ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
The following is a summary of the risk factors that we believe are most relevant to our business. These are factors which, individually or in the aggregate, we think could cause our actual results to differ significantly from anticipated or historical results. In addition to understanding the key risks described below, investors should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all risk factors, and consequently, the following is not a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS
The recent global outbreak of COVID-19 may adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant volatility and disruption in the economy and financial markets both globally and in the United States, including as a result of efforts to contain and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Significant uncertainty remains as to the potential severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the domestic and global economy and financial markets. If COVID-19 continues to spread, efforts to contain COVID-19 are unsuccessful, or the United States experiences another highly infectious or contagious disease in the future, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The ultimate severity and duration of such effects will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and difficult to predict, including the geographic spread of the disease, the overall severity of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, the measures that may be taken by various governmental authorities in response to the outbreak (such as quarantines and travel restrictions), scientific and medical developments and the possible further impacts on the national and global economies. The continued spread of COVID-19, or an outbreak of another highly infectious or contagious disease in the future, could also negatively impact the availability of key personnel necessary to conduct our business.
The COVID-19 outbreak and certain of the actions taken to reduce the spread of the disease, based both on governmental mandates and recommendations and individual behavior patterns - including restrictions on travel, restrictions on the ability of individuals to assemble in groups, restrictions on the ability of certain businesses to operate, emergency legislative and regulatory responses, and mandatory and voluntary “social distancing” practices by individuals and businesses - have resulted in lost business revenue, rapid and significant increases in unemployment, and changes in employer and consumer behavior, all of which have materially and adversely affected economic conditions in the U.S. and globally. These adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy may continue or worsen throughout the course of the outbreak. Future outbreaks involving other highly infectious or contagious diseases could have similar adverse effects.
The COVID-19 pandemic could adversely impact the U.S. housing and commercial real estate markets, the volume of new mortgages, the value of real estate collateral and the rate of foreclosures, and could cause borrowers to experience
difficulties repaying mortgage loans or to seek forbearance. Any of these effects could have an adverse impact on the market value of our investments in MBS and on our financial condition and results of operations.
Our use of leverage, including repurchase agreements, to enhance returns to shareholders increases the risk of volatility in our results and could lead to material decreases in net interest income, net income, comprehensive income, dividends, book value per common share, and liquidity.
Leverage increases returns on our invested capital if we can earn a greater return on investments than our cost of borrowing but can decrease returns if borrowing costs increase and we have not adequately hedged against such an increase. Further, using leverage magnifies the potential losses to shareholders’ equity and book value per common share if our investments’ fair market value declines, net of associated hedges. Repurchase agreements are generally uncommitted short-term financings with no guaranty of renewal at maturity and changes to terms of such financing may adversely affect our profitability and our liquidity.
Our ability to fund our operations, meet financial obligations, and finance targeted asset acquisitions may be impacted by an inability to secure and maintain our financing through repurchase agreements or other borrowings with our counterparties. Because repurchase agreements are short-term commitments of capital, lenders may respond to adverse market conditions in a manner that makes it more difficult for us to renew or replace on a continuous basis our maturing short-term borrowings and have, and may continue to, impose more onerous conditions at renewal. If we are not able to renew our existing repurchase agreements or other borrowings, or arrange for new financing on terms acceptable to us, or if we default on our financial covenants (including those on our repurchase agreements), are otherwise unable to access funds under our financing arrangements, or are required to post additional collateral or face larger haircuts, we may have to dispose of assets at significantly depressed prices and at inopportune times, which could cause significant losses, and may also force us to curtail our asset acquisition activities. If we are subject to a larger haircut in order to renew a repurchase agreement or other borrowing with a particular counterparty then we would be required to post additional margin. Similarly, if we were to move a financing from one counterparty to another that was subject to a larger haircut we would have to repay more cash to the original repurchase agreement counterparty than we would be able to borrow from the new repurchase agreement counterparty. In each of these cases we could be required to dispose of assets at significantly depressed prices and at inopportune times, which could cause significant losses.
In addition, if the regulatory capital requirements imposed on certain of our lenders change, those lenders may be required to significantly increase the cost of the financing that they provide to us, or to increase the amounts of collateral they require as a condition to providing us with financing. Our lenders also have revised, and may continue to revise, their eligibility requirements for the types of assets that they are willing to finance or the terms of such financing arrangements, including increased haircuts and requiring additional cash collateral, based on, among other factors, the regulatory environment and their management of actual and perceived risk. Moreover, the amount of financing that we receive under our financing agreements will be directly related to our lenders’ valuation of the assets subject to such agreements. Typically, the master repurchase agreements that govern our borrowings under repurchase agreements grant the lender the absolute right to reevaluate the fair market value of the assets subject to such repurchase agreements at any time. If a lender determines in its sole discretion that the value of the assets has decreased, it has the right to initiate a margin call. These valuations may be different than the values that we ascribe to these assets and may be influenced by recent asset sales at distressed levels by forced sellers. A margin call requires us to transfer additional assets to a lender without any advance of funds from the lender for such transfer or to repay a portion of the outstanding borrowings. We would also be required to post additional collateral if haircuts increase under a repurchase agreement. In these situations, we could be forced to sell assets at significantly depressed prices to meet such margin calls and to maintain adequate liquidity, which could cause significant losses. Significant margin calls could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, business, liquidity, and ability to make distributions to our stockholders, and could cause the value of our capital stock to decline.
