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold any of our common stock or outstanding debt. Any rating assigned to our debt is subject to ongoing evaluation by the credit rating agencies and could be lowered or withdrawn entirely at any time by any of the agencies if, in the agency’s judgment, future circumstances relating to the basis of the rating so warrant. Such future circumstances include, but are not limited to, adverse changes to our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, or revisions to our corporate strategy pertaining to capitalization or leverage. Any such downgrade or withdrawal could adversely affect the amount of capital we can access, as well as the terms of any financing we obtain. In addition, the credit agreement governing our 27 27 27 Table of Contents Table of Contents revolving credit facility includes a springing minimum interest coverage ratio, tested only during any period in which we do not maintain specified investment grade credit ratings. Any adverse change in our credit rating could have a negative effect on our liquidity and future growth through transactions in which we rely on the ability to receive debt capital at an advantageous cost and on favorable terms. Accordingly, actual or anticipated changes or downgrades to or withdrawal of our credit ratings, including any announcement that our ratings are under review or have been assigned a negative outlook, could result in damage to our brand and reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and on the market value of our common stock and outstanding debt.

Our credit ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold any of our common stock or outstanding debt. Any rating assigned to our debt is subject to ongoing evaluation by the credit rating agencies and could be lowered or withdrawn entirely at any time by any of the agencies if, in the agency’s judgment, future circumstances relating to the basis of the rating so warrant. Such future circumstances include, but are not limited to, adverse changes to our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, or revisions to our corporate strategy pertaining to capitalization or leverage. Any such downgrade or withdrawal could adversely affect the amount of capital we can access, as well as the terms of any financing we obtain. In addition, our debt covenants contain certain obligations that are triggered by a change in our credit rating, including obligations to make repurchase offers to the noteholders of our senior unsecured notes (the “Senior Notes”) if we experience one of the specified kinds of changes in control and related lowering of our credit ratings, as detailed in the indentures governing our Senior Notes. Any adverse change in our credit rating could have a negative effect on our liquidity and future growth through transactions in which we rely on the ability to receive debt capital at an advantageous cost and on favorable terms. Accordingly, actual or anticipated changes or downgrades to or withdrawal of our credit ratings, including any announcement that our ratings are under review or have been assigned a negative outlook, could result in damage to our brand and reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and on the market value of our common stock and outstanding debt.

We depend heavily on the capacity, reliability and security of our information technology systems, networks and platforms and their components, including our data centers, cloud providers and other third-party vendors and service providers, production and delivery systems as well as the internet, to create and deliver our products and service our clients. Our employees also depend on these systems, networks, platforms and providers for internal use. Factors affecting the availability of our products and services and our information technology systems and networks, such as loss of service, operational failures, human error, model error, terrorist attacks, geopolitical instability, climate-related events (e.g., hurricanes, floods or other natural disasters), outbreak of pandemic or contagious disease, power loss, telecommunications failures, technical breakdowns, internet failures or cyber-attacks, could impair our or our third-party service provider systems’ operations or interrupt their availability for extended periods of time or impact the availability of our or our third-party service provider’s personnel. Our ability to effectively use the internet, including for remote work, may also be impaired due to a variety of reasons including infrastructure failures, service outages, cyber-attacks or government restrictions. Disruptions, failures, or slowdowns in our operations, or those of our third-party vendors and service providers, could reduce confidence in our products and services, damage our brand and reputation, result in litigation, or negatively affect our ability to distribute products to clients, including managed services or real-time index data. In addition, accumulated design, implementation, or architectural decisions in our technology environment, which may have been appropriate at the time they were made, may require incremental investment over time to maintain, enhance, or modernize our systems. This “technical debt” can increase the risk of outages, disruptions, performance degradation, defects, and cybersecurity incidents. While we generally perform cybersecurity due diligence on key vendors and service providers, our ability to monitor their practices is limited, and vulnerabilities or incidents affecting their software, systems, or networks could introduce risks to our operations. Additionally, newly acquired businesses may not have invested in technology and resilience to the same extent as we have, and integration of their systems could introduce vulnerabilities that impact us. There is no assurance that we will be able to successfully defend against such disruptions or that our disaster recovery or business continuity plans, or those of our third-party service providers (including cloud providers), will be effective in mitigating the risks and associated costs, which could be exacerbated by our hybrid work model. While we maintain insurance coverage intended to address certain aspects of cybersecurity and data protection risks, such coverage may not include, or may not be sufficient to cover, all or a majority of any costs or other losses resulting from cyber-attacks or other security incidents. Any of these factors could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

