Exhibit

The following is an excerpt from AllianceBernstein L.P.’s ("AB") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the "AB 10-K"). As used in Item 1A - Risk Factors below, the words "we" and "us" refer collectively to AB and its subsidiaries, or their officers and employees. Item references in the excerpt below refer to item numbers in the AB 10-K. Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms used in this Exhibit 13.1 are defined under "Explanatory Note" directly following the excerpt or in the AB 10-K.

Please consider this section along with the description of our business in Item 1, the competition section immediately above and AB’s financial information contained in Items 6, 7 and 8. The majority of the risk factors discussed below directly affect AB. These risk factors also affect AB Holding because AB Holding’s principal source of income and cash flow is attributable to its investment in AB. See also "Cautions Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" in Item 7.

We derive most of our revenues from investment advisory and services fees, which typically are calculated as a percentage of the value of AUM as of a specified date, or as a percentage of the value of average AUM for the applicable billing period, and vary with the type of investment service, the size of the account and the total amount of assets we manage for a particular client. The value and composition of our AUM can be adversely affected by several factors, including:

A decrease in the value of our AUM, or a decrease in the amount of AUM we manage, or an adverse mix shift in our AUM, would adversely affect our investment advisory and services fees and revenues. A reduction in revenues, without a commensurate reduction in expenses, adversely affects our results of operations.

Our competitive environment has become increasingly difficult over the past decade, as active managers have, on average, consistently underperformed passive services, which invest based on market indices rather than individual security selection. This collective experience on the part of investors has obscured the strong performance of individual active managers and resulted in significant outflows from actively-managed services and corresponding significant inflows into passive services. In respect of U.S. mutual funds, for example, passive inflows continued to accelerate throughout 2016 and totaled an all-time high of $473 billion for the year -- the 5th consecutive record year for inflows to passive products. During that same period, U.S. actively-managed long-term funds experienced net outflows of $252 billion, a second consecutive record outflow year. In this environment, organic growth through positive net inflows is difficult to achieve for active managers, such as AB, and requires taking market share from other active managers.

The significant shift from active services to passive services adversely affects Bernstein Research Services revenues as well. Global market volumes have declined in recent years, and we expect this to continue, fueled by the steady rise in active equity outflows and passive equity inflows. Global and U.S. active equities have experienced net outflows for nine of the past 10 calendar years, and outflows have accelerated in the past three years, primarily due to the increase in passive investing. As a result, portfolio turnover has decreased and investors hold fewer shares that are actively traded by managers.

Our business is based on the trust and confidence of our clients. Damage to our reputation, resulting from poor or inconsistent investment performance, among other factors, can reduce substantially our AUM and impair our ability to maintain or grow our business.

Our financial condition is dependent on our cash flow from operations, which is subject to the performance of the capital markets, our ability to maintain and grow AUM and other factors beyond our control. Our ability to issue public or private debt on reasonable terms may be limited by adverse market conditions, our profitability, our creditworthiness as perceived by lenders and changes in government regulations, including tax rates and interest rates. Furthermore, our access to credit on reasonable terms is partially dependent on our firm’s credit ratings.

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. ("Moody’s") affirmed AB’s long-term and short-term credit ratings in 2016, while Standard & Poor’s Rating Service ("S&P") downgraded AB’s long-term rating from A+ to A. After the downgrade, S&P’s rating (A/A1) aligns with Moody’s rating (A2/P1) of AB. Both S&P and Moody’s indicated a stable outlook in 2016. Future changes in our credit ratings are possible and any downgrade to our ratings is likely to increase our borrowing costs and limit our access to the capital markets. If this occurs, we may be forced to incur unanticipated costs or revise our strategic plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and business prospects.

We derive most of our revenues pursuant to written investment management agreements (or other arrangements) with institutional investors, mutual funds and private wealth clients, and selling and distribution agreements with financial intermediaries that distribute AB Funds. Generally, the investment management agreements (and other arrangements), including our agreements with AXA and its subsidiaries (our largest client), are terminable at any time or upon relatively short notice by either party. The investment management agreements pursuant to which we manage the U.S. Funds must be renewed and approved by the Funds’ boards of directors annually. A significant majority of the directors are independent. Consequently, there can be no assurance that the board of directors of each fund will approve the fund’s investment management agreement each year, or will not condition

its approval on revised terms that may be adverse to us. In addition, investors in AB Funds can redeem their investments without notice. Any termination of, or failure to renew, a significant number of these agreements, or a significant increase in redemption rates, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and business prospects.