Our ability to access leverage in the conduct of our operations is impacted by the following:
•market conditions and overall market volatility and liquidity;
•regulation of our lenders and other regulatory factors;
•disruptions in the repurchase agreement market generally, or the infrastructure that supports it;
•the liquidity of our investments;
•the market value of our investments;
•the advance rates by our lenders on investment collateral pledged, and;
•the willingness of our lenders to finance the types of investments we choose.
Many of these factors are beyond our control and are difficult to predict, which could lead to sudden and material adverse effects on our results of operations, financial condition, business, liquidity, and ability to make distributions to shareholders, and could force us to sell assets at significantly depressed prices to maintain adequate liquidity. Market dislocations including those resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak or as a result of other future outbreaks involving other highly infectious or contagious diseases could limit or ability to access funding or access funding on terms that we believe are attractive which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
For more information about our operating policies regarding our use of leverage, please see “Liquidity and Capital Resources” within Part II, Item 7 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.”
We cannot predict the effect that government policies, laws, and plans adopted in response to the COVID-19 outbreak or other future outbreaks involving highly infectious or contagious diseases and resulting recessionary economic conditions will have on us. In addition, measures intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19 may disrupt our ability to operate our business.
Governments have adopted, and we expect will continue to adopt, policies, laws, and plans intended to address the COVID-19 outbreak and adverse developments in the credit, financial, and mortgage markets that it has caused. We cannot assure you that these programs will be effective, sufficient, or otherwise have a positive impact on the economy, the credit, financial and mortgage markets, or our business. Moreover, certain actions taken by U.S. or other governmental authorities that are intended to ameliorate the macroeconomic effects of the COVID-19 outbreak or an outbreak due to another highly infectious or contagious disease in the future could harm our business. Any significant decrease in economic activity or resulting decline in the markets in which we invest could also have an adverse effect on our investments in our targeted assets.
As part of the CARES Act, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have announced mortgage forbearance policies that will allow borrowers to delay their mortgage payments for up to one year. Individual states also have adopted or may adopt forbearance policies addressing loan payments, rent payments, foreclosures and evictions. These policies may impact our investments in many ways, some that are foreseeable, others that are not. The impact of high levels of forbearance on our MBS could range from immaterial to significant depending upon not only actual losses incurred on underlying loans but also future public policy choices and actions by the GSEs, their regulator the Federal Housing Finance Authority ("FHFA"), the Federal Reserve, and federal and state governments. The nature and timing of any such future public policy choices and actions are unpredictable. Prepayment speeds on Agency MBS may be affected and scenarios suggesting both slowing and increasing prepayment speeds are plausible.
Due to the federal and state recommendations issued and mandates implemented to control the spread of COVID-19, the vast majority of our personnel, as well as the third-party service providers that provide services to us, are working remotely. If these personnel are unable to work effectively as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, including because of illness, quarantines, office closures, ineffective remote work arrangements, or technology failures or limitations, our operations would be adversely impacted. Further, remote work arrangements may increase the risk of cybersecurity incidents and cyber-attacks on us or our third-party service providers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations, due to, among other things, the loss of investor or proprietary data, interruptions or delays in the operation of our business, and damage to our reputation.
Fluctuations in the market value of our investments could negatively impact our net income, comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, book value per common share, and liquidity.
Changes in the market values of our investments are reflected in our consolidated financial statements in net income, other comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity and book value per common share. Our investments fluctuate in value due to a number of factors including, among others, market volatility (including, as an example, market volatility due to the COVID-19 outbreak), changes in credit spreads, spot and forward interest rates, and actual and anticipated prepayments. Our investments may also fluctuate in value due to increased or reduced demand for the types of investments we own and in particular, the impact on demand, both positive and negative, from purchases and sales by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The level of demand may be impacted by, among other things, interest rates, capital flows, economic conditions and government and regulatory policies.
Changes in credit spreads represent the market’s valuation of the perceived riskiness of assets relative to risk-free rates and widening credit spreads reduce the market value of our investments as market participants require additional yield to hold riskier assets. Credit spreads could change based on macroeconomic or systemic factors specific to a particular security such as prepayment performance or credit performance. Other factors that could impact credit spreads include technical issues such as supply and demand for a particular type of security, market psychology, and FOMC monetary policy. In addition, most of our investments are fixed rate or reset in rate over a period of time, and as interest rates rise, the market value of these investments will decrease. If market values decrease significantly, we may be forced to sell assets at losses in order to maintain liquidity and repay or renew repurchase agreements at maturity.
Fluctuations in interest rates may have various negative effects on us and could lead to reduced net interest income, comprehensive income, book value per common share, dividends and liquidity.
