Ategrity Specialty Insurance Co Holdings (ASIC) Risk Factors

Verbatim Item 1A Risk Factors from Ategrity Specialty Insurance Co Holdings's latest 10-K. Filing date: 2026-03-06. Accession: 0002040491-26-000011.

This page reproduces the company's own Item 1A Risk Factors text from the linked SEC filing. It is filer text, not grepcent analysis, scoring, or investment advice.

Informational only - not investment advice. See Disclaimer.

Extracted from Item 1A Risk Factors to the first Item 1B/1C/2 boundary after HTML sanitization. Confidence: high. Source form: 10-K. Character span: 50471-236282.

Back to ASIC company profile

Item 1A. Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the factors discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. References to past events are provided by way of example only and are not intended to be a complete listing or a representation as to whether or not such factors have occurred in the past or their likelihood of occurring in the future. There may be additional risks and uncertainties of which we currently are unaware or currently believe to be immaterial. The occurrence of any of these risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, or prospects. In that event, the market price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks related to our business and industry

If we are unable to underwrite risks accurately and charge competitive yet profitable rates to our policyholders, our business, financial condition, and results of operations will be adversely affected.

In general, the premiums for our insurance policies are established at the time a policy is issued and, therefore, before all of our underlying costs are known. Like other insurance companies, we rely on estimates and assumptions in setting our premium rates. Establishing adequate premium rates is necessary, together with investment income, to generate sufficient revenue to offset losses, loss adjustment expenses, and other underwriting costs and to earn a profit. If we do not accurately assess the risks that we assume, we may not charge adequate premiums to cover our losses and expenses, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our profitability. Alternatively, we could set our premiums too high, which could reduce our competitiveness and lead to lower revenues.

Pricing involves the acquisition and analysis of historical loss data and the projection of future trends, loss costs and expenses, and inflation trends, among other factors, for each of our products in multiple risk tiers and many different markets. In order to accurately price our policies, we must:

•collect and properly analyze a substantial volume of data from our insureds;

•develop, test, and apply appropriate actuarial projections and ratings formulas;

•closely monitor and timely recognize changes in trends; and

•project both frequency and severity of our insureds’ losses with reasonable accuracy.

We seek to implement our pricing accurately in accordance with our assumptions. Our ability to undertake these efforts successfully and, as a result, accurately price our policies, is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including:

•insufficient or unreliable data;

•incorrect or incomplete analysis of available data;

•uncertainties generally inherent in estimates and assumptions;

•our failure to implement appropriate actuarial projections and ratings formulas or other pricing methodologies;

•regulatory constraints on rate increases;

•our failure to accurately estimate investment yields and the duration of our liability for loss and loss adjustment expenses; and

•unanticipated court decisions, legislation, or regulatory action.

Intense competition in the E&S market may limit our ability to maintain underwriting margins and growth.

We face competition from other specialty insurance companies, standard insurance companies, managing general agencies (“MGAs”), and underwriting agencies, as well as from diversified financial services companies that are larger than we are and that have greater financial, marketing, and other resources than we do, and in some instances, decisions by potential insureds to self-insure if premiums are too high. Some of these competitors also have longer experience and more market recognition than we do in certain lines of business. In addition, it may be difficult or prohibitively expensive for us to implement technology systems and processes that are competitive with the systems and processes of these larger companies.

In particular, competition in the insurance industry is based on many factors, including price of coverage, the general reputation and perceived financial strength of the company, relationships with brokers, terms and conditions of products offered, ratings assigned by independent rating agencies, including any downgrades, withdrawal of ratings, or negative watch/outlooks, speed of claims payment and reputation, and the experience and reputation of the members of our underwriting team in the particular lines of insurance and reinsurance we seek to underwrite. See Part I, Item 1, “Business—Competition.” In recent years, the insurance industry has undergone increasing consolidation, which may further increase competition. In particular, private equity sponsors have invested significantly into the insurance sector, and such investments may provide additional capital to our competitors. New competitors, whether newly formed insurers or competitors resulting from alliances or mergers among existing competitors, could emerge and gain significant market share, and some of our competitors may have or may develop a lower cost structure, adopt more aggressive pricing policies or provide services that gain greater market acceptance than the services that we offer or develop. Competitors may be able to respond to the need for technological changes and innovate faster, or price their services more aggressively. They may also compete for skilled professionals, finance acquisitions, fund internal growth, and compete for market share more effectively than we do.

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and technology in general may alter the competitive landscape. While we expect to continue to leverage technology, data, and analytics efficiently, it is possible that competitors will leverage AI and technology solutions more effectively which may adversely impact our competitive position. Competitors could enter the insurance market and further accelerate these trends. Our competitive position could be adversely impacted if we are unable to deploy, in a cost effective and competitive manner, technology or if our competitors collect and use data which we do not have the ability or access to utilize.

A number of new, proposed, or potential legislative or industry developments could further increase competition in our industry. For example, there has been an increase in capital-raising by companies with whom we compete, which could result in new entrants to our markets and an excess of capital in the industry. Additionally, the possibility of federal regulatory reform of the insurance industry could increase competition from standard carriers.

We may not be able to continue to compete successfully in the insurance markets. Increased competition in these markets could result in a change in the supply and demand for insurance, affect our ability to price our products at risk-adequate rates, and retain existing business, or underwrite new business on favorable terms. If this increased competition so limits our ability to transact business, our business, financial condition, and our results of operation could be adversely affected.

We may be unable to obtain reinsurance coverage at reasonable prices or on terms that adequately protect us.

We use reinsurance to help manage our exposure to insurance risks. Reinsurance is a practice whereby one insurer, called the reinsurer, agrees to indemnify another insurer, called the ceding insurer, for all or part of the potential liability arising from one or more insurance policies issued by the ceding insurer. The availability and cost of reinsurance are subject to prevailing market conditions, both in terms of price and available capacity, which can affect our business volume and profitability. In addition, reinsurance programs are generally subject to renewal on an annual basis. We may not be able to obtain reinsurance on acceptable terms or from entities with satisfactory creditworthiness. In addition to using external reinsurers, we primarily use Ategrity Limited, to reinsure our products. As of December 31, 2025, 80% of Ategrity Specialty’s net written premium was ceded via a quota share arrangement to Ategrity Limited. If we are unable to obtain new reinsurance facilities or to renew expiring facilities, our net exposures would increase. In such event, if we are unwilling to bear an increase in our net exposure, we would have to reduce the level of our underwriting commitments, which would reduce our revenues.

Many reinsurance companies have begun to exclude certain coverages from, or alter terms in, the reinsurance contracts we enter into with them. Some exclusions are with respect to risks that we cannot exclude in policies we write due to business or regulatory constraints. In addition, reinsurers are imposing terms, such as lower per occurrence and aggregate limits, on direct insurers that do not wholly cover the risks written by these direct insurers. As a result, we, like other direct insurance companies, write insurance policies which to some extent do not have the benefit of reinsurance protection. These gaps in reinsurance protection expose us to greater risk and greater potential losses. We may also write risks that do not fall within the coverage provided by our reinsurance contracts, or we may purchase types of reinsurance that inadequately cover our risks, and in such an event, we may be exposed to greater risk and greater potential losses. See also “Business—Reinsurance.”

We are subject to reinsurance counterparty credit risk.

The reinsurance contracts that we enter into to help manage our risks require us to pay premiums to the reinsurance carriers who will in turn reimburse us for a portion of covered policy claims. In many cases, a reinsurer will be called upon to reimburse us for policy claims many years after we paid insurance premiums to the insurer. Although reinsurance makes the reinsurer liable to us to the extent the risk is transferred or ceded to the reinsurer, it does not relieve us (the ceding insurer) of our primary liability to our policyholders. Our current reinsurance program is designed to limit our financial risk. Our reinsurers may not pay claims made by us on a timely basis, or they may not pay some or all of these claims. For example, reinsurers may default in their financial obligations to us as the result of insolvency, lack of liquidity, operational failure, fraud, asserted defenses based on agreement wordings or the principle of utmost good faith, asserted deficiencies in the documentation of agreements, or other reasons. Any disputes with reinsurers regarding coverage under reinsurance contracts could be time-consuming, costly, and uncertain of success. We evaluate each reinsurance claim based on the facts of the case, historical experience with the reinsurer on similar claims and existing case law and include any amounts deemed uncollectible from the reinsurer in our reserve for uncollectible reinsurance. As of December 31, 2025, we had $150.4 million of reinsurance recoverable, net of allowance for credit losses of $0. These risks could cause us to incur increased net losses, and, therefore, adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Our loss reserves may be inadequate to cover our actual losses, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Our success depends on our ability to accurately assess the risks related to the businesses and people that we insure. We establish reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses for the best estimate of the ultimate payment of all claims that have been incurred, or could be incurred in the future, and the related costs of adjusting those claims, as of the date of our consolidated financial statements. Reserves do not represent an exact calculation of liability. Rather, reserves represent an estimate of what we expect the ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost us, and our ultimate liability may be greater or less than our estimate.

As part of the reserving process, we review historical data and consider the impact of such factors as:

•claims inflation, which is the sustained increase in cost of raw materials, labor, medical services, and other components of claims cost;

•claims development patterns by line of business and by “claims made” versus “occurrence” policies;

•pricing for our products;

•legislative activity;

•social and economic patterns; and

•litigation, judicial, and regulatory trends.

These variables are affected by both internal and external events that could increase our exposure to losses, and we continually monitor our reserves using new information on reported claims and a variety of statistical techniques and modeling simulations. This process assumes that past experience, adjusted for the effects of current developments and anticipated trends, is an appropriate basis for predicting future events. There is, however, no precise method for evaluating the impact of any specific factor on the adequacy of reserves, and actual results may deviate, perhaps substantially, from our reserve estimates. Furthermore, our business has been and will continue to be subject to change as we grow and introduce new product lines. If our overall product mix changes significantly from what it has been in the past, the historical information and data we rely on for purposes of making decisions with respect to our reserve practices may not represent our current product mix or claims environment, and such information may cause our reserves to be inadequate as a result.

In recent years, the insurance industry has experienced what is commonly referred to as “social inflation,” including increased litigation activity, broader theories of liability, larger jury awards, more frequent punitive damage awards and more aggressive plaintiff practices. Social inflation may increase claim severity beyond historical trends and may adversely affect our ability to accurately estimate reserves. If social inflation continues or accelerates, our reserves may prove to be inadequate, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The following uncertainties may also have an impact on the adequacy of our resources:

•When we write “occurrence” policies, we are obligated to pay covered claims, up to the contractually agreed amount, for any covered loss that occurs while the policy is in force even if such claims are only brought after the policy has lapsed. Accordingly, claims may arise many years after a policy has lapsed. Nearly all of our net casualty loss reserves were associated with “occurrence” policies as of December 31, 2025.

•When a claim is received (irrespective of whether the policy is a “claims made” or “occurrence” basis form), it may take considerable time to fully appreciate the extent of the covered loss suffered

by the insured and, consequently, estimates of loss associated with specific claims can increase over time.

•New theories of liability are enforced retroactively from time to time by courts.

•Volatility in the financial markets, economic events, and other external factors may result in an increase in the number of claims and severity of the claims reported. In addition, elevated inflationary conditions would, among other things, cause loss costs to increase. See also “—Adverse economic factors, including recession, inflation, periods of high unemployment, or lower economic activity could result in the sale of fewer policies than expected or an increase in frequency or severity of claims and premium defaults, and even the falsification of claims, or a combination of these effects, which, in turn, could affect our growth and profitability.”

•If claims were to become more frequent, even if we had no liability for those claims, the cost of evaluating such potential claims could escalate beyond the amount of the reserves we have established. As we enter new lines of business, or as a result of new theories of claims, we may encounter an increase in claims frequency and greater claims handling costs than we had anticipated.

In addition, there may be significant reporting lags between the occurrence of the insured event and the time it is actually reported to us and additional lags between the time of reporting and final settlement of any claims. Consequently, estimates of loss associated with specified claims can increase as new information emerges, which could cause the reserves for the claim to become inadequate.

If any of our reserves should prove to be inadequate, we will be required to increase our reserves resulting in a reduction in our net income and stockholders’ equity in the period in which the deficiency is identified. Future loss experience substantially in excess of established reserves could also have an adverse effect on our future earnings and liquidity and our financial rating. See “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations—Critical accounting policies and estimates—Reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses.”

Given the inherent uncertainty of models and tools, the usefulness of such models and tools to evaluate risk is subject to a high degree of uncertainty that could result in actual losses that are materially different than our estimates. A deviation from our loss estimates may adversely impact, perhaps significantly, our financial results.

Our approach to risk management relies on subjective variables that entail significant uncertainties. In addition, we and Zimmer Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership and the investment manager of the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund, the Absolute Return MidCap Fund, and our fixed income portfolios (the “Investment Manager”) rely on historical data and scenarios in managing credit and interest rate risks in our investment portfolio. Estimates, models, data, tools and scenarios that are utilized may not produce accurate predictions and consequently, we could incur losses both in the risks we underwrite and to the value of our investment portfolio.

Our increasing use of AI-enabled analytics and automated decision-support tools may introduce additional complexity and uncertainty into our modeling framework. AI systems may produce outputs that are inaccurate, incomplete or not readily explainable, and small changes in input data or model parameters may result in materially different outputs. If such systems generate incorrect or misleading results, including outputs not grounded in underlying data, our underwriting, pricing, reserving or risk selection decisions may be adversely affected. While we implement review and validation procedures designed to mitigate such risks, these controls may not detect all errors or unintended consequences.

We use analytics and models to provide us with objective risk assessment relating to our portfolio of insurance risks, some of which relies on third-party vendor’s capabilities. We use these models to help

us measure and control risk accumulation, to inform management and other stakeholders of capital requirements, to improve the risk/return profile of our insurance portfolio, and to design our reinsurance structure and assess the optimal amount of reinsurance to purchase. Given the inherent uncertainty of modeling techniques and the application of such techniques, however, these models and databases may not accurately address a variety of matters which might impact certain of our coverages.

In addition, certain AI-enabled tools and analytics platforms we utilize are provided by third-party vendors and may rely on proprietary algorithms over which we have limited transparency or control. Service interruptions, pricing changes, access restrictions, insolvency, cybersecurity incidents, or discontinuation of such services could disrupt our operations or require significant transition costs. We conduct due diligence and ongoing monitoring of certain third-party technology providers, however, such diligence may not identify all operational and counterparty risk.

Small changes in assumptions, which depend heavily on our judgment and foresight, can have a significant impact on the modeled outputs. These assumptions address a number of factors that impact loss potential, and these factors vary considerably across lines of business. Examples include, but are not limited to business class, industry classifications, or areas of practice or operations; company financial condition; stock price volatility; insured investment strategies; company policies and procedures; distribution and volatility of expected claim amounts; future trends in claim severity and frequency; expected development of historical paid and reported claims; and regulatory and judicial environment associated with insured location or venue. Furthermore, there are risks which are either poorly represented or not represented at all by our models. Each modeling assumption or un-modeled risk introduces uncertainty into our estimates that management must consider. These uncertainties can include, but are not limited to, the following:

•the models do not address all the possible hazard characteristics;

•the models may not accurately represent loss potential to insurance or reinsurance contract coverage limits, terms, and conditions; and

•the models may not accurately reflect the impact on the economy of the area affected or the financial, judicial, political or regulatory impact on insurance claim payments.

The outputs from the models and other tools we use, together with other qualitative and quantitative assessments, are used in our underwriting process to evaluate risk. Our methodology for estimating losses may differ from methods used by other companies and external parties given the various assumptions and judgments required. We use data from third parties in our models and other tools as part of our underwriting process to evaluate risks and estimate losses. We rely on these third parties to ensure that the data they provide is accurate.