Similarly, the selling and distribution agreements with securities firms, brokers, banks and other financial intermediaries (including our agreement with HSBC, with respect to which HSBC was responsible for approximately 12% of our open-end AB Fund sales in 2016) are terminable by either party upon notice (generally 30 days) and do not obligate the financial intermediary to sell any specific amount of fund shares. These intermediaries generally offer their clients investment products that compete with our products. In addition, certain institutional investors rely on consultants to advise them about choosing an investment adviser and some of our services may not be considered among the best choices by these consultants. As a result, investment consultants may advise their clients to move their assets invested with us to other investment advisers, which could result in significant net outflows.

Lastly, our Private Wealth Services rely on referrals from financial planners, registered investment advisers and other professionals. We cannot be certain that we will continue to have access to, or receive referrals from, these third parties. Loss of such access or referrals could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and business prospects.

The market for these professionals is extremely competitive and is characterized by their frequent movement among different firms. Also, they often maintain strong, personal relationships with investors in our products and other members of the business community so their departure may cause us to lose client accounts or result in fewer opportunities to win new business, either of which factors could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and business prospects.

Additionally, a decline in revenues may limit our ability to pay our employees at competitive levels, and maintaining (or increasing) compensation without a revenue increase, in order to retain key personnel, may adversely affect our adjusted operating margin. As a result, we remain vigilant about aligning our cost structure (including headcount) with our revenue base. For additional information regarding our compensation practices, see "Compensation Discussion and Analysis" in Item 11.

We sometimes charge our clients performance-based fees, whereby we charge a base advisory fee and are eligible to earn an additional performance-based fee or incentive allocation that is calculated as either a percentage of absolute investment results or a percentage of investment results in excess of a stated benchmark over a specified period of time. Some performance-based fees include a high-watermark provision, which generally provides that if a client account underperforms relative to its performance target (whether in absolute terms or relative to a specified benchmark), it must gain back such underperformance before we can collect future performance-based fees. Therefore, if we fail to achieve the performance target for a particular period, we will not earn a performance-based fee for that period and, for accounts with a high-watermark provision, our ability to earn future performance-based fees will be impaired.

We are eligible to earn performance-based fees on 7.0%, 4.2% and 0.9% of the assets we manage for institutional clients, private wealth clients and retail clients, respectively (in total, 4.5% of our AUM). If the percentage of our AUM subject to performance-based fees grows, seasonality and volatility of revenue and earnings are likely to become more significant. Our performance-based fees in 2016, 2015 and 2014 were $32.8 million, $23.7 million and $53.2 million, respectively.

Determining whether an impairment of the goodwill asset exists requires management to exercise a substantial amount of judgment. In addition, to the extent that securities valuations are depressed for prolonged periods of time and/or market conditions deteriorate, or if we experience significant net redemptions, our AUM, revenues, profitability and unit price will continue to be adversely affected. Although the price of an AB Holding Unit is just one factor in the calculation of fair value, if AB Holding Unit price levels decline significantly, reaching the conclusion that fair value exceeds carrying value will, over time, become more difficult. In addition, control premiums, industry earnings multiples and discount rates are impacted by economic conditions. As a result, subsequent impairment tests may occur more frequently and be based on more negative assumptions and future cash

As part of our business strategy, we consider potential strategic transactions, including acquisitions, dispositions, mergers, consolidations, joint ventures and similar transactions, some of which may be material. These transactions, if undertaken, may involve a number of risks and present financial, managerial and operational challenges, including:

Acquisitions also pose the risk that any business we acquire may lose customers or employees or could underperform relative to expectations. Additionally, the loss of investment personnel poses the risk that we may lose the AUM we expected to manage, which could adversely affect our results of operations. Furthermore, strategic transactions may require us to increase our leverage or, if we issue AB Units or AB Holding Units to fund an acquisition, would dilute the holdings of our existing Unitholders.