Fluctuations in interest rates impact us in multiple ways. For example, in a period of rising rates, particularly increases in the targeted Federal Funds Rate, we may experience a decline in our profitability from borrowing rates increasing faster than interest coupons on our investments reset or our investments mature. We may also experience a decline in profitability from our investments adjusting less frequently or relative to a different index (e.g., six month or one-year LIBOR) from our borrowings (repurchase agreements are typically based on shorter-term rates). Once the Federal Reserve announces a higher targeted range or if markets anticipate that the Federal Reserve is likely to announce a higher targeted range for the Federal Funds Rate, our borrowing costs are likely to immediately increase, thereby negatively impacting our results of operations, financial condition, dividend and book value per common share.
Fluctuations in interest rates may also negatively affect the market value of our securities. Since our investment portfolio consists substantially of fixed rate instruments, rising interest rates will reduce the market value of our MBS as a result of higher yield requirements by the market for these types of securities. Reductions in the market value of our MBS could result in margin calls from our lenders, potentially forcing us to sell securities at a loss. Reductions in the market value of our MBS could also result in declines in comprehensive income and book value per common share, and a material reduction in our liquidity. A material reduction in our liquidity could lead to a reduction of the dividend or potentially the payment of the dividend in Company stock subject to the Internal Revenue Code. Conversely, while declining interest rates are typically more favorable for us, we may experience increasing prepayments, resulting in reduced profitability.
Our use of hedging strategies to mitigate our interest rate risk may not be effective and may adversely affect our net income, comprehensive income, liquidity, shareholders’ equity and book value per common share.
We may use interest rate swap agreements, futures, interest rate caps, options, forward contracts and other derivatives to help mitigate increased financing costs and volatility in the market value of our investments from adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on, among other things, our forecast of future interest rates, our investment portfolio construction and objectives, the actual and implied level and volatility of interest rates, and sources and terms of financing used. No hedging strategy can completely insulate us from the interest rate risks to which we are exposed. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect our results of operations, book value and liquidity because, among other things:
•The performance of instruments used to hedge may not completely correlate with the performance of the assets or liabilities being hedged;
•Available hedging instruments may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk from which we seek protection;
•The duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related asset or liability given management’s expectation of future changes in interest rates or a result of the inaccuracies of models in forecasting cash flows on the asset being hedged;
•The value of derivatives used for hedging will be adjusted from time to time in accordance with GAAP to reflect changes in fair value, and downward adjustments, or “mark-to-market losses,” will reduce our earnings, shareholders’ equity, and book value;
•The amount of income that a REIT may earn from hedging transactions (other than through taxable REIT subsidiaries) to offset interest rate losses may be limited by U.S. federal income tax provisions governing REITs;
•Interest rate hedging can be relatively expensive for certain strategies such as options, caps and forward contracts, particularly during periods of volatile interest rates;
•The credit quality of the party owing money on the hedge may be downgraded to such an extent that it impairs our ability to sell or assign our side of the hedging transaction; and
•The party owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay.
Our hedging instruments can be traded on an exchange or administered through a clearing house or under bilateral agreements between us and a counterparty. Bilateral agreements expose us to increased counterparty risk, and we may be at risk of loss of any collateral held by a hedging counterparty if the counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy.
We invest in to-be-announced, or TBA, securities and execute TBA dollar roll transactions. It could be uneconomical to roll our TBA contracts or we may be unable to meet margin calls on our TBA contracts, which could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We execute TBA dollar roll transactions which effectively delay the settlement of a forward purchase (or sale) of a TBA by entering into an offsetting TBA position, net settling the paired-off positions in cash, and simultaneously entering an identical TBA long (or short) position with a later settlement date. Under certain market conditions, TBA dollar roll transactions may result in negative net interest income whereby the Agency RMBS purchased (or sold) for forward settlement under a TBA contract are priced at a premium to Agency RMBS for settlement in the current month. Market conditions could also adversely impact the TBA dollar roll market and, in particular, shifts in prepay expectations on Agency RMBS or changes in the reinvestment policy on Agency RMBS by the Federal Reserve. Under such conditions, it may be uneconomical to roll our TBA positions prior to the settlement date, and we could have to take physical delivery of the underlying securities and settle our obligations for cash, or in the case of a short position, we could be forced to deliver one of our Agency RMBS, which would mean using cash to payoff any repurchase agreement amounts collateralized by that security. We may not have sufficient funds or alternative financing sources available to settle such obligations. In addition, pursuant to the margin provisions established by the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) of the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, we are subject to margin calls on our TBA contracts and our trading counterparties may require us to post additional margin above the levels established by the MBSD. Negative income on TBA dollar roll transactions or failure to procure adequate financing to settle our obligations or meet margin calls under our TBA contracts could result in defaults or force us to sell assets under adverse market conditions or through foreclosure and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We invest in assets that are traded in over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets which are less liquid and have less price transparency than securities exchanges. Owning securities that are traded in OTC markets may increase our liquidity risk, particularly in a volatile market environment, because our assets may be more difficult to borrow against or sell in a prompt manner and on terms acceptable to us, and we may not realize the full value at which we previously recorded the investments and/or may incur losses upon sale of these assets.
