What MetLife, Inc. told the SEC could break it.

Insurance and other regulators may change licensing/permit/approval requirements or supervisory and enforcement policies in ways that reduce MetLife's profitability, limit growth, or harm its customers and distribution intermediaries.

“Insurance or other regulators may change licensing, permit, or approval requirements, or take other actions harmful to us. They may also take actions that harm our customers and independent sales intermediaries or their operations, which may affect our business relationships with them and their ability to purchase or distribute our products.”

The OECD's Pillar Two proposals, including a global 15% minimum effective tax rate for multinationals, apply to MetLife and could increase its tax burden.

“The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has proposed policies aiming to modernize global tax systems, including a global 15% minimum effective tax rate (“Pillar Two”) for multinational companies, including MetLife.”

U.S. implementation of global, reciprocal, and sectoral tariffs and retaliatory impacts may slow growth, raise inflation, disrupt supply chains, and increase financial-market volatility (currency and interest rates) — channels that affect MetLife's investment results and liabilities.

“The U.S. implementation of global, reciprocal and sectoral tariffs and the associated retaliatory impacts may impact U.S. and global economic growth, increase inflation, disrupt global supply chains and increase volatility in financial markets, including currency and interest rate markets.”

MetLife has catastrophe exposure that could cause significant results fluctuations; for the Group Benefits and EMEA segments it purchases catastrophe reinsurance for territories it believes face the greatest catastrophic risk.

“The Company has exposure to catastrophes which could contribute to significant fluctuations in the Company's results of operations. For the Group Benefits and EMEA segments, the Company purchases catastrophe coverage to reinsure risks issued within territories that the Company believes are subject to the greatest catastrophic risks.”

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company faces ongoing asbestos litigation with uncertain outcomes that vary by jurisdiction, alleged injury, and factors unrelated to legal merit; courts have both granted and denied MLIC's dismissal motions.

“The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC.”