Certain AI and machine learning systems, particularly those provided by third parties, may operate as “black box” models with limited explainability. Reduced transparency into the logic or data underlying such systems may impair our ability to validate outputs, demonstrate regulatory compliance, respond to inquiries or defend underwriting and claims decisions.

As a result of these factors and contingencies, our reliance on assumptions, tools, and data we use is subject to a high degree of uncertainty that could result in actual losses that are materially different from our estimates and our financial results could be adversely affected.

A decline in the financial strength rating or financial size category assigned to Ategrity Specialty or to Ategrity Limited may adversely affect the amount of business we write and thus our business, financial condition, and results of operation.

Participants in the insurance industry use ratings from independent ratings agencies, such as A.M. Best, as an important means of assessing the financial strength and quality of insurers. In setting its ratings, A.M. Best uses a quantitative and qualitative analysis of a company’s balance sheet strength, operating performance and business profile. This analysis includes comparisons to peers and industry standards as well as assessments of operating plans, philosophy, and management. A.M. Best financial strength ratings range from “A++” (Superior) to “F” for insurance companies that have been publicly placed in liquidation. As of December 31, 2025, A.M. Best has assigned a financial strength rating of “A-” (Excellent) to both Ategrity Specialty and to Ategrity Limited. A.M. Best assigns ratings that are intended to provide an independent opinion of an insurance company’s ability to meet its obligations to policyholders and such ratings are not evaluations directed to investors and are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold our common stock or any other securities we may issue. A.M. Best periodically reviews the financial strength ratings assigned to Ategrity Specialty and to Ategrity Limited and may revise downward or revoke such ratings at its sole discretion based primarily on its analysis of our balance sheet strength (including capital adequacy and loss adjustment expense reserve adequacy), operating performance, and business profile. Factors that could affect such analysis include, but are not limited to:

•if we change our business practices from our organizational business plan in a manner that no longer supports A.M. Best’s rating;

•if unfavorable financial, regulatory, or market trends affect us, including excess market capacity;

•if our losses exceed our loss reserves;

•if we experience worse-than-expected underwriting results or increased volatility in those results;

•if we have unresolved issues with government regulators;

•if we are unable to retain our senior management or other key personnel;

•if our investment portfolio incurs significant losses or our liquidity is limited; or

•if A.M. Best alters its capital adequacy assessment methodology in a manner that would adversely affect our rating.

These and other factors could result in a downgrade of the financial strength rating assigned to Ategrity Specialty or to Ategrity Limited or may result in A.M. Best placing such financial strength rating outlook on a negative watch. A downgrade or withdrawal of the ratings assigned to Ategrity Specialty or to Ategrity Limited could result in any of the following consequences, among others:

•causing our current and future brokers and insureds to choose other, more highly-rated competitors;

•increasing the cost or reducing the availability of reinsurance to us;

•severely limiting or preventing us from writing new and renewal insurance contracts; or

•making it more difficult for us to incur indebtedness if we are required to do so.

In 2021, A.M. Best issued a negative outlook to Ategrity Specialty and Ategrity Limited which reflected A.M. Best’s concern over then-recent underwriting volatility, which resulted in pressure on our results of operations and enterprise risk management fundamentals. Although the outlook was subsequently changed to stable in 2023 after a change in management team and improvements in

results of operations and enterprise risk management, the financial strength rating assigned to Ategrity Specialty and to Ategrity Limited may be impacted in the future by volatility and other factors. In addition, in light of the earnings and capital pressures recently experienced by many financial institutions, including insurance companies, it is possible that rating organizations will heighten the level of scrutiny that they apply to such institutions, increase the frequency and scope of their credit reviews, request additional information from the companies that they rate, or increase the capital and other requirements employed in the rating organizations’ models for maintenance of certain ratings levels. We can offer no assurance that our rating will remain at its current level. It is possible that such reviews of us may result in adverse ratings consequences, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We rely on a select group of brokers, and such relationships may not continue.

We distribute the majority of our products through a select group of brokers. For the year ended December 31, 2025, 46.5% of our gross written premiums were distributed through three of our brokers. Our relationship with any of these brokers may be discontinued at any time. Even if the relationships do continue, they may not be on terms that are profitable for us. The termination of a relationship with one or more significant brokers could result in lower gross written premiums and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Because our business depends on wholesale agents and brokers, we are exposed to certain risks arising out of our reliance on these distribution channels that could adversely affect our results.

Substantially all of our products are ultimately distributed through wholesale agents and brokers who have the principal relationships with retail agents and brokers who themselves have the relationships with our end-client policyholders. Wholesale agents and brokers generally own the “renewal rights,” and thus our business model is dependent on our relationships with, and the success of, the wholesale agents and brokers with whom we do business. Further, we are also dependent on the relationships our wholesale agents and brokers maintain with the retail agents and brokers from whom they source their business.

Our relationship with our wholesale agents and brokers may be discontinued at any time. Even if the relationships do continue, they may not be on terms that are profitable for us. For example, as insurance distribution firms continue to consolidate, their ability to influence commission rates may increase as may the concentration of business we have with a particular broker. Further, certain premiums from policyholders, where the business is produced by brokers, are collected directly by the brokers and remitted to us. In certain jurisdictions, when the insured pays its policy premium to its broker for payment on behalf of Ategrity Specialty, the premium might be considered to have been paid under applicable insurance laws and regulations. Accordingly, the insured would no longer be liable to us for those amounts, whether or not we have actually received the premium from that broker. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with the agents and brokers with which we work. Although the failure by any of our brokers to remit premiums to us has not been material to date, there may be instances where our brokers collect premiums but do not remit them to us and we may be required under applicable law to provide the coverage set forth in the policy despite no related premiums being paid to us. Similarly, if we are limited in our ability to cancel policies for non-payment, our underwriting profits may decline and our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We review the financial condition of potential new brokers before we agree to transact business with them, and we periodically review the agencies and brokers with whom we do business to identify those that are not aligned with our business objectives. Following these periodic reviews, we may

restrict such distributors’ access to certain types of products or terminate our relationship with them, subject to applicable contractual and regulatory requirements that limit our ability to terminate agents or require us to renew policies. Even through the utilization of these measures, we may not achieve the desired results. We also periodically conduct audits of our policyholders to ensure that their revenues and other exposure metrics are in-line with our underwriting decision at the time of binding the policy. If we find that exposure metrics are higher than originally estimated, we bill the policyholder for additional premiums. Because audits are often performed after the expiration of a policy, we are exposed to uncollectability of those premiums if a policyholder has failed or refuses to pay its additional premiums.

Because we rely on these distributors as our sales channel, any deterioration in the relationships with our distributors or failure to provide competitive compensation could lead our distributors to place more premium with other carriers and less premium with us. In addition, we could be adversely affected if the distributors with whom we do business exceed their granted authority, fail to transfer collected premium to us or breach the obligations that they owe to us. Although we routinely monitor our distribution relationships, such actions could expose us to liability.

Also, if insurance distribution firm consolidation continues at its current pace or increases in the future, our sales channels could be affected in a number of ways, including loss of market access or market share in certain geographic areas. Specifically, we could be negatively affected due to loss of talent as the people or individual brokers most knowledgeable about our products and with whom we have developed strong working relationships, or that represent a larger portion of our business, exit the business following an acquisition, or increases in our commission costs as larger distributors acquire more negotiating leverage over their fees. Any such disruption that materially affects our sales channel could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

As the speed of digitization accelerates, we are subject to risks associated with both our distributors and their ability to keep pace. In an increasingly digital world, distributors who cannot provide a digital or technology-driven experience risk losing customers who demand such an experience, and such customers may choose to utilize more technology-driven distributors.

Unexpected changes in the interpretation of our coverage or provisions, including loss limitations and exclusions in our policies, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

It is possible that loss limitations or exclusions in our policies will not be enforceable in the manner we intend. As industry practices and legal, judicial, social, and other conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge. For example, some of our policies may limit the period during which a policyholder may bring a claim, which may be shorter than the statutory period under which such claims can be brought against our policyholders. While these limitations and exclusions help us assess and mitigate our loss exposure, it is possible that a court or regulatory authority could nullify or void a limitation or exclusion or legislation could be enacted modifying or barring the use of such limitations or exclusions. These types of governmental actions could result in higher than anticipated losses and loss adjustment expenses, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, court decisions could read policy exclusions narrowly so as to expand coverage, thereby requiring insurers to create and write new exclusions.

These issues may adversely affect our business by either broadening coverage beyond our underwriting intent or by increasing the frequency or severity of claims. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent until sometime after we have issued insurance contracts that are affected by the changes. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance contracts may not

be known for many years after a contract is issued. We may also become subject to disputes relating to bad faith allegations which could result in us incurring losses in excess of policy limits.

Our failure to accurately pay claims in a timely manner and to monitor and detect fraud could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We must accurately and promptly evaluate and pay claims that are made under our policies. Many factors affect our ability to accurately pay claims in a timely manner, including the training and experience of our claims representatives, the effectiveness of our claims representatives and management, our ability to develop or select and implement appropriate procedures and systems to support our claims functions, and other factors. Our failure to accurately pay claims in a timely manner could lead to regulatory and administrative actions or material litigation, including bad faith claims, undermine our reputation in the marketplace, and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may be unable to prevent, monitor, or detect fraudulent activity, including policy acquisitions or payments of claims that are fraudulent in nature.

If we fail to maintain adequate systems and processes to prevent, monitor, and detect fraud, including fraudulent policy acquisitions or claims activity, or if inadvertent errors occur with such prevention, monitoring, and detection systems due to human or computer error, our business could be adversely impacted. While we believe past incidents of fraudulent activity have been relatively isolated, we cannot be certain that our systems and processes will always be adequate in the face of increasingly sophisticated and ever-changing fraud schemes. We use a variety of tools to protect against fraud, but these tools may not always be successful at preventing such fraud.

Instances of fraud may result in increased costs, including possible settlement and litigation expenses, and could have an adverse effect on our business and reputation. In addition, failure to monitor and detect fraud can result in regulatory fines or penalties.

Severe weather conditions and other catastrophes may result in an increase in the number and amount of claims filed against us.

Our business is exposed to the risk of severe weather conditions, earthquakes, and man-made catastrophes. In particular, the risks of these events may be heightened in certain geographies where we provide insurance coverage, including the risk of hurricanes in Florida, Texas, the Gulf Coast states and certain East Coast states, the risk of fires, floods, and earthquakes in California, and the risk of severe convective storms in certain Midwest states. Catastrophes can be caused by various events, including natural events such as severe winter weather, tornadoes, windstorms, earthquakes, hailstorms, severe thunderstorms, and fires, or man-made events such as explosions, war, terrorist attacks, and riots. Over the past several years, changing weather patterns and climatic conditions, such as global warming, have added to the unpredictability and frequency of natural disasters in certain parts of the world, including the markets in which we operate. Climate change may increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. This effect has led to conditions in the ocean and atmosphere, including warmer-than-average sea-surface temperatures and low wind shear that increase hurricane activity. The occurrence of a natural disaster or other catastrophe loss could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Additionally, any increased frequency and severity of such weather events, including hurricanes, could have an adverse effect on our ability to predict, quantify, reinsure, and manage catastrophe risk and may materially increase our losses resulting from such catastrophe events.

The extent of losses from catastrophes is a function of both the frequency and severity of the insured events and the total amount of insured exposure in the areas affected. The incidence and severity of

catastrophes and severe weather conditions are inherently unpredictable. We manage our exposure to losses by analyzing the probability and severity of the occurrence of loss events and the impact of such events on our overall underwriting and investment portfolio. In addition, our inability to obtain reinsurance coverage at reasonable rates and in amounts adequate to mitigate the risks associated with severe weather conditions and other catastrophes could have an adverse effect on business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our business is also exposed to the risk of pandemics, outbreaks, public health crises, and geopolitical and social events, and their related effects. If pandemics, outbreaks, and other events occur or re-occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows may be adversely affected.

Because we provide our agents with the ability to bind smaller-sized policies directly in our cloud-based underwriting system, failures to comply with our underwriting guidelines may occur, which could adversely impact our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We market and distribute our smaller-sized insurance products through agents that have limited quoting and binding authority through our cloud-based underwriting system. These agents can bind certain risks. If any of these agents fail to comply with our underwriting guidelines and the terms of their appointments, such as misclassifying certain risks, we could be bound on a particular risk or number of risks that were not anticipated when we developed the insurance products or estimated losses and loss adjustment expenses. Such actions could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. We actively audit the business bound through our systems by agents, including digital monitoring, but we cannot ensure that all compliance failures are detected and resolved.

If actual renewals of our existing contracts do not meet expectations, our written premiums in future years and our future results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected.

Many of our contracts are written for a one-year term. In our financial forecasting process, we make assumptions about the rates of renewal of our prior year’s contracts. The insurance and reinsurance industries have historically been cyclical businesses with intense price competition due to excessive underwriting capacity, as well as periods when shortages of capacity permitted an increase in pricing and, thus, more favorable underwriting profits. An increase in premium levels is often offset over time by an increasing supply of insurance capacity in the form of capital provided by new entrants and existing insurers, which may cause prices to decrease. Additionally, during periods of intense competition, the E&S market may shrink as standard insurance carriers expand risk appetite and extend coverage to the E&S market. Any of these factors could lead to a significant reduction in premium rates, less favorable policy terms, and fewer opportunities to underwrite insurance risk. If we are unable to modify our pricing in response to such fluctuations to stay competitive and retain our customers, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows may be adversely affected. In addition, if actual renewals do not meet expectations or if we choose not to write a renewal because of pricing conditions, our written premiums in future years and our future operations and prospects would be adversely affected.

We may act based on inaccurate or incomplete information regarding the accounts we underwrite.

We rely on information provided by insureds or their representatives when underwriting insurance policies. While we may make inquiries to validate or supplement the information provided, we may make underwriting decisions based on incorrect or incomplete information. It is possible that we will misunderstand the nature or extent of the activities or facilities and the corresponding extent of the risks that we insure because of our reliance on inadequate or inaccurate information.

Our employees could take excessive risks, which could negatively affect our financial condition and business.

As an insurance enterprise, we are in the business of binding certain risks. The employees who conduct our business, including executive officers and other members of management, underwriters, product managers, and other employees, do so in part by making decisions and choices that involve exposing us to risk. These include decisions such as setting underwriting guidelines and standards, product design and pricing, determining which business opportunities to pursue, and other decisions. We endeavor, in the design and implementation of our compensation programs and practices, to avoid giving our employees incentives to take excessive risks. Employees may, however, take such risks regardless of the structure of our compensation programs and practices. Similarly, although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor employees’ business decisions and prevent them from taking excessive risks, these controls and procedures may not be effective. If our employees take excessive risks, the impact of those risks could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and business operations.

Changes in accounting practices and future pronouncements may materially affect our reported financial results.

Developments in accounting practices may require us to incur considerable additional expenses to comply, particularly if we are required to prepare information relating to prior periods for comparative purposes or to apply the new requirements retroactively. The impact of changes in current accounting practices and future pronouncements cannot be predicted but may affect the calculation of net income, stockholders’ equity, and other relevant financial statement line items.

Ategrity Specialty is required to comply with SAP. SAP is subject to constant review by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) and its task forces and committees, as well as state insurance departments, in an effort to address emerging issues and otherwise improve financial reporting. Various proposals are pending before committees and task forces of the NAIC, some of which, if enacted, could have negative effects on insurance industry participants. The NAIC continuously examines existing laws and regulations. We cannot predict whether or in what form such reforms will be enacted and, if so, whether the enacted reforms will positively or negatively affect us.

Public attention to environmental, social, and governance initiatives may expose us to negative public perception, cause reputational harm, impose additional costs on our business, or impact our stock price.