Though Agency MBS are generally deemed to be very liquid securities, turbulent market conditions, such as market conditions following the COVID-19 outbreak, may significantly and negatively impact the liquidity and market value of these assets. Non-Agency MBS are typically more difficult to value, less liquid, and experience greater price volatility than Agency MBS. In addition, market values for non-Agency MBS are typically more subjective than Agency MBS. Given the trading of our investments in OTC markets, in times of severe market stress, a market may not exist for certain of our assets at any price. If the MBS market were to experience a severe or extended period of illiquidity, lenders may refuse to accept our assets as collateral for repurchase agreement financing, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and business. A sudden reduction in the liquidity of our investments could limit our ability to finance or could make it difficult to sell investments if the need arises. If we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the fair value at which we have previously recorded our investments which would result in lower than anticipated gains or higher losses.
Our repurchase agreements and agreements governing certain derivative instruments may contain financial and nonfinancial covenants. Our inability to meet these covenants could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
In connection with certain of our repurchase agreements and interest rate swap agreements, we are required to maintain certain financial and non-financial covenants. As of March 31, 2020, the most restrictive financial covenants require that we have a minimum of $30 million of liquidity and declines in shareholders’ equity no greater than 25% in any quarter and 35% in any year. In addition, virtually all of our repurchase agreements and interest rate swap agreements require us to maintain our status as a REIT and to be exempted from the provisions of the 1940 Act. Compliance with these covenants depends on market factors and the strength of our business and operating results. Various risks, uncertainties and events beyond our control, including significant fluctuations in interest rates, market volatility and changes in market conditions, could affect our ability to comply with these covenants. Failure to comply with these covenants could result in an event of
default, termination of an agreement, acceleration of all amounts owed under an agreement, and generally would give the counterparty the right to exercise certain other remedies under the repurchase agreement, including the sale of the asset subject to repurchase at the time of default, unless we were able to negotiate a waiver in connection with any such default related to failure to comply with a covenant. Any such waiver could be conditioned on an amendment to the underlying agreement and any related guaranty agreement on terms that may be unfavorable to us. If we are unable to negotiate a covenant waiver or replace or refinance our assets under a new repurchase facility on favorable terms or at all, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected. Further, certain of our repurchase agreements and interest rate swap agreements have cross-default, cross-acceleration or similar provisions, such that if we were to violate a covenant under one agreement, that violation could lead to defaults, accelerations, or other adverse events under other agreements, as well.
Prepayment rates on the mortgage loans underlying our investments may adversely affect our profitability and the market value of our investments. Changes in prepayment rates may also subject us to reinvestment risk.
We are subject to prepayment risk to the extent that we own investments at premiums to their par value or at yields at a premium to current market yields. We amortize the premiums we pay on a security using the effective yield method, which is impacted by borrower prepayments of principal on the loans. Prepayments can occur both on a voluntary basis (i.e., the borrower elects to prepay the loan along with related prepayment fees, if applicable) and involuntary basis (i.e., a loan default and subsequent foreclosure and liquidation). RMBS have no prepayment protection while CMBS and CMBS IO have voluntary prepayment protection in the form of a prepayment lock-out on the loan for an initial period, or by yield maintenance or prepayment penalty provisions which serve as full or partial compensation for future lost interest income on the loan. In certain circumstances, compensation for voluntary prepayment on CMBS IO securities may not be sufficient to compensate us for the loss of future excess interest as a result of the prepayment. Prepayments on our investments are impacted by economic and market conditions, the level of interest rates, the general availability of mortgage credit, and other factors.
We have no protection from involuntary prepayments. The impact of involuntary prepayments on high premium investments including CMBS IO and higher coupon Agency CMBS is particularly acute since the investment consists entirely of premium. An increase in involuntary prepayments will result in the loss of investment premiums at an accelerated rate which could materially reduce our interest income, net income, comprehensive income and dividend. Involuntary prepayments typically increase in periods of economic slowdown or stress, such as the slowdown in economic activity experienced as a result of COVID-19, and actions taken as a result by the GSEs and federal, state and local governments. Defaults in loans underlying our CMBS IO, particularly loans in non-Agency CMBS IO securities collateralized by income producing properties such as retail shopping centers, office buildings, multifamily apartments and hotels, may increase as a result of the economic weakness brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Increases in actual prepayment rates or market expectations of prepayment rates (voluntary or involuntary) could negatively impact our profitability and the market value of our investments, negatively impacting our book value. We are also more likely to experience margin calls from our lenders as a result of the decline in value of our securities, which would negatively impact our liquidity. Typically prepayments will increase when interest rates are declining which can lead to reinvestment in lower yielding investments leading to lower net interest income and reduced profitability.
Prepayments on large balance, single loan Agency CMBS could result in margin calls by lenders in excess of our available liquidity. As such, we may be at risk of defaulting on a repurchase agreement which could force us to sell assets at a loss.