We depend heavily on the capacity, reliability and security of our information technology systems, networks and platforms and their components, including our data centers, cloud providers and other third-party vendors and service providers, production and delivery systems as well as the internet, to create and deliver our products and service our clients. Our employees also depend on these systems, networks, platforms and providers for internal use. Factors affecting the availability of our products and services and our information technology systems and networks, such as loss of service, operational failures, human error, terrorist attacks, geopolitical instability, climate-related events (e.g., hurricanes, floods or other natural disasters), outbreak of pandemic or contagious disease, power loss, telecommunications failures, technical breakdowns, internet failures or cyber-attacks, could impair our or our third-party service provider systems’ operations or interrupt their availability for extended periods of time or impact the availability of our or our third-party service provider’s personnel. Our ability to effectively use the internet, including for remote work, may also be impaired due to infrastructure failures, service outages, cyber attacks or increased government regulation. Disruptions, failures, or slowdowns in our operations, or those of our third-party vendors and service providers, could reduce confidence in our products and services, damage our brand and reputation, result in litigation, or negatively affect our ability to distribute products to clients, including managed services or real-time index data. While we generally perform cybersecurity due diligence on key vendors and service providers, our ability to monitor their practices is limited, and vulnerabilities or incidents affecting their software, systems, or networks could introduce risks to our operations. Additionally, newly acquired businesses may 18 18 18 Table of Contents Table of Contents not have invested in technology and resilience to the same extent as we have, and integration of their systems could introduce vulnerabilities that impact us. There is no assurance that we will be able to successfully defend against such disruptions or that our disaster recovery or business continuity plans, or those of our third-party service providers (including cloud providers), will be effective in mitigating the risks and associated costs, which could be exacerbated by our shift to an increasingly remote working environment. While we maintain insurance coverage intended to address certain aspects of cybersecurity and data protection risks, such coverage may not include, or may not be sufficient to cover, all or a majority of any costs or other losses resulting from cyber-attacks or other security incidents. Any of these factors could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Our success depends on the knowledge, skills, experience and abilities of our employees, particularly our executives and other key personnel. Although we do not believe that we are overly dependent upon any individual employee, the loss of any of our key employees and our inability to replace them with suitable candidates quickly or at all, as well as any negative market perception resulting from such loss, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, leadership transitions, including planned retirements, appointments and reorganizations of our senior leadership team, involve inherent risk and can be disruptive. Such transition periods may result in the loss of personnel with deep institutional or technical knowledge, may temporarily diminish management capacity and may adversely affect stakeholder confidence. We compete for talent across industries, including technology, engineering and financial services companies, and there is a limited pool of employees who have the skills and training needed to do our work, including with expertise in emerging technologies, such as AI. Competition for these employees is intense, and turnover may impact our objectives and place strain on our human resources teams. The emergence and adoption of AI technologies have also required and will continue to require upskilling and additional training of our employees, making retention and training increasingly important. We may not be able to attract highly qualified employees or to develop and retain similar highly qualified employees in the future. Rising compensation expenses could also adversely affect our ability to attract and retain high-quality employees. Competitors may offer more favorable working conditions or more attractive compensation packages. If our compensation programs do not adequately engage our key employees or are not competitive, or if we fail to attract, engage and retain the necessary qualified employees, the quality of our products and services as well as our ability to support and retain our clients and achieve business objectives may suffer.

Our success depends on the knowledge, skills, experience and abilities of our employees, particularly our executives and other key employees. Although we do not believe that we are overly dependent upon any individual employee, the loss of any of our key employees and our inability to replace them with suitable candidates quickly or at all, as well as any negative market perception resulting from such loss, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We compete for talent across industries, including technology, engineering and financial services companies, and there is a limited pool of employees who have the skills and training needed to do our work, including with expertise in emerging technologies, such as AI. Competition for these employees is intense, and turnover may impact our objectives and place strain on our human resources teams. We may not be able to attract these employees or to develop and retain similar highly qualified personnel in the future. Rising compensation expenses could also adversely affect our ability to attract and retain high-quality employees. Competitors may offer more favorable working conditions or more attractive compensation packages. If our compensation programs do not adequately engage our key employees or are not competitive, or if we fail to attract, engage and retain the necessary qualified 29 29 29 Table of Contents Table of Contents personnel, the quality of our products and services as well as our ability to support and retain our clients and achieve business objectives may suffer.