In the past, attention has been directed towards publicly traded companies regarding environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) matters. A failure, or perceived failure, to respond to investor or customer expectations related to ESG concerns could cause harm to our business and reputation. More recently, public statements with respect to ESG matters, such as emissions reduction goals, other environmental targets, or other commitments addressing certain social issues, are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities related to the risk of potential “greenwashing,” (i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential ESG benefits). Our insureds include a wide variety of industries, including potentially controversial industries. Damage to our reputation as a result of our provision of policies to certain insureds could result in decreased demand for our insurance products and could have an adverse effect on our business, operational results, and financial results, as well as require additional resources to rebuild our reputation, competitive position, and brand strength.

In addition, this emphasis on ESG matters has resulted and may result in the adoption of new laws and regulations, including new reporting requirements, including with respect to climate change. ESG and

sustainability-related regulation and legislation, to the extent implemented, will require us to incur significant additional costs to comply, including the implementation of significant additional internal controls, processes, and procedures regarding matters that have not been subject to such controls in the past, and impose increased oversight obligations on our management and board of directors as well as impose additional disclosure obligations on us. Additionally, our customers or other business partners may require us to provide additional climate-related information if they are also subject to additional climate-related disclosure laws or regulations in other jurisdictions. If we fail to comply with new laws, regulations, or reporting requirements, or we fail to provide complete and accurate information to our customers or other business partners, our reputation and business could be adversely impacted.

Risks related to the market and economic conditions

Adverse economic factors, including recession, inflation, periods of high unemployment, or lower economic activity could result in the sale of fewer policies than expected or an increase in frequency or severity of claims and premium defaults, and even the falsification of claims, or a combination of these effects, which, in turn, could affect our growth and profitability.

Factors, such as business revenue, economic conditions, the volatility and strength of the capital markets and inflation can affect the business and economic environment. These same factors affect our ability to generate revenue and profits. In an economic downturn that is characterized by higher unemployment, declining spending and reduced corporate revenues, the demand for insurance products is generally adversely affected, which directly affects our premium levels and profitability. Negative economic factors may also affect our ability to receive the appropriate rate for the risk we insure with our policyholders and may adversely affect the number of policies we can write, including with respect to our opportunities to underwrite profitable business. In an economic downturn, our customers may have less need for insurance coverage, cancel existing insurance policies, modify their coverage, or not renew the policies they hold with us. Existing policyholders may exaggerate or even falsify claims to obtain higher claims payments. In addition, if certain segments of the economy, such as real estate, hospitality, construction, and retail (which would affect several of our underwriting divisions at one time), were to significantly change, it could adversely affect our results. These outcomes would reduce our underwriting profit to the extent these factors are not reflected in the rates we charge.

For the year ended December 31, 2025, there were five states in which 5.0% or more of our gross written premiums were concentrated: California (18.9%), Florida (16.1%), Texas (10.1%), New York (8.3%) and Georgia (5.4%). Any economic downturn in any such states could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Changes in interest rates and financial markets may adversely affect our investment income, book value and liquidity.

A significant portion of our invested assets consists of fixed maturity securities. Rising interest rates may reduce the fair value of our fixed income portfolio, which could result in unrealized losses and a reduction in stockholders’ equity. Although we may hold such securities to maturity, significant declines in market value could adversely affect our capital position and financial flexibility.

Conversely, declining interest rates may reduce our investment income as maturing securities are reinvested at lower yields. Volatility in credit spreads, liquidity conditions or broader capital markets may also affect the valuation of our investments and could result in realized losses if securities are sold to meet liquidity needs.

Prolonged market dislocations or declines in asset values could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The insurance business is historically cyclical in nature, with periods of favorable pricing and underwriting conditions that may be followed by increased competition and rate declines. These cyclical conditions may materially affect our financial performance and cause our results of operations to vary from quarter to quarter and may not be indicative of future performance.

Historically, insurance carriers have experienced significant fluctuations in results of operations due to competition in our industry, frequency and severity of catastrophic events, fluctuating interest rates, claims exceeding loss reserves, levels of capacity, deviations from expected renewal rates of existing policies and contracts, adverse investment performance, cost of reinsurance coverage, adverse litigation trends, regulatory constraints, general economic conditions, and other factors. The supply of insurance is related to prevailing prices, the level of insured losses, and the level of capital available to the industry that, in turn, may fluctuate in response to changes in rates of return on investments being earned in the insurance industry. As a result, the insurance business historically has been a cyclical industry characterized by periods of intense price competition due to excessive underwriting capacity (soft market cycle) as well as periods when shortages of capacity increased premium levels (hard market cycle). Demand for insurance depends on numerous factors, including the frequency and severity of catastrophic events, levels of capacity, the introduction of new capital providers, and general economic conditions. All of these factors fluctuate and may contribute to price declines generally in the insurance industry.

Although an individual insurance company’s financial performance depends on its own specific business characteristics, the profitability of most P&C insurance companies tends to follow this cyclical market with higher gross written premium growth and improved profitability during hard market cycles. Further, this cyclical market pattern can be more pronounced in the E&S market than in the standard insurance market. When the standard insurance market hardens, the E&S market typically hardens, and growth in the E&S market can be significantly more rapid than growth in the standard insurance market. Similarly, when conditions begin to soften, many customers that were previously driven into the E&S market may return to the admitted market, exacerbating the effects of rate decreases on our financial results. At present, we believe we are experiencing a relatively hard market cycle. However, we cannot predict the timing or duration of changes in the market cycle because the cyclicality is due in large part to the actions of our competitors and general economic factors. As a result, our results of operations are subject to fluctuation and have historically varied from quarter to quarter. We expect our quarterly results will continue to fluctuate in the future due to a number of factors, including the general economic conditions in the markets where we operate, the frequency of occurrence or severity of catastrophe or other insured events, fluctuating interest rates, claims exceeding our loss reserves, competition in our industry, deviations from expected premium retention rates of our existing policies and contracts, adverse investment performance, and the cost of reinsurance coverage.

Global climate change may have an adverse effect on our financial results.

Although uncertainty remains as to the nature and effect of future efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and thereby mitigate their potential long-term effects on the climate, a broad spectrum of scientific evidence suggests that manmade production of greenhouse gas has had an adverse effect on the global climate. Our insurance policies are generally written for one year and repriced annually to reflect changing exposures. However, assessing the risk of loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change and the range of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including impacts related to extreme weather events and slow onset events, remains a challenge and might adversely impact our business, financial condition,

and results of operations. Climate change may also increase litigation risk, including coverage disputes, claims against insureds related to climate-related liabilities, or actions asserting that insurers have failed to adequately disclose or manage climate-related risks.

Risks related to the regulatory environment

Extensive and evolving insurance regulation and regulatory enforcement could restrict our operations, increase our costs and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation and supervision by state insurance departments in the United States and by the Bermuda Monetary Authority. Insurance regulation governs, among other matters, licensing, solvency and capital requirements, permissible investments, underwriting and pricing practices, claims handling, reinsurance arrangements, dividend and other capital distributions, affiliate transactions, enterprise risk reporting, cybersecurity, data usage and corporate governance.

The insurance regulatory framework is complex, fragmented across jurisdictions and subject to change, often with limited advance notice. Changes in existing laws or regulations, the adoption of new laws or regulations, or changes in the interpretation, application or enforcement of existing requirements could materially and adversely affect our operations. Regulatory authorities may impose new or more stringent capital, reserving, liquidity or reinsurance requirements; restrict the types of risks we may underwrite; limit the use of certain underwriting practices, data sources or pricing methodologies; increase reporting or examination obligations; or impose additional restrictions on dividends or other distributions from our insurance subsidiaries to the holding company.

Regulatory authorities also have broad discretion in the interpretation and enforcement of insurance laws and regulations. We may be subject to periodic examinations, inquiries, investigations or enforcement actions, the outcomes of which may be uncertain. Any such action could require us to modify our business practices, incur significant compliance or remediation costs, pay fines or penalties, suspend or limit certain operations, or restrict our ability to grow in particular jurisdictions.

In addition, our excess and surplus lines business is subject to state-specific eligibility, tax and filing requirements, and we rely on surplus lines brokers to comply with such requirements. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, whether by us or by our distribution partners, could result in penalties, reputational harm, limitations on our ability to conduct business or increased regulatory scrutiny.

Because regulatory developments are often influenced by political, economic and social factors beyond our control, we cannot predict how insurance regulation will evolve or how future regulatory or supervisory actions may affect us. Any material adverse regulatory development or failure to comply with applicable requirements could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Failure to maintain our risk-based capital at the required levels could adversely affect our ability to maintain regulatory authority to conduct our business.

Ategrity Specialty is required to have sufficient capital and surplus in order to comply with insurance regulatory requirements, support its business operations and minimize its risk of insolvency. The NAIC has developed a system to test the adequacy of statutory capital and surplus of U.S.-based insurers, known as risk-based capital, that all states have adopted. This system establishes the minimum amount of capital and surplus necessary for an insurance company to support its overall business operations in consideration of its size and risk profile. It identifies insurers that may be inadequately capitalized by looking at certain risk factors, including asset risk, credit risk, and

underwriting risk with respect to the insurer’s business in order to determine an insurer’s authorized control level risk-based capital. An insurer’s risk-based capital ratio measures the relationship between its total adjusted capital and its authorized control level risk-based capital.

Insurers with a ratio falling below certain calculated thresholds may be subject to varying degrees of regulatory action, including heightened supervision, examination, rehabilitation, or liquidation. An insurance company with total adjusted capital that is less than 200% of its authorized control level risk-based capital is at a company action level, which would require the insurance company to file a risk-based capital plan that, among other things, contains proposals of corrective actions the company intends to take that are reasonably expected to result in the elimination of the company action level event. Additional action level events occur when the insurer’s total adjusted capital falls below 150%, 100%, and 70% of its authorized control level risk-based capital. Lower percentages trigger increasingly severe regulatory responses. In the event of a mandatory control level event (triggered when an insurer’s total adjusted capital falls below 70% of its authorized control level risk-based capital), an insurer’s primary regulator is required to take steps to place the insurer into receivership.

In addition, the IRIS is a collection of analytical tools designed to provide state insurance regulators with an integrated approach to screening and analyzing the financial condition of insurance companies operating in their respective states. If our ratios fall outside of the usual range for one or more ratios set forth by the IRIS for any number of reasons, it could subject us to heightened regulatory scrutiny or measures or create investor uncertainty around the stability of our financial condition, which could harm our business.

Further, the NAIC has promulgated a Model Regulation to Define Standards and Commissioner’s Authority for Companies Deemed to be in Hazardous Financial Condition (the “Hazardous Financial Condition Standards”), which has been adopted by many states in whole or part. If our financial condition is deemed by state insurance regulators to meet the Hazardous Financial Conditions Standards, it could subject us to heightened regulatory scrutiny or measures or create uncertainty around the stability of our financial condition, which could harm our business.

As a relatively new entrant to the insurance industry, we may face additional capital and surplus requirements as compared to those of our larger and more established competitors. Failure to maintain adequate risk-based capital at the levels required by law and/or the Delaware Department of Insurance as described above could result in increasingly onerous reporting and examination requirements and could adversely affect our ability to maintain regulatory authority to conduct our business.

State insurance regulators impose additional reporting requirements regarding enterprise risk on insurance holding company systems, with which we must comply as an insurance holding company.

In the past decade, various state insurance regulators have increased their focus on risks within an insurer’s holding company system that may pose enterprise risk to the insurer. In 2012, the NAIC adopted significant amendments to the Insurance Holding Company Act and related regulations (the “NAIC Amendments”). The NAIC Amendments are designed to respond to perceived gaps in the regulation of insurance holding company systems in the United States. One of the major changes is a requirement that an insurance holding company system’s ultimate controlling person submit annually to its lead state insurance regulator an “enterprise risk report” that identifies activities, circumstances, or events involving one or more affiliates of an insurer that, if not remedied properly, are likely to have an adverse effect upon the financial condition or liquidity of the insurer or its insurance holding company system as a whole. Stuart J. Zimmer, the Chair of our Board of Directors, is the Chief Executive Officer and founder of ZFSG and the Investment Manager. Currently, as Mr. Zimmer, a revocable trust for Mr. Zimmer’s benefit, and an irrevocable trust for his immediate family are the ultimate controlling persons in our insurance holding company system, he and the trusts are required to

file an annual enterprise risk report in Delaware. Other changes include the requirement that a controlling person submit prior notice to its domiciliary insurance regulator of a divestiture of control, having detailed minimum requirements for cost sharing and management agreements between an insurer and its affiliates and expanding of the agreements between an insurer and its affiliates to be filed with its domiciliary insurance regulator, including states in which the insurer is commercially domiciled. The NAIC Amendments must be adopted by the individual state legislatures and insurance regulators in order to be effective, and many states, including Delaware, have already done so.

The NAIC and international insurance regulators, including the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, are also working to develop group capital standards. In December 2020, the NAIC adopted a group capital calculation (“GCC”) tool using an RBC aggregation methodology for all entities within the insurance holding company system, including non-U.S. entities. The goal is to provide U.S. regulators with a method to aggregate the available capital and the minimum capital of each entity in a group in a way that applies to all groups regardless of their structure. The NAIC has stated that the calculation is a regulatory tool and does not constitute a capital requirement or standard, but there can be no guarantee that will remain the case. It is unclear how the GCC will interact with existing capital requirements for insurance companies in the United States and with international capital standards. It is possible that we may be required to hold additional capital as a result of future developments.

We may become subject to additional government or market regulations which may have an adverse impact on our business.

Our business could be adversely affected by changes in state laws, including those relating to asset and reserve valuation requirements, surplus requirements, limitations on investments and dividends, enterprise risk and risk-based capital requirements, and, at the federal level, by laws and regulations that may affect certain aspects of the insurance industry, including proposals for preemptive federal regulation. The U.S. federal government generally has not directly regulated the insurance industry except for certain areas of the market, such as insurance for flood, nuclear, and terrorism risks. However, the federal government has undertaken initiatives or considered legislation in several areas that may affect the insurance industry, including tort reform, corporate governance, and the taxation of reinsurance companies.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) also established the Federal Insurance Office (the “FIO”) and vested the FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector and the ability to recommend to the Financial Stability Oversight Council the designation of an insurer as “systemically significant” and therefore subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve as a bank holding company. Legislation has been introduced from time to time in Congress that, if enacted, could result in the federal government assuming a more direct role in the regulation of the insurance industry, including federal licensing in addition to or in lieu of state licensing and requiring reinsurance for natural catastrophes. In addition, the Bermuda reinsurance regulatory framework has become subject to increased scrutiny in many jurisdictions. As a result, the BMA has implemented and imposed additional requirements on the companies it regulates, which requirements could adversely impact the operations of Ategrity Limited. We are unable to predict whether any legislation will be enacted or any regulations will be adopted, or the effect any such developments could have on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Additionally, we currently derive revenues from customers in the cannabis industry. As such, any risks related to the cannabis industry, including but not limited to cannabis being deemed a controlled substance under federal laws, may adversely impact our clients and potential clients, which may in turn, impact our services. The legality of cannabis could be reversed in one or more states, which

might force businesses, including our customers, to cease operations in one or more states entirely. A change in the legal status of, or the enforcement of federal laws related to, the cannabis industry could negatively impact us and lead to a decrease in our revenue through the loss of current and potential customers.

Increased regulation or scrutiny of alternative investment advisors and certain trading methods such as short selling could affect the Investment Manager’s ability to manage our investment portfolios or affect our business reputation.

A substantial portion of our portfolio assets are allocated to the Utility & Infrastructure Investments, which is comprised of investments in private investment funds managed by the Investment Manager. The legal, tax, and regulatory environment worldwide for private investment funds and their managers is evolving. New laws and regulations or actions taken by regulators that restrict the ability of the Investment Manager to pursue its investment program or employ brokers and other counterparties could have a material adverse effect on the Utility & Infrastructure Investments.