We may own large balance Agency CMBS which are collateralized by a single-loan. While these Agency CMBS have some form of prepayment protection such as yield maintenance which would compensate us for the prepayment, these securities are collateralizing repurchase agreements. If the single loan CMBS prepays, typically there is a 20-day delay between the announcement of such prepayment and the receipt of cash from the prepayment; however, the repurchase agreement lender may initiate a margin call when the prepayment is announced. If the margin call were large enough, we might not be able to meet such margin call from available liquidity, and we could be forced to sell assets quickly and on terms unfavorable to us to meet the margin call. If we cannot meet the margin call, we may be in default under the repurchase agreement until we receive the cash from the prepayment. Because some of our repurchase agreement borrowings contain cross-default provisions, such default could trigger defaults on and margin calls with respect to other of our repurchase agreement borrowings.
Provisions requiring yield maintenance charges, prepayment penalties, defeasance, or lock-outs in CMBS IO securities may not be enforceable.
Provisions in loan documents for mortgages in CMBS IO securities in which we invest requiring yield maintenance charges, prepayment penalties, defeasance, or lock-out periods may not be enforceable in some states and under federal bankruptcy law. Provisions in the loan documents requiring yield maintenance charges and prepayment penalties may also be interpreted as constituting the collection of interest for usury purposes. Accordingly, we cannot be assured that the obligation of a borrower to pay any yield maintenance charge or prepayment penalty under a loan document in a CMBS IO security will be enforceable. Also, we cannot be assured that foreclosure proceeds under a loan document in a CMBS IO security will be sufficient to pay an enforceable yield maintenance charge. If yield maintenance charges and prepayment penalties are not collected, or if a lock-out period is not enforced, we may incur losses to write-down the value of the CMBS IO security for the present value of the amounts not collected, and we will experience lower yields and lower interest income. This would also likely cause margin calls from any lender on the CMBS IO impacted which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity.
We invest in securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are currently under conservatorship by the FHFA. The ultimate impact on the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the conservatorships and the support they receive from the U.S. government is not determinable and could affect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in such a way that our business, operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.
The GSEs have been under federal conservatorship since 2008, As conservator, the FHFA has assumed all the powers of the shareholders, directors and officers of the GSEs with the goal of preserving and conserving their assets. At various times since implementation of the conservatorship, Congress has considered structural changes to the GSEs. The United States Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury”) published the Treasury Housing Reform Plan in 2019 outlining proposed changes to the U.S. housing finance system which could lead to the release of the GSEs from conservatorship. Furthermore, the FHFA released its Strategic Plan in October 2019 which included in part an outline for the GSEs exiting conservatorship. Recent events related to the COVID-19 outbreak and the associated economic slowdown have raised concerns at the FHFA that the GSEs may need additional capital in order to meet their obligations as guarantors on trillions of dollars of MBS. The market value of Agency MBS today are highly dependent on the continued support of the GSEs by the U.S. government. If such support is modified or withdrawn, if the U.S. Treasury fails to inject new capital as need, or if the GSEs are released from conservatorship, the market value of Agency MBS could significantly decline, making it difficult for us to obtain repurchase agreement financing and could force us to sell assets at substantial losses. Furthermore, any policy changes to the relationship between the GSEs and the U.S. government may create market uncertainty and have the effect of reducing the actual or perceived credit quality of securities issued by the GSEs. It may also interrupt the cash flow received by investors on the underlying MBS
Finally, reforms to GSEs could also negatively impact our ability to comply with the provisions of the 1940 Act (see further discussion below regarding the 1940 Act).
All of the foregoing could materially adversely affect the availability, pricing, liquidity, market value and financing of our assets and materially adversely affect our business, operations, financial condition and book value per common share.
The replacement of LIBOR with an alternative reference rate may adversely affect our profitability, liquidity, and financial condition.
The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) has announced that it will phase out LIBOR as a benchmark by the end of 2021. It is unclear whether new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established such that it continues to exist after 2021. If LIBOR ceases to exist, we will need to amend or terminate certain of our agreements referencing LIBOR rates. Our interest rate swap agreements currently include performance provisions which reference LIBOR rates, and many of these agreements expire after 2021. Our repurchase agreement borrowings generally carry a rate of interest based on a spread to LIBOR or other indices that closely track LIBOR. Additionally, the terms of our outstanding shares of Series C Fixed-to-Floating Rate Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock reference LIBOR rates but contain fallback provisions that would apply in the event that LIBOR rates are no longer calculated and published. The phasing out of LIBOR could impact short-term market rates in general which could potentially reduced the benefit of our interest rate swaps and increase the cost of our repurchase agreement borrowings. The impact of phasing out LIBOR on these and other financial instruments is uncertain and may negatively impact their value, liquidity or effectiveness. The transition to an alternative rate will require careful and deliberate consideration and implementation so as not to disrupt the stability of financial markets.
There is no guarantee that a transition from LIBOR to an alternative will not result in, among other things, financial market disruptions, significant increases in benchmark rates, or short-term interest rates, any of which could have an adverse effect on our profitability, liquidity, and financial condition.