Although significant portions of our net revenues and expenses, as well as our AUM, presently are denominated in U.S. dollars, we have subsidiaries and clients outside of the United States with functional currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Weakening of these currencies relative to the U.S. dollar adversely affects the value in U.S. dollar terms of our revenues and our AUM denominated in these other currencies. Accordingly, fluctuations in U.S. dollar exchange rates affect our AUM, revenues and reported financial results from one period to the next.

Our seed capital investments are subject to market risk. While we enter into various futures, forwards, swap and option contracts to economically hedge many of these investments, we also may be exposed to market risk and credit-related losses in the event of non-performance by counterparties to these derivative instruments.

We have a seed investment program for the purpose of building track records and assisting with the marketing initiatives pertaining to our firm’s new products. These seed capital investments are subject to market risk. Our risk management team oversees a seed hedging program that attempts to minimize this risk, subject to practical and cost considerations. Also, not all seed investments are deemed appropriate to hedge, and in those cases we are exposed to market risk. In addition, we may be subject to basis risk in that we cannot always hedge with precision our market exposure and, as a result, we may be subject to relative spreads between market sectors. As a result, volatility in the capital markets may cause significant changes in our period-to-period financial and operating results.

We use various derivative instruments, including futures, forwards, swap and option contracts, in conjunction with our seed hedging program. While in most cases broad market risks are hedged, our hedges are imperfect and some market risk remains. In addition, our use of derivatives results in counterparty risk (i.e., the risk that we may be exposed to credit-related losses in the event of non-performance by counterparties to these derivative instruments), regulatory risk (e.g., short selling restrictions) and cash/synthetic basis risk (i.e., the risk that the underlying positions do not move identically to the related derivative instruments).

The revenues generated by Bernstein Research Services may be adversely affected by circumstances beyond our control, including declines in brokerage transaction rates, declines in global market volumes and failure to settle our trades by significant counterparties.

Electronic, or "low-touch", trading approaches represent a significant percentage of buy-side trading activity and typically produce transaction fees for execution-only services that are approximately one-third the price of traditional full service fee rates. As a result, blended pricing throughout our industry is lower now than it was historically, and price declines may continue. In addition, fee rates we charge and charged by other brokers for traditional brokerage services have historically experienced price pressure, and we expect these trends to continue. Also, while increases in transaction volume and market share often can offset decreases in rates, this may not continue.

In addition, the failure or inability of any of our broker-dealer’s significant counterparties to perform could expose us to substantial expenditures and adversely affect our revenues. For example, SCB LLC, as a member of clearing and settlement exchanges, would be required to settle open trades of any non-performing counterparty. This exposes us to the mark-to-market adjustment on the trades between trade date and settlement date, which could be significant, especially during periods of severe market volatility. Lastly, our ability to access liquidity in such situations may be limited by what our funding relationships are able to offer us at such times.

We rely on various counterparties and other third-party vendors to augment our existing investment, operational, financial and technological capabilities, but the use of a third-party vendor does not diminish AB’s responsibility to ensure that client and regulatory obligations are met. Default rates, credit downgrades and disputes with counterparties as to the valuation of collateral increase significantly in times of market stress. Disruptions in the financial markets and other economic challenges may cause our counterparties and other third-party vendors to experience significant cash flow problems or even render them insolvent, which may expose us to significant costs and impair our ability to conduct business.

Weaknesses or failures within a third-party vendor’s internal processes or systems, or inadequate business continuity plans, can materially disrupt our business operations. Also, third-party vendors may lack the necessary infrastructure or resources to effectively safeguard our confidential data. If we are unable to effectively manage the risks associated with such third-party relationships, we may suffer fines, disciplinary action and reputational damage.

In accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, contractual obligations or client direction, we employ procedures for the pricing and valuation of securities and other positions held in client accounts or for company investments. We have established a Valuation Committee, composed of senior officers and employees, which oversees pricing controls and valuation processes. If market quotations for a security are not readily available, the Valuation Committee determines a fair value for the security.

Extraordinary volatility in financial markets, significant liquidity constraints or our failure to adequately consider one or more factors when determining the fair value of a security based on information with limited market observability could result in our failing to properly value securities we hold for our clients or investments accounted for on our balance sheet. Improper valuation likely would result in our basing fee calculations on inaccurate AUM figures, our striking incorrect net asset values for company-sponsored mutual funds or hedge funds or, in the case of company investments, our inaccurately calculating and reporting our financial condition and operating results. Although the overall percentage of our AUM that we fair value based on information with limited market observability is not significant, inaccurate fair value determinations can harm our clients, create regulatory issues and damage our reputation.