We currently incorporate, and expect to continue to incorporate, AI technologies, including generative AI, into our products and operations, and these uses of AI may become significantly more important over time. There are significant and evolving risks involved in utilizing AI, and there is no assurance that our usage of AI will help our products and operations become more effective, efficient or profitable, or otherwise achieve our intended outcomes. Our use of AI will require additional resources and costs to develop and maintain products, comply with emerging regulations, address ethical and reputational considerations, and manage technical, operational and competitive risks. Competitors and new market entrants may use AI to develop products that compete with our offerings at lower price points, with faster time-to-market or with additional or better capabilities, which could impair our ability to compete effectively and put pressure on our revenues and subscriptions. Additionally, AI-enabled tools may allow clients, including asset managers, asset owners, banks, hedge funds and others, to develop in-house capabilities to replace our products such as custom indexes, risk analytics, and sustainability and climate data. Large-scale data scraping and generative AI models trained on publicly available information could also diminish the perceived uniqueness and commercial value of our proprietary content. Further, third-party AI tools and model providers may change their model behavior, pricing or terms, which could adversely affect our offerings, increase our costs or disrupt our operations. The models underlying our use of AI technologies may be incorrectly or inadequately designed or implemented. If the content, analyses, or recommendations produced by AI are, or are perceived to be, biased, inaccurate, misleading, of poor quality, unethical or otherwise deficient or flawed, any of which may not be easily detectable or may be exacerbated when AI systems operate with greater autonomy, our business may be adversely affected. AI technologies, including generative AI, can produce outputs that appear authoritative but contain factual errors, “hallucinations,” or unintended biases. If AI-generated content in our products contains such errors, we could face client losses, reputational damage and potential legal liability. Failure to maintain appropriate oversight, governance frameworks, testing, documentation and monitoring could exacerbate these risks. The use of AI may involve third-party information with unclear intellectual property rights or interests. If we do not have sufficient rights to use the data or other material or content that AI technologies utilize or generate, we may incur liability through the violation of applicable laws and regulations, third-party intellectual property, privacy or other rights or contracts to which we are a party. In addition, intellectual property ownership rights, including copyright, of generative and other AI output, have not been fully interpreted by courts or regulations. The use of AI by us or by others may also result in, and increase our exposure to, cyber-attacks or other security incidents, including those that involve confidential or personal information (e.g., proprietary, third-party, employee or client information). The use of AI by our employees, contractors or partners could also result in the inadvertent disclosure of confidential or personal information, risking our intellectual property rights, competitive position and reputation. We have adopted principles and governance frameworks designed to support responsible use, data protection and risk management, but these may prove insufficient to prevent harmful outcomes or may not keep pace with the rapid evolution of AI capabilities and risks. AI technologies are subject to an evolving and fragmented legal and regulatory landscape. Laws and regulations applicable to AI, including intellectual property, data privacy and security, consumer protection, competition and equal opportunity laws, continue to develop and may be inconsistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Because AI is complex and rapidly developing, it is not possible to predict all of the legal, operational or technological risks that may arise relating to the use of AI. These risks include the possibility of enhanced governmental or regulatory scrutiny, litigation or other legal liability, compliance issues, ethical concerns, negative consumer perceptions, confidentiality or security risks, supply-chain and cost risks related to AI infrastructure and models, as well as other factors. Any of these issues could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We currently incorporate, and expect to continue to incorporate, AI technologies, including generative AI, into our products and operations, and these uses of AI may become significantly more important over time. There are significant and evolving risks involved in utilizing AI, and there is no assurance that our usage of AI will help our products and operations become more effective, efficient or profitable, or otherwise achieve our intended outcomes. Our use of AI will require additional resources and costs to develop and maintain products, comply with emerging regulations, address ethical and reputational considerations, and manage technical, operational and competitive risks. Our competitors or other third parties may incorporate AI into their products and operations more quickly or more successfully than us, which could impair our ability to compete effectively. Additionally, the models underlying our use of AI technologies may be incorrectly or inadequately designed or implemented. Further, if the content, analyses, or recommendations produced by AI are, or are perceived to be biased, inaccurate, misleading, poor-quality, unethical or otherwise deficient or flawed, any of which may not be easily detectable, our business may be adversely affected. Client or third-party use of AI could potentially result in reduction or