We may change our investment strategy, operating policies, dividend policy, and/or asset allocations without shareholder consent and/or in a manner in which shareholders, analysts, and capital markets may not agree, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock, and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.
A change in our investment strategy or asset allocation may materially change our exposure to interest rate and/or credit risk, default risk and real estate market fluctuations. These changes could have a material impact on our ability to continue to pay a dividend at a level that we had previously paid before the change in strategy. Furthermore, if any change in investment strategy, asset allocation, operating or dividend policy is perceived negatively by the markets or analysts covering our stock, our stock price may decline. Part of our investment strategy includes deciding whether to reinvest payments received on our existing investment portfolio. Based on market conditions, our leverage, and our liquidity profile, we may decide to not reinvest the cash flows we receive from our investment portfolio. If we retain, rather than reinvest, these cash flows, the size of our investment portfolio and the amount of net interest income generated by our investment portfolio will likely decline. In addition, if the assets we acquire in the future earn lower yields than the assets we currently own, our reported earnings per share will likely decline over time as the older assets pay down or are sold.
Competition may prevent us from acquiring new investments at favorable yields, and we may not be able to achieve our investment objectives which may potentially have a negative impact on our profitability.
Our net interest income, net income and comprehensive income will largely depend on our ability to acquire mortgage-related assets with acceptable risk-return profiles at favorable spreads over our borrowing costs. The availability of mortgage-related assets meeting our investment criteria depends upon, among other things, the level of activity in the real estate market and the quality of and demand for securities in the mortgage securitization and secondary markets. The size and level of activity in real estate lending markets depends on various factors, including interest rates, regional and national economic conditions, and real estate values. In acquiring investments, we compete with other purchasers of these types of investments, including but not limited to other mortgage REITs, broker-dealers, hedge funds, banks, insurance companies, mutual funds, GSEs including federal home loan banks and other entities that purchase assets similar to ours. In addition, in March 2019 as a result of economic factors related to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Federal Reserve Bank has resumed purchases of Agency RMBS and began purchasing Agency CMBS. Many of these entities against which we compete have greater resources and access to lower cost capital than we do. Because of these factors, we may not be able to acquire sufficient assets at acceptable yields over our borrowing costs, which would adversely affect our profitability.
Clearing facilities or exchanges may increase the margin requirements we are required to post when entering into derivative instruments, which may negatively impact our ability to hedge and our liquidity.
We are required to post margin when entering into a hedging instrument that is traded on an exchange or administered through a clearing house. The amount of margin is set for each derivative by the exchange or clearinghouse and in prior periods, exchanges have required additional margin in response to events having or expected to have adverse economic consequences. In the event that future adverse economic developments or market uncertainty (including those due to governmental, regulatory, or legislative action or inaction) result in increased margin requirements for our hedging instruments, it could materially adversely affect our liquidity position, business, financial condition and results of operations.
We may be subject to the risks associated with inadequate or untimely services from third-party service providers, which may negatively impact our results of operations. We also rely on corporate trustees to act on behalf of us and other holders of securities in enforcing our rights.
Loans underlying non-Agency MBS we own are serviced by third-party service providers. These servicers provide for the primary and special servicing of these securities. In that capacity these service providers control all aspects of loan collection, loss mitigation, default management and ultimate resolution of a defaulted loan including as applicable the foreclosure and sale of the real estate owned. The servicer has a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interest of the securitization trust, but significant latitude exists with respect to certain of its servicing activities. We have no contractual rights with respect to these servicers. If a third-party servicer fails to perform its duties under the securitization documents, this may result in a material increase in delinquencies or losses to the securities. As a result, the value of the securities may be impacted, and we may incur losses on our investment.
In addition, should a servicer experience financial difficulties, it may not be able to perform its obligations. Due to application of provisions of bankruptcy law, servicers who have sought bankruptcy protection may not be required to make advance payments required under the terms of the agreements governing the securities of amounts due from loan borrowers. Even if a servicer were able to advance amounts in respect of delinquent loans, its obligation to make the advances may be limited to the extent that is does not expect to recover the advances due to the deteriorating credit of the delinquent loans. As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, as well as the loan forbearance programs instituted by the GSEs, many servicers are experiencing financial distress and there is an increased risk that servicers may declare bankruptcy. For Agency MBS, we expect that the GSEs will transfer the servicing or otherwise make the investors in Agency MBS whole. For non-Agency MBS, financial difficulties with the servicer could lead to a material increase in delinquencies or losses to the securities. As a result, the value of the securities may be impacted, and we may incur losses on our investment.
We also rely on corporate trustees to act on behalf of us and other holders of securities in enforcing our rights. Under the terms of most securities we hold we do not have the right to directly enforce remedies against the issuer of the security, but instead must rely on a trustee to act on behalf of us and other security holders. Should a trustee not be required to take action under the terms of the securities, or fail to take action, we could experience losses.
Credit ratings assigned to debt securities by the credit rating agencies may not accurately reflect the risks associated with those securities. Changes in credit ratings for securities we own or for similar securities might negatively impact the market value of these securities.