Certain of our alternative investment services invest in funds managed by external managers ("External Managers") rather than investing directly in securities and other instruments. As a result, our abilities will be limited with regard to (i) monitoring such investments, (ii) regularly obtaining complete, accurate and current information with respect to such investments and (iii) exercising control over such investments. Accordingly, we may not have sufficient information to confirm or review the accuracy of valuations provided to us by External Managers. In addition, we will be required to rely on External Managers’ compliance with any applicable investment guidelines and restrictions. Any failure of an External Manager to operate within such guidelines or to provide accurate information with respect to the investment could subject our alternative investment products to losses and cause damage to our reputation.

We use quantitative models in a variety of our investment services, generally in combination with fundamental research. These models are developed by senior quantitative professionals and typically are implemented by IT professionals. Our Model Risk Oversight Committee oversees the model governance framework and associated model review activities, which are then executed by our Model Risk Team. However, due to the complexity and large data dependency of such models, it is possible that errors

Increasingly, we must manage actual and potential conflicts of interest, including situations where our services to a particular client conflict, or are perceived to conflict, with the interests of another client. Failure to adequately address potential conflicts of interest could adversely affect our reputation, results of operations and business prospects.

We have procedures and controls that are designed to identify and mitigate conflicts of interest, including those designed to prevent the improper sharing of information. However, appropriately managing conflicts of interest is complex. Our reputation could be damaged and the willingness of clients to enter into transactions in which such a conflict might arise may be affected if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with actual or perceived conflicts of interest. In addition, potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to litigation or regulatory enforcement actions.

Despite the contingency plans and facilities we have in place, including system security measures, information back-up and disaster recovery processes, our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our operations and the communities in which they are located. This may include a disruption involving electrical, communications, transportation or other services we may use or third parties with which we conduct business. If a disruption occurs in one location and our employees in that location are unable to occupy our offices or communicate with or travel to other locations, our ability to conduct business with and on behalf of our clients may suffer, and we may not be able to successfully implement contingency plans that depend on communication or travel. Furthermore, unauthorized access to our systems as a result of a security breach, the failure of our systems, or the loss of data could give rise to legal proceedings or regulatory penalties under laws protecting the privacy of personal information, disrupt operations, and damage our reputation.

Our operations require experienced, professional staff. Loss of a substantial number of such persons or an inability to provide properly equipped places for them to work may, by disrupting our operations, adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and business prospects. In addition, our property and business interruption insurance may not be adequate to compensate us for all losses, failures or breaches that may occur.

Technology failures and disruptions, including failures to properly safeguard confidential information, can significantly constrain our operations and result in significant time and expense to remediate, which could result in a material adverse effect on our results of operations and business prospects.

We are highly dependent on software and related technologies throughout our business, including both proprietary systems and those provided by third-party vendors. We use our technology to, among other things, obtain securities pricing information, process client transactions, store and maintain data, and provide reports and other services to our clients. Despite our protective measures, including measures designed to effectively secure information through system security technology and established and tested business continuity plans, we may still experience system delays and interruptions as a result of natural disasters, hardware failures, software defects, power outages, acts of war and third-party failures. We cannot predict with certainty all of the adverse effects that could result from our failure, or the failure of a third party, to efficiently address and resolve these delays and interruptions. These adverse effects could include the inability to perform critical business functions or failure to comply with financial reporting and other regulatory requirements, which could lead to loss of client confidence, reputational damage, exposure to disciplinary action and liability to our clients.

Many of the software applications that we use in our business are licensed from, and supported, upgraded and maintained by, third-party vendors. A suspension or termination of certain of these licenses or the related support, upgrades and maintenance

could cause temporary system delays or interruption. Additionally, technology rapidly evolves and we cannot guarantee that our competitors may not implement more advanced technology platforms for their products and services, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage and adversely affect our results of operations and business prospects.