The Investment Manager is regularly involved in trading activities that involve a number of U.S. and foreign securities law regimes. Violations of any such law (or allegations of such violations) could directly or indirectly result in severe restrictions on the Investment Manager’s activities and, indirectly, do damage to our investment portfolio or the reputation of the Investment Manager and to us. In addition, the securities and futures markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations, and margin requirements. The SEC, other regulators, and self-regulatory organizations and exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of market emergencies. The regulation of derivatives transactions and funds that engage in such transactions is an evolving area of law and is subject to modification by government and judicial action. Any future regulatory change could have a significant negative impact on our investment portfolio and, accordingly, our financial condition and results of operations.

For example, the Investment Manager routinely engages in short selling for the account of the funds underlying the Utility & Infrastructure Investments. Short sale transactions have been subject to increased regulatory scrutiny, including the imposition of restrictions on short selling certain securities and reporting requirements. The Investment Manager’s ability to execute a short selling strategy in managing the Utility & Infrastructure Investments may be adversely impacted by temporary or new permanent rules, interpretations, prohibitions, and restrictions adopted in response to these adverse market events. Temporary restrictions or prohibitions on short selling activity may be imposed by regulatory authorities with little or no advance notice and may impact prior and future trading activities of the Investment Manager. Additionally, the SEC, its non-U.S. counterparts, other governmental authorities, or self-regulatory organizations may at any time promulgate permanent rules or interpretations consistent with such temporary restrictions or that impose additional or different permanent or temporary limitations or prohibitions. The SEC might impose different limitations or prohibitions on short selling from those imposed by various non-U.S. regulatory authorities. These different regulations, rules, or interpretations might have different effective periods.

Regulatory authorities could, from time to time, impose restrictions that adversely affect the Investment Manager’s ability to borrow certain securities in connection with short sale transactions for the Utility & Infrastructure Investments. In addition, traditional lenders of securities are often less likely to lend securities under certain market conditions. As a result, the Investment Manager may not be able to effectively pursue a short selling strategy due to a limited supply of securities available for borrowing. We may also incur additional costs in connection with short sale transactions effected for the Utility & Infrastructure Investments, including in the event that the Investment Manager is required to enter into a borrowing arrangement with respect to the Utility & Infrastructure Investments

in advance of any short sales. Moreover, the ability to continue to borrow a security is not guaranteed and our account will be subject to strict delivery requirements. The inability to deliver securities within the required time frame may subject us to mandatory close out by the executing broker-dealer. A mandatory close out may subject us to unintended costs and losses. Certain action or inaction by third parties, such as executing broker-dealers or clearing broker-dealers, may materially impact the Investment Manager’s ability to effect short sale transactions for the Utility & Infrastructure Investments.

Additionally, the NAIC may institute changes to the risk-based capital charges and capital requirements for invested assets held by insurers, including additional requirements that may apply in relation to alternative investments such as the Utility & Infrastructure Investments, requiring Ategrity Specialty to hold additional capital in order to support its investments and meet relevant state risk based capital requirements.

Changes in tax law may have an adverse impact on our business.

Ategrity Limited may be subject to change in tax laws resulting from the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) and/or European Union tax initiatives to the extent that such or similar tax legislation is enacted or otherwise adopted by Bermuda. For example, the OECD, together with the G20 countries, has committed to reduce perceived abusive global tax avoidance, referred to as base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”). As part of this commitment, in December 2021, the OECD issued model rules aimed at implementing a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. Bermuda has signed on to the BEPS inclusive framework. In response to the framework, Bermuda adopted the Corporate Income Tax Act 2023 (the “CIT Act”) on December 27, 2023. Entities subject to tax under the CIT Act will be Bermuda constituent entities of multi-national groups with respect to fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, notwithstanding any assurances that may have been provided pursuant to the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966. A multi-national group is defined under the CIT Act as a group with entities in more than one jurisdiction with consolidated revenues of at least EUR 750 million for two of the four previous fiscal years.

If Bermuda constituent entities of a multi-national group are subject to tax under the CIT Act, such tax is charged at a rate of 15% of the net income of such constituent entities (as determined in accordance with the CIT Act, including after adjusting for any relevant foreign tax credits applicable to the Bermuda constituent entities). In response to concerns raised by the United States, the OECD recently finalized a “side-by-side” approach, under which certain U.S.-parented multinational enterprises may be exempt from certain BEPS rules. It is not entirely clear how this side-by-side agreement will be implemented by each participating jurisdiction. As a result, these BEPS rules remain under negotiation and continue to evolve. We are still evaluating whether the CIT Act will be applicable to Ategrity Limited and, if applicable, the extent to which the impact of any Bermuda corporate income tax could be offset by any tax credits available under Part 4 of the CIT Act. The CIT Act could, if applicable to Ategrity Limited or any of our subsidiaries that is incorporated or has a permanent establishment in Bermuda, increase taxes payable by us and adversely affect our financial condition.

Risks related to our operations

We could be adversely affected by the loss of one or more key personnel or by an inability to attract and retain qualified personnel.

We depend on our ability to attract and retain experienced and seasoned personnel who are knowledgeable about our business. Our senior management team, including our Chief Executive Officer, Justin Cohen, and our President and Chief Underwriting Officer, Chris Schenk, plays an important role in our strategic direction, broker partnership, corporate culture, and our continued

success as an organization. The loss of Mr. Cohen, Mr. Schenk, or other members of our senior management team could adversely impact our business.

We could be adversely affected if we fail to adequately plan for the succession of our senior leaders and key executives. Our current succession plans and employment arrangements with certain key executives do not guarantee their services will continue to be available to us.

The pool of talent from which we actively recruit is limited and may fluctuate based on market dynamics specific to our industry and independent of overall economic conditions. As such, higher demand for employees having the desired skills and expertise could lead to increased compensation expectations for existing and prospective personnel, making it difficult for us to retain and recruit key personnel and maintain labor costs at desired levels. Certain of our employees are subject to non-compete and non-solicitation provisions that generally apply during, and extend for six to twelve months following the termination of, their employment. Not all jurisdictions permit such non-compete agreements, and regardless of the jurisdiction, our key personnel could still pursue employment opportunities with other parties, including with any of our competitors and there are no assurances that our non-compete agreements with any such key personnel would be enforceable in a cost-effective manner, if at all. Should any of our key personnel terminate his or her employment with us, or if we are unable to retain and attract talented personnel, we may be unable to maintain our current competitive position in the specialized markets in which we operate, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We could suffer security breaches, loss of data, cyberattacks, and other information technology failures, and are subject to laws and regulations concerning data privacy and security that are continually evolving. Actual or suspected information technology failures or failures to comply with applicable law could disrupt our operations, damage our reputation, and adversely affect our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Our business is highly dependent on our information technology and telecommunications systems, including our underwriting systems. We rely on these systems to interact with brokers, agents, and insureds, to underwrite business, to prepare policies and process premiums, to perform actuarial and other modeling functions, to process claims and make claims payments, and to prepare internal and external financial statements. We also rely on our information and telecommunications systems for employees to interact with each other within the company, as most employees work on a remote basis a majority of their time as opposed to in physical offices. Some of these systems may include or rely on third-party systems provided by third-party service providers and/or not located on our premises or under our control.

We and our service providers face numerous and evolving cybersecurity risks that threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of systems and confidential information, including vulnerabilities in commercial software that is integrated into our (or our suppliers’ or service providers’) IT systems, products, or services. The risk of a data security breach or a disruption has generally increased in frequency, intensity, and sophistication. Techniques used to compromise or sabotage systems change frequently, may originate from less regulated and remote areas of the world and be difficult to detect and generally are not recognized until launched against a target. Events such as natural catastrophes, terrorist attacks, industrial accidents, computer viruses, ransomware, a security breach by an unauthorized person, employee error, malfeasance, faulty password management, or other irregularity, and other cyber-attacks may cause our systems to fail or be inaccessible for extended periods of time. We have implemented security measures designed to protect against breaches of security, such as business contingency plans and other reasonable plans to protect our systems, whether housed internally or through third-party cloud services. In addition, while we

generally monitor vendor risk, including the security and stability of our critical vendors, we may fail to properly assess and understand the risks and costs involved in the third-party relationships. We cannot guarantee that these measures will be effective and sustained or repeated system failures or service denials could severely limit our ability to write and process new and renewal business, provide customer service, pay claims in a timely manner, or otherwise operate in the ordinary course of business. We may be unable to adequately investigate or remediate any vulnerabilities to our systems, even if identified, due to attackers using tools and techniques that are designed to circumvent controls, avoid detection, and remove or obfuscate forensic evidence.

Any such event may result in operational disruptions as well as unauthorized access to, the disclosure of, or loss of, our proprietary information or our customers’ data and information, which in turn may result in legal claims, regulatory scrutiny and liability, reputational damage, the incurrence of costs to eliminate or mitigate further exposure, the loss of customers or affiliated advisors, or other damage to our business. In addition, the trend toward general public notification of such incidents could exacerbate the harm to our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Even if we successfully protect our technology infrastructure and the confidentiality of sensitive data, we could suffer harm to our business and reputation if attempted security breaches are publicized. We cannot be certain that advances in criminal capabilities, discovery of new vulnerabilities, attempts to exploit vulnerabilities in our systems, data thefts, physical system or network break-ins, inappropriate access, or other developments will not compromise or breach the technology or other security measures protecting the networks and systems used in connection with our business.

In addition, as part of our normal business activities, we handle information related to individuals including, but not limited to, employees, claimants, individual third-party brokers or agents, and individual vendors. As such, we are subject to various federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and industry standards. The regulatory environment surrounding information security and privacy is increasingly demanding, with frequent imposition of new and changing requirements that are subject to differing interpretations. In the United States, there are numerous federal and state data privacy and security laws, rules, and regulations governing the collection, use, storage, sharing, transmission, and other processing of personal information, including federal and state data privacy laws, data breach notification laws, and consumer protection laws.

Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with laws, regulations, policies, or regulatory guidance relating to privacy or data security may result in governmental investigations and enforcement actions, litigation, fines and penalties, or adverse publicity and could cause our customers and consumers to lose trust in us, which could have an adverse effect on our reputation and business.

The effects of litigation on our business are uncertain and could have an adverse effect on our business.

As is typical in our industry, we continually face risks associated with litigation of various types, including disputes relating to insurance claims under our policies as well as other general commercial and corporate litigation. Although we are not currently involved in any material litigation with our customers, other members of the insurance industry are the target of class action lawsuits and other types of litigation, some of which involve claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts, and the outcomes of which are unpredictable. This litigation is based on a variety of issues, including insurance and claim settlement practices. We cannot predict with any certainty whether we will be involved in such litigation in the future or what impact such litigation would have on our business.

Any failure to protect our intellectual property rights could impair our ability to protect our proprietary technology platform and brand, or we may be sued by third parties for alleged infringement of their proprietary rights.

Our success and ability to compete depend in part on our intellectual property, which includes our rights in our proprietary technology platform and our brand. We primarily rely on copyright, trade secret and trademark laws, and confidentiality or license agreements with our employees, customers, service providers, partners, and others to protect our intellectual property rights. The steps we take to protect our intellectual property, however, may be inadequate. Litigation brought to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights could be costly, time-consuming, and distracting to management and could result in the impairment or loss of portions of our intellectual property. Additionally, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights may be met with defenses, counterclaims, and countersuits attacking the validity and enforceability and scope of our intellectual property rights. Our failure to secure, protect, and enforce our intellectual property rights could adversely affect our brand and adversely impact our business.

Our success depends also in part on our not infringing on the intellectual property rights of others. Our competitors, as well as a number of other entities and individuals, may own or claim to own intellectual property relating to our industry or to our brand. In the future, third parties may claim that we are infringing on their intellectual property rights, and we may be found to be infringing on such rights. Any claims or litigation could cause us to incur significant expenses and, if successfully asserted against us, could require that we pay substantial damages or ongoing royalty payments, prevent us from offering our services or require that we comply with other unfavorable terms. Even if we were to prevail in such a dispute, any litigation could be costly and time-consuming and divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations.

We employ third-party and open-source licensed software for use in our business, and the inability to maintain these licenses, errors in the software we license or the terms of open- source licenses could result in increased costs or reduced service levels, which would adversely affect our business.

Our business relies on certain third-party software obtained under licenses from other companies. We anticipate that we will continue to rely on such third-party software in the future. Although we believe that there are commercially reasonable alternatives to the third-party software we currently license, this may not always be the case, or it may be difficult or costly to replace. In addition, integration of new third-party software may require significant work and require substantial investment of our time and resources. Our use of additional or alternative third-party software would require us to enter into license agreements with third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Many of the risks associated with the use of third-party software cannot be eliminated, and these risks could negatively affect our business.

Additionally, the software powering our technology systems incorporates software covered by open-source licenses. The terms of many open-source licenses have not been interpreted by U.S. courts and there is a risk that the licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to operate our systems. If portions of our proprietary software are determined to be subject to an open-source license, we could be required to publicly release the affected portions of our source code or re-engineer all or a portion of our technology systems, each of which could reduce or eliminate the value of our technology systems. Such risk could be difficult or impossible to eliminate and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We may not be able to effectively implement or adapt to changes in technology, particularly with respect to artificial intelligence, which may result in interruptions to our business or even in a competitive disadvantage.

Developments in technology are affecting the insurance business. For example, insurance companies are beginning to use artificial intelligence in a number of applications, including risk assessment, claims processing, customer service, fraud detection, and predictive analytics and modeling. We believe that the development and implementation of new technologies will require additional investment of our capital resources in the future, and it is possible that we may not be able to effectively implement or adapt to new technologies. We have not determined the amount of resources and the time that this development and implementation may require, which may result in short-term, unexpected interruptions to our business, or may result in a competitive disadvantage in price and/or efficiency, as we endeavor to develop or implement new technologies. In addition, changes in technology typically outpace corresponding regulations, which may lead to periods of uncertainty in the permissible uses of certain technology and to differences or even inconsistencies in the regulatory approaches across jurisdictions. The absence of regulations or conflicts in regulations may further limit our ability to implement new technology in an effective and timely manner.

We are subject to stringent and changing privacy and data security laws, regulations, and standards related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could harm our reputation, subject us to significant fines and liability, or adversely affect our business.

We are subject to the privacy provisions of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the NAIC Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Model Act, to the extent adopted and implemented by various state legislatures and insurance regulators in states in which we conduct our business. The regulations implementing these laws require insurance companies to disclose their privacy practices to consumers, allow them to opt-in or opt-out, depending on the state, of the sharing of certain personal information with unaffiliated third parties, and maintain certain security controls to protect their information. Violators of these laws face regulatory enforcement action, substantial civil penalties, injunctions, and in some states, private lawsuits for damages.

Privacy and data security regulation in the United States is rapidly evolving. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), which became effective January 1, 2020. The CCPA and related regulations give California residents expanded rights to access and request deletion of their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used and shared. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for certain data breaches, which is expected to increase the volume and success of class action data breach litigation. In addition to increasing our compliance costs and potential liability, the CCPA’s restrictions on “sales” of personal information may restrict our use of cookies and similar technologies for advertising purposes. The CCPA excludes information covered by Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act from the CCPA’s scope, but the CCPA’s definition of “personal information” is broad and may encompass other information that we maintain. Some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the U.S., and multiple states have enacted or proposed similar laws. There is also discussion in Congress of new comprehensive federal data protection and privacy law to which we likely would be subject if it is enacted.

In addition, California voters approved the November 2020 ballot measure which enacted the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), substantially expanding the requirements of the CCPA.

As of January 1, 2023, the CPRA gave consumers the ability to limit use of precise geolocation information and other categories of information classified as “sensitive”; add e-mail addresses and passwords to the list of personal information that, if lost or breached, would give the affected consumers the right to bring private lawsuits; increase the maximum penalties threefold for violations concerning consumers under age 16; and establish the California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the new law, as well as impose administrative fines. The effects of the CCPA, CPRA and other similar state or federal laws are potentially significant and may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies, incur substantial compliance costs, and subject us to increased potential liability.