Rating agencies rate securities based upon their assessment of the safety of the receipt of principal and interest payments on the securities. Rating agencies do not consider the risks of fluctuations in fair value or other factors that may influence the value of securities and, therefore, the assigned credit rating may not fully reflect the true risks of an investment in securities. Also, rating agencies may fail to make timely adjustments to credit ratings based on available data or changes in economic outlook or may otherwise fail to make changes in credit ratings in response to subsequent events, so the credit quality of our investments may be better or worse than the ratings indicate. We attempt to reduce the impact of the risk that a credit rating may not accurately reflect the risks associated with a particular debt security by not relying solely on credit ratings as the indicator of the quality of an investment. We make our acquisition decisions after factoring in other information that we have obtained about the loans underlying the security and the credit subordination structure of the security. Despite these efforts, our assessment of the quality of an investment may also prove to be inaccurate and we may incur credit losses in excess of our initial expectations.
Credit rating agencies may change their methods of evaluating credit risk and determining ratings on securities backed by real estate loans and securities. These changes may occur quickly and often. The market’s ability to understand and absorb these changes, and the impact to the securitization market in general, are difficult to predict. Such changes may have a negative impact on the value of securities that we own.
If a lender to us in a repurchase transaction defaults on its obligation to resell the underlying security back to us at the end of the transaction term, or if we default on our obligations under a repurchase agreement, we will incur losses.
Repurchase agreement transactions are legally structured as the sale of a security to a lender in return for cash from the lender. These transactions are accounted for as financing agreements because the lenders are obligated to resell the same securities back to us at the end of the transaction term. Because the cash we receive from the lender when we initially sell the securities to the lender is less than the value of those securities, if the lender defaults on its obligation to resell the same securities back to us, we would incur a loss on the transaction equal to the difference between the value of the securities sold and the amount borrowed from the lender including accrued interest. The lender may default on its obligation to resell if it experiences financial difficulty or if the lender has re-hypothecated the security to another party who fails to transfer the security back to the lender. Additionally, if we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase agreement, the lender can terminate the transaction, sell the underlying collateral and cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions could adversely affect our earnings and reduce our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.
In the event of bankruptcy either by ourselves or one or more of our third-party lenders, under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, assets pledged as collateral under repurchase agreements may not be recoverable by us. We may incur losses equal to the excess of the collateral pledged over the amount of the associated repurchase agreement borrowing.
In the event that one of our lenders under a repurchase agreement files for bankruptcy, it may be difficult for us to recover our assets pledged as collateral to such lender. In addition, if we ever file for bankruptcy, lenders under our
repurchase agreements may be able to avoid the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and take possession of and liquidate our collateral under our repurchase agreements without delay. In the event of a bankruptcy by one of our lenders, or us, we may incur losses in amounts equal to the excess of our collateral pledged over the amount of repurchase agreement borrowing due to the lender.
If we fail to properly conduct our operations, we could become subject to regulation under the 1940 Act. Conducting our business in a manner so that we are exempt from registration under and compliance with the 1940 Act may reduce our flexibility and could limit our ability to pursue certain opportunities.
We seek to conduct our operations to avoid falling under the definition of an investment company pursuant to the 1940 Act. Specifically, we seek to conduct our operations under the exemption provided under Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, a provision available to companies primarily engaged in the business of purchasing and otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate. According to SEC no-action letters, companies relying on this exemption must ensure that at least 55% of their assets are mortgage loans and other qualifying assets, and at least 80% of their assets are real estate-related. The 1940 Act requires that we and each of our subsidiaries evaluate our qualification for exemption under the Act. Our subsidiaries will rely either on Section 3(c)(5)(C) or other sections that provide exemptions from registering under the 1940 Act, including Sections 3(a)(1)(C) and 3(c)(7). We believe that we are operating our business in accordance with the exemption requirements of Section 3(c)(5)(C).
Under the 1940 Act, an investment company is required to register with the SEC and is subject to extensive restrictive and potentially adverse regulations relating to, among other things, operating methods, management, capital structure, leverage, dividends, and transactions with affiliates. If we were determined to be an investment company, our ability to use leverage and conduct business as we do today would be substantially impaired. This would severely impact our profitability and ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.
If we fail to abide by certain Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) rules and regulations, we may be subject to enforcement action by the CFTC.
On December 7, 2012, the CFTC’s Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (the “Division”) issued no-action relief from commodity pool operator (“CPO”) registration to mortgage REITs that use CFTC-regulated products (“commodity interests”) and that satisfy certain enumerated criteria. Pursuant to the no-action letter, the Division will not recommend that the CFTC take enforcement action against a mortgage REIT if its operator fails to register as a CPO, provided that the mortgage REIT (i) submits a claim to take advantage of the relief and (ii) the mortgage REIT: (a) limits the initial margin and premiums required to establish its commodity interest positions to no greater than 5% of the fair market value of the mortgage REIT’s total assets; (b) limits the net income derived annually from its commodity interest positions, excluding the income from commodity interest positions that are “qualifying hedging transactions,” to less than 5% of its annual gross income; (c) does not market interests in the mortgage REIT to the public as interests in a commodity pool or otherwise in a vehicle for trading in the commodity futures, commodity options or swaps markets; and (d) either: (A) identified itself as a “mortgage REIT” in Item G of its last U.S. income tax return on Form 1120-REIT; or (B) if it has not yet filed its first U.S. income tax return on Form 1120-REIT, it discloses to its shareholders that it intends to identify itself as a “mortgage REIT” in its first U.S. income tax return on Form 1120-REIT.