Also, we could be subject to losses if we fail to properly safeguard sensitive and confidential information. As part of our normal operations, we maintain and transmit confidential information about our clients as well as proprietary information relating to our business operations. Although we take protective measures, our systems still could be vulnerable to cyber attack or other forms of unauthorized access (including computer viruses) that have a security impact, such as an authorized employee or vendor inadvertently or intentionally causing us to release confidential or proprietary information. Such disclosure could, among other things, allow competitors access to our proprietary business information and require significant time and expense to investigate and remediate the breach. Moreover, loss of confidential client information could harm our reputation and subject us to liability under laws that protect confidential personal data, resulting in increased costs or loss of revenues.

It is critical that we ensure the continuity and effectiveness of our information and cyber security infrastructure, policies, procedures and capabilities to protect our computer and telecommunications systems and the data that reside on or are transmitted through them and contracted third-party systems. Although we take protective measures, including measures to effectively secure information through system security technology, our technology systems may still be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses or other events that have a security impact, such as an external attack by one or more cyber criminals (including phishing attacks attempting to obtain confidential information and ransomware attacks attempting to block access to a computer system until a sum of money is paid), which could materially harm our operations and reputation. Additionally, while we take precautions to password protect and encrypt our laptops and sensitive information on our other mobile electronic devices, if such devices are stolen, misplaced or left unattended, they may become vulnerable to hacking or other unauthorized use, creating a possible security risk and resulting in potentially costly actions by us.

Weaknesses or failures in our internal processes or systems could lead to disruption of our operations, liability to clients, exposure to disciplinary action or harm to our reputation. Our business is highly dependent on our ability to process, on a daily basis, large numbers of transactions, many of which are highly complex, across numerous and diverse markets. These transactions generally must comply with client investment guidelines, as well as stringent legal and regulatory standards.

Our obligations to clients require us to exercise skill, care and prudence in performing our services. Despite our employees being highly trained and skilled, the large number of transactions we process makes it highly likely that errors will occasionally occur. If we make a mistake in performing our services that causes financial harm to a client, we have a duty to act promptly to put the client in the position the client would have been in had we not made the error. The occurrence of mistakes, particularly significant ones, can have a material adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and business prospects.

Virtually all aspects of our business are subject to federal and state laws and regulations, rules of securities regulators and exchanges, and laws and regulations in the foreign jurisdictions in which our subsidiaries conduct business. If we violate these laws or regulations, we could be subject to civil liability, criminal liability or sanction, including restriction or revocation of our and our subsidiaries’ professional licenses or registrations, revocation of the licenses of our employees, censures, fines, or temporary suspension or permanent bar from conducting business. Any such liability or sanction could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and business prospects. A regulatory proceeding, even if it does not result in a finding of wrongdoing or sanction, could require substantial expenditures of time and money and could potentially damage our reputation.

In recent years, global regulators have substantially increased their oversight of financial services. Some of the newly-adopted and proposed regulations are focused on investment management services. Others, while more broadly focused, nonetheless impact our business. Moreover, the adoption of new laws, regulations or standards and changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws, regulations or standards have directly affected, and will continue to affect, our business, including making our efforts to comply more expensive and time-consuming.

For example, the Financial Supervisory Commission in Taiwan ("FSC") implemented, as of January 1, 2015, new limits on the degree to which local investors can own an offshore investment product. While certain exemptions have been available to us, should we not continue to qualify, the FSC’s rules could force some of our local resident investors to redeem their investments in our funds sold in Taiwan (and/or prevent further sales of those funds in Taiwan), some of which funds have local ownership levels substantially above the FSC limits. This could lead to significant declines in our investment advisory and services fees and revenues earned from these funds.

In addition, currently pending regulations in the U.S. and Europe could pose significant challenges to AB, including a regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL"), which currently is scheduled to apply to our business in April 2017. If the DOL’s fiduciary rule goes into effect, it will impose a heightened fiduciary standard on financial advisors who provide investment advice pertaining to retirement assets, including roll-overs of 401(k) balances and investments in individual retirement accounts. Implementation of the DOL’s rule may impact how we compensate our financial advisors and the financial intermediaries that sell our investment funds, as well as increase the cost and complexity of our compliance efforts.

In Europe, the second installment of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II ("MiFID II"), enactment of which has been delayed until January 1, 2018, makes significant modifications to the manner in which European broker-dealers can be compensated for research. These modifications are recognized in the industry as having the potential to significantly decrease the overall research spend by European buy-side firms. Consequently, our U.K.-based broker-dealer is considering new charging mechanisms for its research in order to minimize this impact as part of its broader MiFID II implementation program.