Additionally, we are subject to the terms of our privacy policies, privacy-related disclosures and contractual and other privacy-related obligations to our customers and other third parties. Any failure or perceived failure by us or third parties we work with to comply with these policies, disclosures, and obligations to customers or other third parties, or privacy or data security laws may result in governmental or regulatory investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory fines, criminal compliance orders, litigation, or public statements against us by consumer advocacy groups or others, and could cause customers to lose trust in us, all of which could be costly and have an adverse effect on our business.

Any future acquisitions, strategic investments, or new platforms could expose us to further risks or turn out to be unsuccessful.

From time to time, we may pursue growth through acquisitions and strategic investments in businesses or new underwriting or marketing platforms. The negotiation of potential acquisitions or strategic investments as well as the integration of an acquired business, personnel, or underwriting or marketing platforms could result in a substantial diversion of management resources and the emergence of other risks, such as potential losses from unanticipated litigation, a higher level of claims than is reflected in reserves, loss of key personnel in acquired businesses, or an inability to generate sufficient revenue to offset acquisition costs.

Our ability to manage our growth through acquisitions, strategic investments, or new or alternative platforms will depend, in part, on our success in addressing such risks. Any failure by us to implement our acquisitions, new platforms, or strategic investment strategies effectively could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Risks related to our growth

Our limited operating history makes it difficult to evaluate our current business performance, implementation of our business model and our future prospects.

Our business commenced operations in 2018. Our limited operating history may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and our future prospects. While our revenue has grown in recent periods, this growth rate may not be sustainable and should not be considered indicative of future performance, and we may not realize sufficient revenue to maintain profitability in the future. As we grow our business, we expect our revenue growth rates may slow in future periods due to several reasons, which may include slowing demand for our products, increasing competition, a decrease in the growth of our overall market, and our failure to capitalize on growth opportunities or the maturation of our business. In addition, we have encountered and will continue to encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by growing companies in rapidly changing industries, including increasing and unforeseen expenses as we continue to grow our business. If we do not manage these risks successfully, our business may be harmed.

We may not be able to manage our growth effectively.

Our gross written premiums grew from $437.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, to $581.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2025. As of December 31, 2025, we had 203 total employees, up from 169 as of December 31, 2024. In addition, since our business commenced operations in 2018, we have expanded our geographic footprint, now offering insurance in 48 states. Our rapid growth has placed and may continue to place significant demands on our management and our operational and financial resources. We have hired and expect to continue hiring additional personnel to support our rapid growth. Our organizational structure is becoming more complex as we add staff, and we will need to enhance our operational, financial, and management controls as well as our reporting systems and procedures. In addition, our growth plan will require us to make significant investments in technology. Such investments will also require us to roll out and integrate new technology platforms and to migrate our products from our existing platforms. Such technology may not perform up to our specifications and we may be required to make additional expenditures to remediate any deficiencies. We may not achieve our desired returns on such investments in technology as a result. Additionally, we have experienced and may continue to experience periods of increased levels of demand that place strains on our existing resources. Our human resources, systems, and technology may not be adequate to sustain the level of customer service and quality control we strive to provide in such situations. Such demand may exceed the capacity of the infrastructure and systems we have in place to meet such demand. Any failure under such circumstances to address our clients’ needs on a timely and efficient basis could result in loss of business and damage to our reputation. Any of the foregoing could have an adverse effect on our customer satisfaction, reputation, competitive position, and our brand. Additionally, we intend to further grow our business in the future, which could require additional capital, systems development, and skilled personnel. However, we must be able to meet our capital needs, expand our systems and our internal controls effectively, allocate our human resources optimally, identify and hire qualified employees, or effectively incorporate the components of any businesses we may acquire in our effort to achieve growth. The failure to manage our growth effectively could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Risks related to our liquidity and access to capital

Because we are a holding company and substantially all of our operations are conducted by our insurance subsidiaries, our ability to pay dividends and service our debt obligations depends on our ability to obtain cash dividends or other permitted payments from our insurance subsidiaries.

The continued operation and growth of our business will require substantial capital. Accordingly, we do not intend to declare and pay cash dividends or make other distributions on shares of our common stock in the foreseeable future. See Part II, Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities – Dividend policy.” Because we are a holding company with no business operations of our own, our ability to pay dividends and other distributions to stockholders largely depends on dividends and other distributions from our primary insurance subsidiaries, Ategrity Specialty and Ategrity Limited. State and foreign insurance laws, including the laws of Delaware and Bermuda, restrict the ability of Ategrity Specialty and Ategrity Limited, respectively, to determine how we declare stockholder dividends and make other distributions. State and foreign insurance regulators require insurance companies to maintain specified levels of statutory capital and surplus. See Part II, Item 7, “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operation—Liquidity and capital resources.”

The payment of any extraordinary dividend by Ategrity Specialty requires the prior approval (or no disapproval after thirty days’ notice) of the Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Insurance.

“Extraordinary dividend” is defined under the Delaware Insurance Code as any dividend or distribution of cash or other property, whose fair market value together with that of other dividends or distributions made within the preceding twelve months, exceeds the greater of (a) ten percent of Ategrity Specialty’s surplus as of December 31 of the preceding year, or (b) Ategrity Specialty’s net income for the twelve-month period ending December 31 of the preceding year, but does not include pro rata distributions of any class of the insurance company’s own securities. In addition, Ategrity Specialty’s may not declare or pay a dividend or other distribution from any source other than earned surplus without the Delaware Commissioner’s prior approval.

In addition, insurance regulators have broad powers to prevent a reduction of statutory surplus to inadequate levels, and there is no assurance that dividends of the maximum amount calculated under any applicable formula would be permitted. Delaware may in the future adopt statutory provisions more restrictive than those currently in effect.

Ategrity Limited is highly regulated and is required to comply with various conditions before it can pay dividends or make distributions to us. Bermuda law, including the Insurance Act 1978, as amended, and related rules and regulations (the “Insurance Act”), and the Companies Act 1981, as amended (the “Companies Act”) impose restrictions on Ategrity Limited’s ability to pay dividends to us based on solvency margins and surplus and capital requirements. These restrictions, and any other future restrictions adopted by the BMA, could have the effect, under certain circumstances, of significantly reducing dividends or other amounts payable to us by Ategrity Limited without affirmative approval of the BMA.

Any determination to pay dividends or other distributions in the future will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon results of operations, financial condition, contractual restrictions pursuant to our debt agreements, our indebtedness, restrictions imposed by applicable law, and other factors our Board of Directors deems relevant. Consequently, investors may need to sell all or part of their holdings of our common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains on their investment. Investors seeking immediate cash dividends should not purchase our common stock.

The maximum amount of dividends that our subsidiaries can pay us during 2026 without regulatory approval is $41.7 million.

Our ability to incur a substantial level of indebtedness may reduce our financial flexibility, affect our ability to operate our business and divert cash flow from operations for debt service.

As of December 31, 2025, we had no outstanding indebtedness. See Part II, Item 7, “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operation—Liquidity and capital resources.”

We may incur substantial indebtedness in the future, and, if we do so, the risks related to our level of indebtedness could increase.

If we were to incur indebtedness in the future, it could affect our operations in several ways, including but not limited to the following:

•increase our vulnerability to changes in general economic, industry, and competitive conditions;

•require us to dedicate a portion of our cash flow to make payments on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund other corporate purposes;

•place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that are less leveraged and therefore potentially more able to take advantage of opportunities that our level of indebtedness would prevent us from pursuing; and

•impair our ability to obtain additional financing in the future.

We may require additional capital in the future, which may not be available or may only be available on unfavorable terms.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including our ability to write new business successfully and to establish premium rates and reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses. To the extent that our capital is insufficient to fund future operating requirements and cover claim losses, we may need to raise additional funds through financings or curtail our growth. Many factors will affect the amount and timing of our capital needs, including our growth rate and profitability, our claims experience, the availability of reinsurance, market disruptions, and other unforeseeable developments. If we need to raise additional capital, equity or debt financing may not be available at all or may be available only on terms that are not favorable to us. In the case of equity financings, dilution to our stockholders could result. In the case of debt financings, we may be subject to covenants that restrict our ability to freely operate our business. In any case, such securities or other debt may have rights, preferences, and privileges that are senior to those of the shares of common stock offered hereby. If we cannot obtain adequate capital on favorable terms or at all, we may not have sufficient funds to implement our operating plans and our business, financial condition, or results of operations could be adversely affected.

Risks related to our investment strategy

Our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations may be adversely affected by the performance of our investment portfolios or reductions in the aggregate value of our investment portfolios.

Our results of operations depend in part on the performance of our investment portfolio, including our Utility & Infrastructure Investments and our fixed income portfolios which are managed by us or the Investment Manager. We derive a significant portion of our income or loss from our investment in the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund. As of December 31, 2025, consolidated investments in the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund through the Utility Limited Partnership, reflected on a net asset basis, totaled $178.9 million, representing approximately 99.7% of the net assets of the Utility Limited Partnership. As of December 31, 2025, the Utility Limited Partnership had gross assets of $181.3 million and gross liabilities of $2.2 million. As a result, we have significant exposure to the investments in the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund, as well as to our other investment assets. Our investments held through the Utility Limited Partnership are carried on the balance sheet of the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund at fair market value and are subject to potential losses and declines in market value. In turn, we value our investment in the Utility Limited Partnership at fair value, which is estimated based on our share of the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund as provided by the Investment Manager. For more information about the risks of this investment, see Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors—Risks associated with the Investment Manager’s strategy in managing the Utility & Infrastructure Investments could be greater than the investment risks faced by some of the other insurers with whom we compete.”

Our investment portfolio that is not invested in the Utility & Infrastructure Investments consists almost entirely of cash, cash equivalents, loans to affiliates, and predominantly investment-grade fixed income securities, which are held in accounts managed internally or by the Investment Manager. Our fixed-maturity security invested assets totaled $558.4 million as of December 31, 2025. This fixed investment portfolio is subject to risks associated with potential declines in credit quality related to specific issuers or specific industries and a general weakening of the economy, which are typically reflected through credit spreads. Credit spread is the additional yield on fixed income securities and

loans above the risk-free rate, typically referenced as the yield on U.S. treasury securities, that market participants require to compensate them for assuming credit, liquidity, and/or prepayment risks. Credit spreads vary in response to the market’s perception of risk and liquidity in a specific issuer or specific sector. Additionally, credit spreads are influenced by the credit ratings, and the reliability of those ratings, published by external rating agencies. Our fixed income portfolio includes investments in U.S. Treasury bonds. In May 2025, Moody’s downgraded the U.S. long-term issuer and senior unsecured ratings to Aa1 from Aaa and changed its outlook to stable from negative in response to the increase in government debt and interest payment ratios to levels that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns. This and any further downgrades could negatively impact our investment portfolio. Although we have the ability to use derivative financial instruments to manage these risks, the effectiveness of such instruments varies with liquidity and other conditions that may impact derivative and bond markets.

The U.S. inflation rate began increasing in 2021, peaked in the middle of 2022 and began to gradually decline in the second half of 2022. Sustained levels of high inflation generally cause the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) and other central banks to increase interest rates. The Fed raised its benchmark interest rate 11 times between March 2022 and July 2023 to curb inflation. The Fed wants inflation to return to its 2% goal over time and it is still high in absolute terms. The Fed has lowered its benchmark interest rate three times since September 2024 by an aggregate 100 basis points to a new range of 3.50% to 3.75% from its 23-year high of 5.25% to 5.50%. Should interest rates continue to decline, including as a result of steps taken by the federal government to slow inflation, such as the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a low interest rate environment would place pressure on our net investment income, particularly as it relates to these securities and short-term investments, which, in turn, may adversely affect our results of operations. Conversely, future increases in interest rates could cause the values of our fixed income securities portfolios to decline, with the magnitude of the decline depending on the duration of securities included in our portfolio and the amount by which interest rates increase. Some fixed income securities have call or prepayment options, which create possible reinvestment risk in declining rate environments. Other fixed income securities, such as mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities, carry prepayment risk or, in a rising interest rate environment, may not prepay as quickly as expected.

Alternatively, a decline in market interest rates could have an adverse effect on investment income as we invest cash in new investments that may earn less than our portfolio’s average yield. In a low interest rate environment, borrowers may prepay or redeem securities more quickly than expected as they seek to refinance at lower rates. Sustained low interest rates could also lead to purchases of longer-term or riskier assets in order to obtain adequate investment yields, which could also result in a duration gap when compared to the duration of liabilities. Although we attempt to take measures to manage the risks of investing in changing interest rate environments, we may not be able to mitigate interest rate or credit spread sensitivity effectively.

Our investments are subject to general economic conditions and market risks as well as risks inherent to particular securities. The success of our investments will be affected by, among other things, interest rates, availability of credit, inflation rates, economic uncertainty, changes in laws (including laws relating to taxation of our investments), market structure, trade barriers, currency exchange controls, national and international political circumstances (including wars, terrorist acts, or security operations), and the occurrence of various events (including hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters). For example, the increasing use of tariffs, economic sanctions and export controls may impact the success of our investments. See Part II, Item 7, “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operation—Quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk.” In addition, the Utility & Infrastructure Investments portfolio is broadly concentrated in utility

and infrastructure-related industries, thus exposing our investments to energy and commodity price fluctuations.

Adverse economic conditions or other factors could cause declines in the quality and valuation of our investment portfolios that would result in realized and unrealized losses. The concentration of our investment portfolios in any particular issuer, industry, collateral type, group of related industries, geographic sector, or risk type could have an adverse effect on our investment portfolios and consequently on our results of operations and financial condition. Prolonged and severe disruptions in the public debt and equity markets, including, among other things, volatility of interest rates, widening of credit spreads, bankruptcies, defaults, significant ratings downgrades, geopolitical instability, and a decline in equity or commodity markets, may cause significant losses in our investment portfolio. Market volatility can make it difficult to value certain securities if their trading becomes infrequent. Depending on market conditions, we could incur substantial additional realized and unrealized investment losses in future periods. This could have a material effect on certain of our investments. Further, extreme market volatility may leave us unable to react to market events in a prudent manner consistent with our historical practices in dealing with more orderly markets.

Separately, the occurrence of large claims may force us to liquidate securities at an inopportune time, which may cause us to realize capital losses. Large investment losses could decrease our asset base and thereby affect our ability to underwrite new business. Additionally, such losses could have an adverse impact on our stockholders’ equity, business and financial strength, and debt ratings.

The aggregate performance of our investment portfolio also depends to a significant extent on the ability of us and the Investment Manager, in the management of our portfolios, to select and manage appropriate investments. As a result, we are also exposed to operational risks which may include, but are not limited to, a failure of the Investment Manager to perform its services in a manner consistent with product mandates or our investment guidelines.

The market and credit risks described above could reduce our net investment income and result in realized or unrealized investment losses. Our investment portfolio is subject to increased valuation uncertainties when investment markets are illiquid. The valuation of investments is more subjective when markets are illiquid, thereby increasing the risk that the estimated fair value (i.e., the carrying amount) of the securities we hold in our portfolio do not reflect prices at which actual transactions would occur. In addition, although we seek to employ investment strategies that are not correlated with our insurance and reinsurance exposures, losses in our investment portfolio may occur at the same time as underwriting losses and, therefore, exacerbate the adverse effect of the losses on us.

We could be forced to sell investments to meet our liquidity requirements.