replacement of our products or solutions. The use of AI may involve third-party information with unclear intellectual property rights or interests. If we do not have sufficient rights to use the data or other material or content that AI technologies utilize or generate, we may incur liability through the violation of applicable laws and regulations, third-party intellectual property, privacy or other rights or contracts to which we are a party. In addition, intellectual property ownership rights, including copyright, of generative and other AI output, have not been fully interpreted by courts or regulations. The use of AI may also result in cyber-attacks or other security incidents, including those that 20 20 20 Table of Contents Table of Contents implicate confidential or personal information (e.g., propriety, third-party, employee or client information). The use of third-party AI by our employees, contractors or partners could also result in the inadvertent disclosure of confidential or personal information, risking our intellectual property rights, competitive position and reputation. Laws and regulations applicable to AI, including intellectual property, data privacy and security, consumer protection, competition and equal opportunity laws, continue to develop and may be inconsistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Because AI is complex and rapidly developing, it is not possible to predict all of the legal, operational or technological risks that may arise relating to the use of AI. These risks include the possibility of enhanced governmental or regulatory scrutiny, litigation or other legal liability, compliance issues, ethical concerns, negative consumer perceptions, confidentiality or security risks, as well as other factors. Any of these issues could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our business is impacted by economic conditions, including economic uncertainty, market downturns and volatility in the global capital markets and evolving investment trends (including volatility and trends resulting from geopolitical events and trade policy changes, including tariffs, retaliatory tariffs and related trade tensions). Our clients use our products for a variety of purposes, including benchmarking, performance attribution, portfolio construction and risk management, and to support investment strategies including sustainability, climate, factor, thematic, private asset and MAC investing. Volatile capital markets, geopolitical instability or unrest, trade tensions and shifts in trade policy and other economic and market conditions and trends, including a recession or other significant financial-market event or crisis, may impact whether, how, where and when investors choose to invest, for example between developed or emerging markets, U.S. or non-U.S. markets, as well as whether to adopt different investment strategies. Such shifts may increase demand for certain of our products while reducing demand for others, and may reduce client budgets, delay purchasing decisions or cause clients to defer or cancel subscriptions, any of which could materially reduce demand for our offerings. A portion of our revenues comes from clients who use our indexes as the basis for indexed investment products. These fees are primarily based on a client’s assets under management or trading volumes, and if the level of assets under management or trading volumes declines, we expect our fee-based revenue to show a corresponding decline. The value of an investment product’s assets may increase or decrease in response to changes in market performance and cash inflows and outflows, which could impact our revenues. Additionally, a portion of our revenues comes from products and services that relate to certain investment trends. A decline in the equity markets or movement away from such investment trends, including as a result of changing economic conditions or political or regulatory concerns or scrutiny, could decrease demand for our related products and services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our business is impacted by economic conditions, including economic uncertainty, market downturns and volatility in the global capital markets and evolving investment trends (including volatility and trends resulting from geopolitical events, such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and conflicts in the Middle East, and related escalation of geopolitical tensions). Our clients use our products for a variety of purposes, including benchmarking, performance attribution, portfolio construction and risk management, and to support investment strategies including sustainability, climate, factor, thematic, private asset and MAC investing. Volatile capital markets, geopolitical instability or unrest and other economic and market conditions and trends, including a recession or other significant financial-market event or crisis, may impact whether, how, where and when investors choose to invest, for example between developed or emerging markets, U.S. or non-U.S. markets, as well as whether to adopt different investment strategies. A portion of our revenues comes from clients who use our indexes as the basis for indexed investment products. These fees are primarily based on a client’s assets under management or trading volumes, and if the level of assets under management or trading volumes declines, we expect our fee-based revenue to show a corresponding decline. The value of an investment product’s assets may increase or decrease in response to changes in market performance and cash inflows and outflows, which could impact our revenues. Additionally, a portion of our revenues comes from products and services that relate to certain investment trends. A decline in the equity markets or movement away from such investment trends, including as a result of changing economic conditions or political or regulatory concerns or scrutiny, could decrease demand for our related products and services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.