Also, MiFID II will permit buy-side firms to purchase research through the use of client-funded research payment accounts and the language of the Delegated Act under MiFID II appears to permit the funding of these accounts in a manner that would permit the continued use of traditional commission sharing agreements, which would significantly reduce the financial impact on buy-side and sell-side firms of the MiFID II prohibition on inducements. However, significant operational changes will be required to implement the rule. The ultimate impact of MiFID II on payments for research currently is uncertain.

Lastly, it also is uncertain how regulatory trends will evolve under the current U.S. President’s administration and after national elections are held in certain nations abroad during 2017, including France and Germany. In June 2016, a narrow majority of voters in a U.K. referendum voted to exit the European Union ("Brexit"), but it remains unclear exactly how the U.K.’s status in relation to the European Union ("EU") will change when it ultimately leaves. Ongoing changes in the EU’s regulatory framework applicable to our business, including Brexit and any other changes in the composition of the EU’s member states, may add further complexity to our global risks and operations.

We are involved in various legal proceedings and regulatory matters and may be involved in such proceedings in the future, any one or combination of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial condition, results of operations and business prospects.

We may be involved in various matters, including regulatory inquiries, administrative proceedings and litigation, some of which allege significant damages, and we may be involved in additional matters in the future. Litigation is subject to significant uncertainties, particularly when plaintiffs allege substantial or indeterminate damages, the litigation is in its early stages, or when the litigation is highly complex or broad in scope.

We compete on the basis of a number of factors, including our investment performance for our clients, our array of investment services, innovation, reputation and price. By having a global presence, we often face competitors with more experience and more established relationships with clients, regulators and industry participants in the relevant market, which could adversely affect our ability to expand. Furthermore, if we are unable to maintain and/or continue to improve our investment performance, our client flows may be adversely affected, which may make it more difficult for us to compete effectively.

Also, increased competition could reduce the demand for our products and services, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and business prospects. For additional information regarding competitive factors, see "Competition" in Item 1.

The General Partner, as general partner of both AB Holding and AB, generally has the exclusive right and full authority and responsibility to manage, conduct, control and operate their respective businesses, except as otherwise expressly stated in their respective Amended and Restated Agreements of Limited Partnership. AB Holding and AB Unitholders have more limited voting rights on matters affecting AB than do holders of common stock in a corporation. Both Amended and Restated Agreements of Limited Partnership provide that Unitholders do not have any right to vote for directors of the General Partner and that Unitholders only can vote on certain extraordinary matters (including removal of the General Partner under certain extraordinary circumstances). Additionally, the AB Partnership Agreement includes significant restrictions on the transfer of AB Units and provisions that have the practical effect of preventing the removal of the General Partner, which provisions are highly likely to prevent a change in control of AB’s management.

There is no public trading market for AB Units and we do not anticipate that a public trading market will develop. The AB Partnership Agreement restricts our ability to participate in a public trading market or anything substantially equivalent to one by providing that any transfer that may cause AB to be classified as a "publicly traded partnership" ("PTP") as defined in Section 7704 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), shall be deemed void and shall not be recognized by AB. In addition, AB Units are subject to significant restrictions on transfer, such as obtaining the written consent of AXA Equitable and the General Partner pursuant to the AB Partnership Agreement. Generally, neither AXA Equitable nor the General Partner will permit any transfer that it believes would create a risk that AB would be treated as a corporation for tax purposes. AXA Equitable and the General Partner have implemented a transfer program that requires a seller to locate a purchaser and imposes annual volume restrictions on transfers. You may request a copy of the transfer program from our Corporate Secretary (corporate_secretary@abglobal.com). Also, we have filed the transfer program as Exhibit 10.08 to this Form 10-K.

AB Holding, having elected under Section 7704(g) of the Code to be subject to a 3.5% federal tax on partnership gross income from the active conduct of a trade or business, is a "grandfathered" PTP for federal income tax purposes. AB Holding is also subject to the 4.0% New York City unincorporated business tax ("UBT"), net of credits for UBT paid by AB. In order to preserve AB Holding’s status as a "grandfathered" PTP for federal income tax purposes, management ensures that AB Holding does not directly or indirectly (through AB) enter into a substantial new line of business. A "new line of business" includes any business that is not closely related to AB’s historical business of providing research and diversified investment management and related services to its clients. A new line of business is "substantial" when a partnership derives more than 15% of its gross income from, or uses more than 15% of its total assets in, the new line of business.