We invest the premiums we receive from our insureds until they are needed to pay policyholder claims. Consequently, we seek to manage the duration of our investment portfolio based on the duration of our loss and loss adjustment expense reserves to ensure sufficient liquidity and avoid having to liquidate investments to fund claims. Risks such as inadequate loss and loss adjustment reserves, unexpected sudden large losses, such as catastrophes, or unfavorable trends in litigation could potentially result in the need to sell investments to fund these liabilities. We may not be able to sell our investments at favorable prices or at all. Sales could result in significant realized losses depending on the conditions of the general market, interest rates, and credit issues with individual securities. See Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors—Risks related to our investment strategy—We have a limited ability to withdraw our capital from the Utility & Infrastructure Investments.”

We face risks associated with our reliance on the Investment Manager and its employees.

The performance of our investments is dependent on the ability of the Investment Manager, and more specifically, the portfolio manager of the Investment Manager, to develop and implement investment strategies that achieve the investment objectives of the accounts that they manage. If Stuart J. Zimmer ceases to be involved in the management of the Investment Manager or our other portfolios managed by the Investment Manager, the Utility Limited Partnership could be adversely affected. Mr. Zimmer is not prohibited from resigning. In addition, Mr. Zimmer has material responsibilities within the Investment Manager that are completely separate from his duties to our accounts and the Utility & Infrastructure Investments. There is no prohibition on an expansion or change to such other responsibilities. We have no special withdrawal rights if Mr. Zimmer were to cease to be involved in the management of the Investment Manager, or materially reduce his duties with respect to the Utility & Infrastructure Investments or our other portfolios managed by the Investment Manager; rather we would have the right to withdraw only in accordance with the withdrawal provisions detailed in the Utility Limited Partnership Agreement.

The Utility & Infrastructure Investments and our other portfolio investments managed by the Investment Manager face operational risks from the Investment Manager’s’ management of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments and our other portfolio investments, including from misconduct by employees or service providers of the Investment Manager, which could result in material losses to our investment portfolio and, by extension, to us.

Our investment portfolio is exposed to operational risks from the Investment Manager and its employees and service providers, including from potential non-compliance with policies and regulations, employee misconduct, negligence, and fraud, each of which could result in material losses to the investment portfolio. In recent years, a number of investment managers and other financial institutions have suffered material losses due to, for example, the actions of traders executing unauthorized trades or other employee misconduct.

It is not always possible to deter or fully prevent employee misconduct and the precautions the Investment Advisers take to prevent and detect this activity may not always be effective. Any impact from the incident described above or other similar operational risks may result in material losses to our investment portfolio and, by extension, the Company.

Our investment portfolios and their performance substantially depend upon the ability of the Investment Manager to select and manage appropriate investments.

Pursuant to the investment management agreements for the fixed income accounts and the Utility & Infrastructure Investments, the Investment Manager has discretion and authority to make all investment decisions on behalf of our accounts, including the power to purchase, acquire, hold, invest, reinvest, sell, or otherwise dispose of the underlying assets or securities.

The trading strategies that the Investment Manager utilizes with respect to the Utility & Infrastructure Investments at any time may encompass a variety of techniques, both directly and derivatively, all of which may be based on any combination of systematic and discretionary analysis as determined by the Investment Manager in its sole discretion. The Utility & Infrastructure Investments are subject to all of the risks associated with the purchase and sale of complex leveraged instruments, including without limitation, the difficulty of accurately predicting price movements in particular investment positions and the difficulty of assessing the impact that an unpredictable multitude of economic and other events may have on prices or the value of investments. The Investment Manager utilizes a variety of speculative trading strategies which, if unsuccessful, could result in a complete loss of our investments. The trading and investment activities employed by the Investment Manager with respect

to the Utility & Infrastructure Investments are not limited to these strategies and techniques and the Investment Manager is permitted to pursue any investment strategy and/or technique that the Investment Manager determines in its sole discretion to be appropriate for the Utility & Infrastructure Investments from time to time. We cannot assure stockholders as to how assets will be allocated to different investment opportunities, including long and short positions and derivatives trading, which could increase the level of risk associated with the Utility & Infrastructure Investments. The performance of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments depends fundamentally on the ability of the Investment Manager to select and manage appropriate investments for the Utility & Infrastructure Investments.

The Utility & Infrastructure Investments are speculative, entail substantial risks, and are subject to various conflicts of interest. There is no guarantee, assurance, or representation that the investment objectives of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments will be achieved or that the Utility & Infrastructure Investments will not result in significant losses, which consequently could significantly and negatively affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

In addition, under each of the Limited Partnership Agreements, each General Partner has the authority to dismiss from employment any and all agents, managers, consultants, advisors, and other persons, and has general management discretion and authority regarding the applicable Limited Partnership. Because each General Partner is an affiliate of the Investment Manager, it may have conflicts of interest with respect to decisions relating to such matters.

Each Limited Partnership is required to indemnify and hold harmless such Limited Partnership’s General Partner and under certain circumstances, the Investment Manager pursuant to the applicable Limited Partnership Agreement. As a result, in general, we do not expect to have recourse to the Investment Manager for our losses in the event that the Investment Manager (or its affiliates) incur losses, all of which could have an adverse impact on our financial conditions and results of operations.

We have a limited ability to withdraw our capital from the Utility & Infrastructure Investments.

Because the Utility Limited Partnership Agreement limits our ability to withdraw our capital from the Utility Limited Partnership to certain specified uses without the Utility General Partner’s consent, including without limitation, to pay insurance claims, operating expenses, in each case at the end of the quarter upon 45 days written notice, and because there is no secondary market for interests in the Utility Limited Partnership, an investment in the Utility Limited Partnership has limited liquidity.

Under the MidCap Limited Partnership Agreement, we are permitted to redeem 25% of our capital in the MidCap Limited Partnership at the end of a quarter upon 75 days’ notice. After such redemption, we may withdraw the remainder of our capital in equal installments for successive calendar quarters upon at least 75 days’ notice. A withdrawal made prior to the last business day of the third full calendar quarter occurring on or after the day immediately preceding the date on which our capital contribution was made will be subject to a withdrawal reduction of 3.75% of the gross withdrawal proceeds attributable to such capital. There is no secondary market for interests in the MidCap Limited Partnership. In light of the above restrictions, an investment in the MidCap Limited Partnership has limited liquidity.

Should the Limited Partnerships be terminated by the General Partners (as applicable), all assets will be liquidated in accordance with the terms set out in the applicable Limited Partnership Agreements and we will no longer receive returns in connection with this investment. If any of the Limited Partnerships is terminated, there can be no assurance that we will be able to replace the Investment Manager as our investment manager or achieve investment results comparable or better than those achieved by such Limited Partnership.

The General Partners, the Investment Manager, and their respective affiliates have potential conflicts of interest that could adversely affect us.

The structure and operations of the Investment Manager and its affiliates (and, by extension, how the Utility & Infrastructure Investments and the fixed income accounts managed by the Investment Manager are constructed, managed, and advised) give rise to a number of actual and potential conflicts of interest which may adversely affect us.

The Investment Manager and the General Partners are both controlled by ZFSG, which is also our controlling stockholder. The Investment Manager and its affiliates currently manage, and expect to continue to manage, third-party client and proprietary accounts, some of which have objectives that overlap with the investment objectives of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments and our fixed income portfolios managed by the Investment Manager. The Investment Manager’s interests will at times conflict with our interests, which may potentially adversely affect our and the Limited Partnerships’ investment opportunities and returns. Additionally, we pay management fees to the Investment Manager pursuant to the agreements we have entered into with the Investment Manager which may be different from the fees paid by other accounts managed by the Investment Manager.

ZFSG and its affiliates, including the Investment Manager, engage in other business ventures and investment opportunities that will not be allocated equitably among us and such other business ventures.

ZFSG and its affiliates, including the Investment Manager, participate in various financial activities and have created multiple products that employ overlapping or substantially similar strategies and/or compete for limited trading and investment opportunities but are designed to achieve materially different expected risk-reward profiles. ZFSG and its affiliates, including the Investment Manager, engage in a wide-range of investment and other financial activities, many of which are not offered to us or to our accounts that are managed by the Investment Manager.

The Investment Manager also serves as investment manager of other investment vehicles. The Investment Manager, its principal, and its affiliates conduct investment activities for their own accounts and may serve as investment adviser, investment manager, or in a similar capacity to various other entities, co-investors, and managed accounts in the future. Situations may occur where our accounts that are managed by the Investment Manager could be disadvantaged because of the investment activities conducted by the Investment Manager for other clients due to, among other things, the limited availability of an opportunity or the market impact of orders for multiple accounts.

Additionally, decisions made by the Investment Manager on behalf of our accounts have the potential to vary materially from the decisions made by the Investment Manager and its affiliates on behalf of other clients (including its principal and its affiliates), including during times of market stress and during liquidation events. Because the Investment Manager employs the same or substantially similar strategies on behalf of many of its clients (including ZFSG and its affiliates) and because such clients often trade the same or similar instruments, the decisions made by the Investment Manager, on behalf of any individual client are likely to have a material impact on other clients. This impact is likely to be exacerbated during times of market stress and/or during liquidation events. For example, to the extent that the Investment Manager decides to liquidate or “de-lever” all or any portion of another client’s portfolio for any reason, the market’s reaction to such liquidation or deleveraging is likely to adversely affect the Utility & Infrastructure Investments or the Investment Manager’s ability to liquidate or de-lever the same or similar positions, whether or not the Investment Manager has made the independent decision to liquidate or de-lever the Utility & Infrastructure Investments.

The historical performance of the Investment Manager (including the performance of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments) should not be considered as indicative of our or the Utility & Infrastructure Investments’ future results.

The historical returns of the funds managed by the Investment Manager (including the performance of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments) are not necessarily indicative of future results. Results for the Utility & Infrastructure Investments could differ materially from the results of other funds managed by the Investment Manager. In addition, even if the Utility & Infrastructure Investments generate investment income in a given period, our overall performance could be adversely affected by losses generated by our insurance and reinsurance operations or other market dynamics. Poor performance of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments would cause a decline in our revenue and would therefore have a negative effect on our financial performance.

The ZIS Loan is a Related Party Transaction and is subject to the credit risk of an investment in ZIS and ZFSG, our parent company.

The ZIS Loan is a related party transaction. ZIS, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ZFSG, is the borrower under the ZIS Loan. Pursuant to the ZIS Loan, Ategrity Specialty Holdings LLC and Ategrity Limited have provided a loan with a principal amount of $94 million to ZIS. The ZIS Loan is guaranteed by ZFSG. ZFSG is also a guarantor under the Investment Manager’s credit facility and ZFSG’s guarantee of the ZIS Loan is expressly subordinated to any and all debts, liabilities and other obligations owing to the lenders to the Investment Manager’s credit facility by its terms. The ZIS Loan is secured by the shares ZFSG holds in ZIS and certain of our shares of common stock that are held by ZFSG.

ZIS is an employee benefits business with a very limited operating history. ZIS was formed in 2023 for the purpose of providing certain business services to affiliates of ZFSG, including Ategrity. ZIS also sponsors self-insurance healthcare plans on behalf of employers, with equity capital provided by ZFSG. On October 1, 2024, ZIS commenced providing insurance and other ancillary benefits to our employees and employees of other ZFSG affiliates pursuant to such plans. In connection with its self-insurance business, ZIS collects premiums and is responsible for the payment of claims pursuant to such plans. There are certain risks associated with the self-insurance model, including the risk that claims are reported in excess of ZIS’s available reserves. ZIS’s current customers are ZFSG affiliates, including Ategrity; however, ZIS intends to expand its offerings to other employers. Our investment in the ZIS Loan is dependent on cash from operating activities of ZIS in order to service the interest and principal payments on the ZIS Loan. If ZIS were not able to service its indebtedness on the ZIS Loan, or if there were a default on such loan, the value of the collateral underlying the ZIS Loan may not be sufficient to cover the amount we have invested in the ZIS Loan. In the event of bankruptcy proceedings relating to ZFSG, if a bankruptcy court were to substantively consolidate ZIS obligations with such proceedings, the recovery of our security interest could be subject to court approval and the timing of such recovery may be impeded as a result. In the event we were not able to recover the full value of our investment in the ZIS Loan, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Risks associated with the ZIS Loan and the Investment Manager’s strategy in managing the Utility & Infrastructure Investments could be greater than the investment risks faced by some of the other insurers with whom we compete.

We have a significant amount of financial exposure to the Utility & Infrastructure Investments and the ZIS Loan. As a result, our results of operations depend materially on the performance of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments and the ZIS Loan. The ZIS Loan is concentrated exposure to the credit of

ZFSG and ZIS. The ZIS Loan is secured only by the shares of ZIS held by ZFSG as well as certain of our shares owned by ZFSG. This investment may present more concentrated risk exposure than the fixed income investments of other insurers with which we compete.

The Utility & Infrastructure Investments are inherently speculative and involve certain risks. The Utility & Infrastructure Investments are made through various commingled investment vehicles that are managed on behalf of multiple clients of the Investment Manager, and not structured in relation to our specific financial objectives or anticipated insurance and reinsurance liabilities. To the extent we are required to fund these or other liabilities in meaningful amounts and/or unexpectedly, we could be forced to liquidate investments at a significant loss or at prices that are not optimal, which could significantly and adversely affect our financial results.

The risks associated with the ZIS Loan and the Investment Manager’s investment strategy could be greater than the risks associated with traditional investment strategies employed by some of the insurers with whom we compete. For example, the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund currently employs a utility and infrastructure-focused, long/ short strategy, investing primarily in equities. Because the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund’s investment portfolio is concentrated in utilities and infrastructure, our investment therein may be subject to more rapid change in value, including as a result of energy and commodity price fluctuations, than would be the case if the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund were to maintain a wide diversification among securities or industry sectors. Furthermore, even within utilities and infrastructure, the investment portfolio may be relatively concentrated. This lack of diversification may subject the investments of the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund to more rapid change in value than would be the case if the assets of the Absolute Return Utility & Infrastructure Fund were more widely diversified.

Fees to the Investment Manager are paid not only in the form of a management fee based on the amount invested in the Utility & Infrastructure Investments, but also are paid as a 20% annual incentive fee on the profits of the relevant fund at the end of each performance period. In the case of the Absolute Return MidCap Fund, such incentive fee increases to 30% above a 15% annualized return hurdle. The Investment Manager generally will not be penalized for losses or decreases in the value of the Utility & Infrastructure Investments. Therefore, the Investment Manager could be incentivized to pursue strategies that are speculative or expose us to more risk in order to focus on near-term gains rather than long-term growth, which may have an adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Additionally, such fees may reduce the returns to our portfolio versus other possible strategies that have different fee structures or no fees at all.

The Investment Manager employs hedging for Utility & Infrastructure Investments by taking long and short positions in related instruments. Hedging against a decline in the value of a portfolio position does not eliminate fluctuations in the values of such portfolio positions or prevent losses if the values of such positions decline, but establishes other positions designed to gain from those same developments, thus seeking to moderate the decline in the value of such portfolio position. Such hedging transactions also limit the opportunity for gain if the value of the portfolio position should increase. In the event of an imperfect correlation between a position in a hedging instrument and the portfolio position that it is intended to protect, the desired protection may not be obtained, and the Utility & Infrastructure Investments may be exposed to risk of loss. In addition, it is not possible to hedge fully or perfectly against any risk, and hedging entails its own costs. Positions which would typically serve as hedges could actually move in the same direction as the instruments they were initially attempting to hedge, adding further risk (and losses). The Investment Manager may determine not to hedge against certain risks, and certain risks exist that cannot be hedged.

Moreover, there are likely to be an increasing number of market participants who rely on strategies and techniques that are similar to those used by the Investment Manager, which may result in a substantial number of market participants taking the same action with respect to an investment and some of these market participants may be substantially larger than our positions in the Utility & Infrastructure Investments.

In managing the Utility & Infrastructure Investments, the Investment Manager will trade on margin and use other forms of financial leverage, which could potentially adversely affect our results.

The Investment Manager employs substantial leverage with respect to the Utility & Infrastructure Investments. Such leverage is achieved by borrowing funds from U.S. and non-U.S. brokers, banks, dealers, and other lenders, purchasing or selling instruments on margin or with collateral and using options, futures, forward contracts, swaps and various other forms of derivatives, and other instruments which have substantial embedded leverage.

If any fund underlying the Utility & Infrastructure Investments can no longer utilize margin or post collateral under such lending arrangements, it could be required to liquidate a significant portion of its portfolio, and trading would be constrained, adversely affecting such fund’s performance.

Trading on leverage may result in greater risks, exposures, interest charges, and costs, which may be explicit (e.g., in the case of loans) or implicit (e.g., in the case of many derivative instruments) and such charges or costs could be substantial. The use of leverage, both through direct borrowing and through the investment in various types of instruments across a wide variety of asset classes, can substantially increase the market exposure (and market risk) to which the Utility & Infrastructure Investments are subject. Specifically, if the value of the portfolio of any fund underlying the Utility & Infrastructure Investments fell below the margin or collateral level required by a prime broker or dealer, the prime broker or dealer would require additional margin deposits or collateral amounts. If such fund were unable to satisfy such a margin or collateral call by a prime broker or dealer, the prime broker or dealer could liquidate the fund’s positions in its account with the prime broker or for which the dealer is the counterparty and cause such fund to incur significant losses. The failure to satisfy a margin or collateral call, or the occurrence of other material defaults under margin, collateral, or other financing agreements, could trigger cross-defaults under such fund’s agreements with other brokers, dealers, lenders, clearing firms, or other counterparties, multiplying the adverse impact to the fund. In addition, because the use of leverage will allow such fund control of or exposure to positions worth significantly more than the margin or collateral posted for such positions, the amount that such fund may lose in the event of adverse price movements will be high in relation to the amount of this margin or collateral amount and could exceed the value of the assets of such fund. Trading of futures, forward contracts, equity swaps, and other derivatives, for example, generally involves little or no margin deposit or collateral requirement and therefore provides substantial implicit leverage. Accordingly, relatively small price movements in these instruments (and others) can result in immediate and substantial losses.

In the event of a sudden decrease in the value of any fund underlying the Utility & Infrastructure Investments, such fund might not be able to liquidate assets quickly enough to satisfy its margin or collateral requirements. In that event, such fund would become subject to claims of financial intermediaries that extended “margin” loans or counterparty credit. Such claims could exceed the value of the assets of the fund. Trading of futures generally involves little or no margin deposit requirement and therefore provides substantial leverage. Accordingly, relatively small price movements in these instruments (and others) can result in immediate and substantial losses.

The banks, dealers, and counterparties (including prime brokers, futures commission merchants, and central clearing houses) that provide financing to the funds underlying the Utility & Infrastructure Investments can apply essentially discretionary margin, haircut, financing, and collateral valuation policies. Changes by banks, dealers, and counterparties in any of the foregoing may result in large margin calls, loss of financing, and forced liquidations of positions at disadvantageous times or prices. There can be no assurance that the Utility & Infrastructure Investments will be able to secure or maintain adequate financing.

We and the Investment Manager engage in short selling, which could expose us to the potential for large losses.

The investment program for the Utility & Infrastructure Investments includes a significant amount of short selling. We also engage in certain short selling of treasury securities at the holding company level. Short selling transactions expose us and the Utility & Infrastructure Investments to the risk of loss in an amount greater than the initial investment, and such losses can increase rapidly and without effective limit. Short sales can, in certain circumstances, substantially increase the impact of adverse price movements in the Utility & Infrastructure Investments. A short sale of an instrument involves the risk of a theoretically unlimited loss from a theoretically unlimited increase in the market price of the instrument, which could result in an inability to cover the short position. In addition, there can be no assurance that securities or other instruments necessary to cover a short position will be available for purchase. There is the risk that the instruments borrowed in connection with a short sale would need to be returned to the lender on short notice. If such request for return of instruments occurs at a time when other short sellers of the subject instrument are receiving similar requests, a “short squeeze” can occur, wherein the holder of the short position might be compelled, at the most disadvantageous time, to replace the borrowed instruments previously sold short with purchases on the open market, possibly at prices significantly in excess of the proceeds received earlier in originally selling the instruments short. Purchasing instruments to close out the short position can itself cause the price of the instruments to rise further, thereby exacerbating any loss. There can be no assurance that securities necessary to cover a short position will be available for purchase.

Risks related to ownership of our common stock

Our stock price may be volatile, or may decline regardless of our operating performance, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Our quarterly results of operations are likely to fluctuate in the future. In addition, securities markets worldwide have experienced, and are likely to continue to experience, significant price and volume fluctuations. This market volatility, as well as general economic, market, or political conditions, could subject the market price of our shares to wide price fluctuations regardless of our operating performance. You should consider an investment in our common stock to be risky, and you should invest in our common stock only if you can withstand a significant loss and wide fluctuation in the market value of your investment. The market price of our common stock could be subject to significant fluctuations in response to the factors described in this “Risk factors” section and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Among the factors that could affect our stock price are:

•market conditions in the broader stock market;

•actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly and annual results of operations or those of other companies in our industry;

•changes in market valuations of companies perceived to be similar to us;

•introduction of new products or services by us or our competitors;

•publication of research reports or news stories about us, our competitors, or our industry, or positive or negative recommendations or withdrawal of research coverage by securities analysts;

•results of operations or balance sheet items, such as reserves, that vary from expectations of securities analysts and investors;

•guidance, if any, that we provide to the public, any changes in this guidance or our failure to meet this guidance;

•the public’s response to our or our competitors’ filings with the SEC, press releases, or other announcements regarding acquisitions, restructurings, litigation, regulation, or other strategic actions and significant matters;

•changes in our Board of Directors, senior management, or other key personnel;

•sales of our common stock, including by our directors, executive officers, and principal stockholders;

•short sales, hedging, and other derivative transactions in our common stock;

•any indebtedness we may incur or securities we may issue in the future;

•actions by stockholders;

•changes in accounting principles;

•the occurrence of severe weather conditions and other catastrophes that affect or are perceived by investors as affecting us or our industry;

•exposure to capital and credit market risks that adversely affect our investment portfolio or our capital resources;

•investment performance;

•changes in our credit ratings; and

•the actual or anticipated passage of legislation or other regulatory developments affecting us or our industry.

The securities markets have from time to time experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations, as well as general market, economic, and political conditions, such as recessions, loss of investor confidence, or interest rate changes, may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.

In addition, the stock markets, including the NYSE, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies. If any of the foregoing occurs, it could cause our stock price to fall and may expose us to securities class action litigation that, even if unsuccessful, could be costly to defend, divert management’s attention and resources or harm our business.

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or our industry or if they issue unfavorable commentary or issue negative recommendations with respect to our common stock, the price of our common stock could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that equity research and other securities analysts publish about us, our business, and our industry. We do not have control over these analysts and we may be unable or slow to attract research coverage. One or more

analysts could issue negative recommendations with respect to our common stock or publish other unfavorable commentary or cease publishing reports about us, our business, or our industry. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us, we could lose visibility in the market. As a result of one or more of these factors, the market price of our common stock price could decline rapidly and our common stock trading volume could be adversely affected.

Our articles of incorporation and bylaws provide that the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (or if such court does not have jurisdiction, another state or the federal courts (as appropriate) located within the State of Nevada) is the sole and exclusive forum for certain stockholder litigation matters, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees, or stockholders or make the litigation of such disputes more costly for stockholders.

Our articles of incorporation and bylaws provide that, unless we consent to the selection of an alternative forum, the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, sitting in Clark County (or if such court does not have jurisdiction, another state or the federal courts (as appropriate) located within the State of Nevada) shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for any actions, suits, or proceedings, whether civil, administrative, or investigative (i) brought in our name or right or on our behalf, (ii) asserting a claim for breach of any fiduciary duty owed by any of our current or former directors, officers, employees, or agents to us or our stockholders, (iii) that is an internal action (as defined in Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 78.046), including any action or claim arising under or pursuant to NRS Chapters 78 or 92A or any provision of our articles of incorporation or our bylaws, or as to which the NRS confers jurisdiction on the District Court of the State of Nevada, (iv) to interpret, apply, enforce, or determine the validity of our articles of incorporation and bylaws or any agreement entered into pursuant to NRS 78.365 to which we are a party or a stated beneficiary or (v) asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) creates exclusive federal jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. As a result, the exclusive forum provision in our articles of incorporation and bylaws does not apply to suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Our articles of incorporation and bylaws further provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the federal district courts of the United States of America is the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. However, Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations thereunder and, accordingly, we cannot be certain that a court would enforce such provision.

Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the forum provisions in our articles of incorporation, except our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived (and cannot waive) compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our current or former directors, officers, other employees, or stockholders which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims or make such lawsuits more costly for stockholders. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our articles of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Provisions in our articles of incorporation and bylaws and Nevada law could discourage, delay, or prevent a change in control of our company and may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.

Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws and Nevada law may discourage, delay, or prevent a merger, acquisition, or other change in control that stockholders may consider advantageous, including transactions in which you would otherwise receive a premium for your shares of our common stock. These provisions may also prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our management. These provisions will provide for, among other things:

•there is no cumulative voting in the election of our directors, which prevents the minority stockholders from electing director candidates;

•from and after such time as ZFSG and its affiliates no longer beneficially own more than 50% of the voting power of our capital stock, our board of directors will have an the exclusive right to elect a director to fill a vacancy created by the expansion of the board of directors or the resignation, death, or removal of a director, which prevents stockholders from being able to fill vacancies on our board of directors;

•from and after such time as ZFSG and its affiliates cease to beneficially own more than 50% of the voting power of our capital stock, actions to be taken by our stockholders may only be effected at an annual or special meeting of our stockholders and not by written consent;

•special meetings of our stockholders can be called only by the Chair of the board of directors, by our corporate secretary at the direction of our board of directors, or, until such time as ZFSG and its affiliates cease to beneficially own more than 50% of the voting power of our capital stock, the majority of the holders of our common stock;

•advance notice procedures that stockholders, other than ZFSG, must comply with in order to nominate candidates to our board of directors and propose matters to be brought before an annual meeting of our stockholders may discourage or deter a potential acquirer from conducting a solicitation of proxies to elect the acquirer’s own slate of directors or otherwise attempting to obtain control of our company;

•pursuant to Nevada law, a 662∕3% stockholder vote is required for removal of a director (with or without cause);

•from and after such time as ZFSG and its affiliates cease to beneficially own more than 50% of the voting power of our capital stock, a 662∕3% stockholder vote is required for the amendment, repeal, or modification of certain provisions of our articles of incorporation and any provisions of our bylaws; and

•our board of directors may, without stockholder approval, issue series of preferred stock, or rights to acquire preferred stock, that could dilute the interest of, or impair the voting power of, holders of our common stock or could also be used as a method of discouraging, delaying, or preventing a change of control.

The existence of the foregoing provisions and anti-takeover measures could limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. They could also deter potential acquirers of our company, thereby reducing the likelihood that you could receive a premium for your common stock in an acquisition.

Certain anti-takeover provisions under Nevada law also apply to our company. We may be subject to Nevada’s statutes governing “combinations with interested stockholders” (NRS 78.411-78.444), which could prohibit us from entering into a “combination” with an “interested stockholder” for up to four

years after the person first became an interested stockholder, unless certain conditions are met (for example in some circumstances, approval by our board of directors before such person became an interested stockholder, or approval by both our board of directors and a supermajority of the disinterested stockholders). Under these statutes, an interested stockholder is a person who beneficially owns (or is one of our affiliates or associates and, within the immediately prior two years, beneficially owned) stock with 10% or more of the corporation’s voting power. The inability of an interested stockholder to pursue the types of combinations restricted by these statutes could discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition, or other change in control of our company. Our articles of incorporation will not opt out of NRS 78.411 through 78.444.

Further, if Nevada’s “acquisition of controlling interest” statutes (NRS 78.378-78.3793) are applicable to us, a person acquiring a significant proportion of our voting stock could be precluded from voting all or a portion of such shares under these statutes, which prohibit an acquirer of stock, under certain circumstances, from voting its “control shares” (meaning shares of outstanding voting stock that put the acquirer above certain specified ownership thresholds) acquired within 90 days immediately prior to crossing those ownership threshold percentages, unless the acquirer obtains approval of the disinterested stockholders or unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the issuing corporation in effect on the tenth day following the acquisition of the controlling interest provide that these statutes do not apply. If the voting rights are not approved, these statutes would allow us to call all of such control shares for redemption at the average price paid for such shares. We have opted out of these statutes in our bylaws with respect to acquisitions of shares by ZFSG and its affiliates.

These anti-takeover provisions could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us even if many of our stockholders are in favor of the third party’s offer. These provisions also may have the effect of preventing changes in our board of directors and may make it more difficult to accomplish transactions that stockholders may otherwise deem to be in their best interests. As a result, our stockholders may be limited in their ability to obtain a premium for their shares or control our management or board.

Applicable insurance laws may make it difficult to effect a change of control.

Under applicable Delaware insurance laws and regulations, no person may acquire control of a domestic insurer until written approval is obtained from the state insurance commissioner following a public hearing on the proposed acquisition. Such approval would be contingent upon the state insurance commissioner’s consideration of a number of factors including, among others, the financial strength of the proposed acquiror, the acquiror’s plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer, and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control. Delaware insurance laws and regulations pertaining to changes of control apply to both the direct and indirect acquisition of ten percent or more of the voting stock of a Delaware-domiciled insurer. Accordingly, the acquisition of ten percent or more of our common stock would be considered an indirect change of control of Ategrity Specialty and would trigger the applicable change of control filing requirements under Delaware insurance laws and regulations, absent a disclaimer of control filing and its acceptance by the Delaware Insurance Department. These requirements may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter, or prevent a change of control of Ategrity, including through transactions that some or all of the stockholders of Ategrity might consider to be desirable. See also “Regulation—Changes of control.”

Our share repurchase program may not enhance long-term stockholder value and could increase the volatility of our common stock price.

In February 2026 our Board of Directors has authorized a share repurchase program pursuant to which we may repurchase shares of our common stock from time to time in the open market, through

privately negotiated transactions or otherwise. The timing, manner and amount of any repurchases are determined by management in its discretion and depend on a variety of factors, including our capital position, statutory surplus requirements, regulatory restrictions, liquidity, results of operations, market conditions and alternative uses of capital.

The existence of a share repurchase program does not obligate us to repurchase any specific number of shares, and the program may be modified, suspended or discontinued at any time without prior notice. Repurchases may be effected at prices that exceed the intrinsic value of our common stock and may reduce our available capital for underwriting, growth initiatives, strategic investments or other corporate purposes. In addition, repurchases could reduce our public float or increase the concentration of ownership among existing stockholders, and may increase the volatility of our stock price and adversely affect the trading market for our common stock.

Repurchases may also be funded, directly or indirectly, from dividends or other distributions from our insurance subsidiaries, which are subject to statutory and regulatory limitations. If regulatory capital requirements or other constraints limit our ability to upstream capital, our ability to execute repurchases may be restricted. There can be no assurance that our share repurchase program will enhance long-term stockholder value or that repurchases will be made at favorable prices.

Future sales, or the perception of future sales, of our common stock may depress the market price of our common stock.

Upon completion of the Initial Public Offering (“IPO”), we had an aggregate of 47,066,674 shares of our common stock outstanding. Of these shares, 7,666,667 shares were sold in the IPO and are freely tradable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act, unless such shares are held by our directors, executive officers, or any of our affiliates, as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act (“Rule 144”). All remaining shares of common stock outstanding following the IPO were “restricted securities” within the meaning of Rule 144. Restricted securities may not be sold in the public market unless the sale is registered under the Securities Act or an exemption from registration is available. The Stockholders’ Agreement (as defined below) we entered into with ZFSG granted certain registration rights to ZFSG and certain of its affiliates with respect to shares of our common stock. Any shares registered pursuant to such registration rights are freely tradable in the public market. Sales of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline and may make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-linked securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem necessary or appropriate.