AB is a private partnership for federal income tax purposes and, accordingly, is not subject to federal and state corporate income taxes. However, AB is subject to the 4.0% UBT. Domestic corporate subsidiaries of AB, which are subject to federal, state and local income taxes, generally are included in the filing of a consolidated federal income tax return with separate state and local income tax returns being filed. Foreign corporate subsidiaries generally are subject to taxes in the foreign jurisdiction where they are located. If our business increasingly operates in countries other than the U.S., AB’s effective tax rate will increase over time because our international subsidiaries are subject to corporate taxes in the jurisdictions where they are located.

In order to preserve AB’s status as a private partnership for federal income tax purposes, AB Units must not be considered publicly traded. If such units were to be considered readily tradable, AB would be subject to federal and state corporate income tax on its net income. Furthermore, as noted above, should AB enter into a substantial new line of business, AB Holding, by virtue of its ownership of AB, would lose its status as a grandfathered PTP and would become subject to corporate income tax as set forth above. For information about the significant restrictions on transfer of AB Units, see the risk factor immediately above.

In addition, recent decisions by members of Congress and their staffs regarding the need for fundamental tax reform and possible tax law changes to raise additional revenue have included suggestions that all large partnerships (which would include both AB and AB Holding) should be taxed as corporations and that a process should be implemented to address repatriating the non-U.S. earnings of U.S. companies. We cannot predict whether, or in what form, tax legislation will be proposed in the future and are unable to determine what effect any new legislation might have on us. If our subsidiaries’ non-U.S. earnings are repatriated to the U.S. at unfavorable tax rates, our tax liability may increase substantially. Furthermore, if AB Holding and AB were to lose their federal tax status as partnerships, they would be subject to corporate income tax, which would reduce materially their net income and quarterly distributions to Unitholders.

If, pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 ("2015 Act"), any audit by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") of our income tax returns for any fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2017 results in any adjustments, the IRS may collect any resulting taxes, including any applicable penalties and interest, directly from us, in which case our net income and the cash available for quarterly Unitholder distributions may be substantially reduced.

Although the IRS, under current law, generally determines tax adjustments at the partnership level when it audits the income tax return of a partnership, the IRS is required to collect any additional taxes, interest and penalties from the partnership’s individual partners. The 2015 Act modifies this procedure for fiscal years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Generally, we will have the ability to collect tax liability from our Unitholders in accordance with their percentage interests during the year under audit, but there can be no assurance that we will elect to do so or be able to do so under all circumstances. If we do not collect such tax liability from our Unitholders in accordance with their percentage interests in the tax year under audit, our net income and the available cash for quarterly distributions to current Unitholders may be substantially reduced. Accordingly, our current Unitholders may bear some or all of the tax liability resulting from such audit adjustment, even if such Unitholders did not own Units during the tax year under audit.

“AB” -- AllianceBernstein L.P. (Delaware limited partnership formerly known as Alliance Capital Management L.P., "Alliance Capital"), the operating partnership, and its subsidiaries and, where appropriate, its predecessors, AB Holding and ACMC, Inc. and their respective subsidiaries.

AXA" - AXA (société anonyme organized under the laws of France) is the holding company for the AXA Group, a worldwide leader in financial protection. AXA operates primarily in Europe, North America, the Asia/Pacific regions and, to a lesser extent, in other regions, including the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. AXA has five operating business segments: Life and Savings, Property and Casualty, International Insurance, Asset Management and Banking.


•	Service Changes. We may be required to reduce our fee levels, restructure the fees we charge and/or adjust the services we offer to our clients because of, among other things, regulatory initiatives (whether industry-wide or specifically


•	adverse effects on our earnings if acquired intangible assets or goodwill become impaired;


•	existence of unknown liabilities or contingencies that arise after closing; and


•	causing disruptions in global economic conditions, thereby decreasing investor confidence and making investment products generally less attractive;


•	triggering large-scale technology failures or delays; and


•	requiring substantial capital expenditures and operating expenses to remediate damage and restore operations.


•	inflicting loss of life;