Our Board of Directors and our stockholders approved the 2025 Incentive Plan which permitted us to issue, among other things, stock options, restricted stock units, and restricted stock to eligible employees (including our named executive officers), directors, and advisors, as determined by the Board of Directors. As a result, any shares issued under the 2025 Incentive Plan will be freely tradable in the public market. If it is perceived that equity securities are granted under the 2025 Incentive Plan will be sold in the public market, then the price of our common stock could decline.

Also, in the future, we may issue our securities in connection with investments or acquisitions. The amount of shares of our common stock issued in connection with an investment or acquisition could constitute a material portion of our then outstanding shares of our common stock.

ZFSG and its affiliates’ interests may conflict with our interests and the interests of our other stockholders. Conflicts of interest between ZFSG and its affiliates and us could be resolved in a manner unfavorable to us and our other stockholders.

Various conflicts of interest could arise between ZFSG and its affiliates and us. Ownership interests of directors or officers of ZFSG and its affiliates in our common stock and ownership interests of our directors and officers in the units of ZFSG and its affiliates, or a person’s service either as an employee, consultant, board observer, director, or officer of both companies, could create or appear to create potential conflicts of interest when those directors and officers are faced with decisions relating to us. These conflicts of interest could relate to:

•corporate opportunities;

•the impact that operating decisions for our business may have on ZFSG and its affiliates’ consolidated financial statements;

•differences in tax positions between ZFSG and its affiliates and us and allocations of tax benefits under a Tax Allocation Agreement between us, Ategrity Specialty, Ategrity Limited, and ZFSG, dated April 1, 2018 (the “Tax Agreement”);

•future, potential commercial arrangements between ZFSG and its affiliates and us or between ZFSG and its affiliates and third parties;

•the fact that some of our management and other employees are also employed by, are consultants to, or serve as a board observer or director of ZFSG or its affiliates and may have conflicts of interest as a result of such dual roles;

•business combinations involving us;

•our dividend policy;

•certain board nomination and other rights granted to ZFSG and its affiliates under the Stockholders’ Agreement;

•management stock ownership; and

•the intercompany agreements between ZFSG and its affiliates and us.

Furthermore, disputes may arise between ZFSG and its affiliates and us relating to our past and ongoing relationship and these potential conflicts of interest may make it more difficult for us to favorably resolve such disputes, including those related to:

•tax, employee benefits, indemnification, and other matters;

•the nature, quality, and pricing of services ZFSG and its affiliates agree to provide to us;

•sales or other disposals by ZFSG and its affiliates of all or a portion of its ownership interest in us; and

•business combinations involving us.

We may not be able to resolve any potential conflicts, and even if we do, the resolution may be less favorable to us than if we were dealing with an unaffiliated party.

We have various contracts and other arrangements in place with ZFSG and its affiliates. Certain related party transactions with ZFSG and its affiliates are also pre-approved by our audit committee in accordance with our policy concerning related party transactions. While we are controlled by ZFSG and its affiliates, we may not have the leverage to negotiate amendments to our agreements with ZFSG

and its affiliates, if required, on terms as favorable to us as those we would negotiate with an unaffiliated third party.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the rules of the NYSE and, as a result, qualify for, and rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. You do not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

ZFSG and its affiliates continue to hold more than 50.0% of the voting power of our shares eligible to vote. As a result, we are a “controlled company” under the rules of the NYSE. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50.0% of the voting power in the election of directors is held by an individual, group, or another company is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including the requirements that (i) a majority of the board of directors consist of independent directors and (ii) the board of directors have compensation and nominating and corporate governance committees composed entirely of independent directors.

We are and intend to continue utilizing these exemptions. As a result, we do not have a compensation and nominating, or corporate governance committees. In the event that we cease to be a “controlled company” and our shares continue to be listed on the NYSE, we will be required to comply with these provisions within the applicable transition periods. These exemptions do not modify the independence requirements for our audit committee, and we intend to comply with the applicable requirements of the SEC and the NYSE with respect to our audit committee.

ZFSG and its affiliates will be able to exert significant influence over us and our corporate decisions.

ZFSG and its affiliates own, in the aggregate, approximately 80.7% of our outstanding common stock. So long as ZFSG and its affiliates owns a significant amount of our outstanding common stock, ZFSG will be able to exert significant voting influence over us and our corporate decisions, including any matter requiring stockholder approval regardless of whether others believe that the matter is in our best interests. For example, ZFSG and its affiliates will be able to exert significant influence over the vote in any election of directors and any amendment of our articles of incorporation. ZFSG and its affiliates may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders, including investors in this offering, by, among other things:

•delaying, preventing, or deterring a change in control of us;

•delaying, preventing, or deterring a change in the composition of our management or our Board of Directors;

•approval of the termination of certain agreements; or

•attempting to influence us to enter into transactions or agreements, including with related parties, that may not be in the best interests of all stockholders.

Substantially all of our net invested assets are managed by ZFSG through the Investment Manager. Accordingly, ZFSG and its affiliates may have a conflict of interest in managing our investments, which could increase amounts payable by us for asset management services or cause us to receive a lower return on our investments than if our investment portfolio was managed by another party. The investment strategies employed by the Investment Manager may expose us to more volatility and risk than more traditional insurance industry investment strategies might.

We have entered into a Stockholders’ Agreement that grants ZFSG the right to nominate individuals to our Board of Directors (including the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors) and its committees, provided certain ownership requirements are met.

The concentration of our ownership could deprive stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of our company, reduce liquidity in our common stock to the extent it reduces our public float, and may ultimately affect the market price of our common stock. Additionally, ZFSG currently consolidates the Company in the preparation of its financial statements and in order to continue to consolidate, ZFSG may be incentivized to maintain an ownership percentage in us above 80% for an indefinite period of time.

Our articles of incorporation provide that ZFSG has no obligation to offer us corporate opportunities.

ZFSG and the members of our board of directors who are affiliated with ZFSG, by the terms of our articles of incorporation, are not required to offer us any corporate opportunity of which they become aware and could take any such opportunity for themselves or offer it to other companies in which they have an investment, unless such opportunity is expressly offered to them solely in their capacity as our directors. We, by the terms of our articles of incorporation, expressly renounce any interest in any such corporate opportunity to the extent permitted under applicable law, even if the opportunity is one that we would reasonably be deemed to have pursued if given the opportunity to do so. Our articles of incorporation cannot be amended to eliminate our renunciation of any such corporate opportunity arising prior to the date of any such amendment. ZFSG is in the business of making investments in portfolio companies and may from time to time acquire and hold interests in businesses that compete with us, and ZFSG has no obligation to refrain from acquiring competing businesses. Any competition could intensify if an affiliate or subsidiary of ZFSG were to enter into or acquire a business similar to ours. These potential conflicts of interest could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects if attractive corporate opportunities are allocated by ZFSG to itself, its portfolio companies, or its other affiliates instead of to us.

Our costs have increased significantly as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.

As a public company, we have and expect to continue to incur significant legal, accounting, and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which require, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly, and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition and therefore we need to have the ability to prepare financial statements that comply with all SEC reporting requirements on a timely basis. In addition, we are subject to other reporting and corporate governance requirements, including certain requirements of and certain provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, which impose significant compliance obligations upon us.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as new rules subsequently implemented by the SEC and the NYSE, have increased regulation of, and imposed enhanced disclosure and corporate governance requirements on, public companies. Our efforts to comply with these evolving laws, regulations, and standards will increase our operating costs and divert management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities.

These changes place significant additional demands on our finance and accounting staff and on our financial accounting and information systems. We may need to hire additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company reporting experience and technical accounting knowledge. Other expenses associated with being a public company include increases in auditing,

accounting, and legal fees and expenses, investor relations expenses, increased directors’ fees, and director and officer liability insurance costs, registrar and transfer agent fees, and listing fees, as well as other expenses. As a public company, we are required, among other things, to:

•prepare and file periodic reports and distribute other stockholder communications, in compliance with the federal securities laws and requirements of the NYSE;

•define and expand the roles and the duties of our Board of Directors and its committees;

•institute more comprehensive compliance and investor relations functions; and

•evaluate and maintain our system of internal control over financial reporting, and as of the second annual report on 10-K, report on management’s assessment thereof, in compliance with rules and regulations of the SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

We may not be successful in implementing these requirements and implementing them could adversely affect our business. The increased costs will decrease our net income and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain the same or similar coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our Board of Directors, our board committees, or as executive officers.

In addition, if we fail to implement the required controls with respect to our internal accounting and audit functions, our ability to report our results of operations on a timely and accurate basis could be impaired. If we do not implement the required controls in a timely manner or with adequate compliance, we may be subject to sanctions or investigation by regulatory authorities, such as the SEC or the NYSE. Any such action could harm our reputation and the confidence of investors in, and clients of, our company and could negatively affect our business and cause the price of our shares of common stock to decline.

We qualify as an emerging growth company, and any decision on our part to comply with reduced reporting and disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies could make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and, for as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we currently intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies but not to “emerging growth companies,” including, but not limited to, not being required to have our independent registered public accounting firm audit our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our registration statements, periodic reports, and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We will cease to be an emerging growth company upon the earliest of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenues of $1.235 billion or more; (ii) the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the date of the completion of our IPO; (iii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in nonconvertible debt during the previous three years; and (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC.

We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we choose to rely on these exemptions while we are an emerging growth company. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and the price of our common stock may be more volatile.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to avail ourselves of this extended transition period and, as a result, we will not be required to adopt new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for other public companies.

Changes in tariffs, trade policies or other governmental restrictions could increase our costs, create inflationary pressures and adversely affect our results of operations.

Changes in U.S. or foreign government trade policies, including the imposition of new tariffs, duties, quotas, or other trade restrictions, as well as uncertainty regarding future trade relations, could increase the cost or reduce the availability of certain goods and services. Tariffs or other restrictions on imports may also contribute to broader inflationary pressures, which could increase our operating costs and the costs of goods and services used in the repair or replacement of insured property and equipment. These inflationary effects may cause claims costs to rise, potentially at a pace greater than our ability to adjust pricing, which could negatively impact our loss ratios and underwriting profitability.

In addition, changes in trade policy may lead to market volatility, reduced economic activity, or shifts in customer behavior, which could adversely affect our customers, suppliers, and counterparties. Various tariffs enacted in 2025 have been subject to successful legal challenge, but it remains unclear whether and to whom those tariffs may be refunded, and the federal government may attempt to impose new or similar tariffs under alternative statutory mechanisms. The extent to which tariffs or other trade restrictions will be imposed, remain in place, or be escalated is uncertain, and our inability to effectively mitigate their impact, particularly if claims costs increase as a result, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Ategrity Specialty Insurance Co Holdings (ASIC) Risk Factors

Item 1A. Risk Factors

If we are unable to underwrite risks accurately and charge competitive yet profitable rates to our policyholders, our business, financial condition, and results of operations will be adversely affected.

Table of Contents

Intense competition in the E&S market may limit our ability to maintain underwriting margins and growth.

Table of Contents

We may be unable to obtain reinsurance coverage at reasonable prices or on terms that adequately protect us.

We are subject to reinsurance counterparty credit risk.

Table of Contents

Our loss reserves may be inadequate to cover our actual losses, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

•the models may not accurately reflect the impact on the economy of the area affected or the financial, judicial, political or regulatory impact on insurance claim payments.

Table of Contents

A decline in the financial strength rating or financial size category assigned to Ategrity Specialty or to Ategrity Limited may adversely affect the amount of business we write and thus our business, financial condition, and results of operation.

•if A.M. Best alters its capital adequacy assessment methodology in a manner that would adversely affect our rating.

Table of Contents

We rely on a select group of brokers, and such relationships may not continue.

Because our business depends on wholesale agents and brokers, we are exposed to certain risks arising out of our reliance on these distribution channels that could adversely affect our results.

Table of Contents

Unexpected changes in the interpretation of our coverage or provisions, including loss limitations and exclusions in our policies, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

be known for many years after a contract is issued. We may also become subject to disputes relating to bad faith allegations which could result in us incurring losses in excess of policy limits.

Our failure to accurately pay claims in a timely manner and to monitor and detect fraud could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

We may be unable to prevent, monitor, or detect fraudulent activity, including policy acquisitions or payments of claims that are fraudulent in nature.

Severe weather conditions and other catastrophes may result in an increase in the number and amount of claims filed against us.

Table of Contents

If actual renewals of our existing contracts do not meet expectations, our written premiums in future years and our future results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected.

We may act based on inaccurate or incomplete information regarding the accounts we underwrite.

Table of Contents

Our employees could take excessive risks, which could negatively affect our financial condition and business.

Changes in accounting practices and future pronouncements may materially affect our reported financial results.

Public attention to environmental, social, and governance initiatives may expose us to negative public perception, cause reputational harm, impose additional costs on our business, or impact our stock price.

Table of Contents

Changes in interest rates and financial markets may adversely affect our investment income, book value and liquidity.

Table of Contents

Prolonged market dislocations or declines in asset values could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Global climate change may have an adverse effect on our financial results.

Table of Contents

Extensive and evolving insurance regulation and regulatory enforcement could restrict our operations, increase our costs and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Failure to maintain our risk-based capital at the required levels could adversely affect our ability to maintain regulatory authority to conduct our business.

Table of Contents

State insurance regulators impose additional reporting requirements regarding enterprise risk on insurance holding company systems, with which we must comply as an insurance holding company.

Table of Contents

We may become subject to additional government or market regulations which may have an adverse impact on our business.

Table of Contents

Increased regulation or scrutiny of alternative investment advisors and certain trading methods such as short selling could affect the Investment Manager’s ability to manage our investment portfolios or affect our business reputation.

Table of Contents

Changes in tax law may have an adverse impact on our business.

We could be adversely affected by the loss of one or more key personnel or by an inability to attract and retain qualified personnel.

Table of Contents

success as an organization. The loss of Mr. Cohen, Mr. Schenk, or other members of our senior management team could adversely impact our business.

Table of Contents

The effects of litigation on our business are uncertain and could have an adverse effect on our business.

Table of Contents

Any failure to protect our intellectual property rights could impair our ability to protect our proprietary technology platform and brand, or we may be sued by third parties for alleged infringement of their proprietary rights.

Table of Contents

We may not be able to effectively implement or adapt to changes in technology, particularly with respect to artificial intelligence, which may result in interruptions to our business or even in a competitive disadvantage.

Table of Contents

Any future acquisitions, strategic investments, or new platforms could expose us to further risks or turn out to be unsuccessful.

Table of Contents

We may not be able to manage our growth effectively.

Table of Contents

Our ability to incur a substantial level of indebtedness may reduce our financial flexibility, affect our ability to operate our business and divert cash flow from operations for debt service.

We may incur substantial indebtedness in the future, and, if we do so, the risks related to our level of indebtedness could increase.

Table of Contents

We may require additional capital in the future, which may not be available or may only be available on unfavorable terms.

Our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations may be adversely affected by the performance of our investment portfolios or reductions in the aggregate value of our investment portfolios.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

We could be forced to sell investments to meet our liquidity requirements.

Table of Contents

We face risks associated with our reliance on the Investment Manager and its employees.

Our investment portfolios and their performance substantially depend upon the ability of the Investment Manager to select and manage appropriate investments.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

The General Partners, the Investment Manager, and their respective affiliates have potential conflicts of interest that could adversely affect us.

Table of Contents

The ZIS Loan is a Related Party Transaction and is subject to the credit risk of an investment in ZIS and ZFSG, our parent company.

Risks associated with the ZIS Loan and the Investment Manager’s strategy in managing the Utility & Infrastructure Investments could be greater than the investment risks faced by some of the other insurers with whom we compete.