We believe that we have complied with all of the requirements set forth above as of March 31, 2020. If we fail to satisfy the criteria set forth above, or if the criteria change, we may become subject to CFTC regulation or enforcement action, the consequences of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
We are highly dependent on information and communication systems and third parties, and systems failures or cybersecurity incidents could significantly disrupt our business or lead to significant losses, which may, in turn, negatively affect the market price of our common and preferred stocks and our ability to operate our business.
Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems particularly as it relates to the custodians of our investments and our lenders. Any failure or interruption of our communication or information systems, or any cyber-attack or security breach of our networks or systems, could cause delays or other problems in our trading or borrowing activities, including MBS trading and repurchase agreement borrowing activities, or could lead to unauthorized trading activity, any of which could have a significant adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. A disruption or breach could also lead to unauthorized access to and release, misuse, loss or destruction of our confidential information or personal or confidential information of our employees or third parties, which could lead to regulatory fines, costs of remediating the breach, reputational harm, and fewer third parties that are willing to conduct business with us. In
addition, we also face the risk of operational failure, termination or capacity constraints of any of the third parties with which we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including custodians, clearing agents or other financial intermediaries we use to facilitate our securities transactions, if their respective communication or information systems experience failure, interruption, cyber-attacks, or security breaches. We may face increased costs as we continue to evolve our cyber defenses in order to contend with changing risks and to monitor our systems for cyber-attacks and security threats. These costs and losses associated with these risks are difficult to predict and quantify and could have a significant adverse effect on our results of operations.
Computer malware, viruses, computer hacking. and phishing attacks have become more prevalent and may occur on our systems. Although we have not detected a material cybersecurity breach to date, other financial services institutions have reported material breaches of their systems, some of which have been significant. Even with all reasonable security efforts, not every breach can be prevented or even detected, and it is possible that we have experienced an undetected breach. There is no assurance that we, or the third parties that facilitate our business activities, have not or will not experience a breach. It is difficult to determine what, if any, negative impact may directly result from any specific interruption or cyber-attacks or security breaches of our networks or systems (or the networks or systems of third parties that facilitate our business activities) or any failure to maintain performance, reliability and security of our technical infrastructure, but such computer malware, viruses, and computer hacking and phishing attacks may negatively affect our operations. We rely heavily on our financial, accounting and other data processing systems, and any failure to maintain performance, reliability and security of these systems and our other technical infrastructure could have a significant adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
We pay a monthly dividend to our shareholders. A monthly dividend strategy could attract shareholders that are especially sensitive to the level and frequency of the dividend. If we were to reduce the dividend or change back to a quarterly payment cycle, our share price could materially decline.
Our strategy of paying a monthly dividend is designed in part to attract retail shareholders that invest in stocks which pay a monthly dividend. The ownership of our stock may become overly concentrated in shareholders who only invest in monthly dividend paying stocks. These shareholders may be more sensitive to reductions in the dividend or a change in the payment cycle and our share price could materially decline if we were to reduce the dividend or change the payment cycle of our dividend.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR QUALIFICATION AS A REIT AND TAX RELATED MATTERS
We have not established a minimum dividend payment level and we cannot assure you of our ability to pay dividends in the future.
We currently intend to pay regular dividends to our common stockholders and to make distributions to our shareholders in amounts such that all or substantially all of our taxable income, subject to certain adjustments including utilization of our NOL, is distributed. However, we have not established a minimum dividend payment level, and the amount of our dividend will fluctuate. Our ability to pay dividends may be adversely affected by the risk factors described herein. All distributions will be made at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on our GAAP and tax earnings, our financial condition, the requirements for REIT qualification and such other factors as our Board of Directors may deem relevant from time to time. We may not be able to make distributions, or our Board of Directors may change our dividend policy in the future. To the extent that we decide to pay dividends in excess of our current and accumulated tax earnings and profits, such distributions would generally be considered a return of capital for federal income tax purposes. A return of capital reduces the basis of a stockholder’s investment in our common stock to the extent of such basis and is treated as capital gain thereafter.
Qualifying as a REIT involves highly technical and complex provisions of the Code, and a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. Maintaining our REIT status may reduce our flexibility to manage our operations.
Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions for which only limited judicial and administrative authorities exist. Even a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. Our qualification as a REIT will depend on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. Our operations and use of leverage also subject us to interpretations of the Code, and technical or inadvertent violations of the relevant requirements under the Code could cause us to lose our REIT status or to pay significant penalties and interest. In addition, our ability to satisfy the
requirements to qualify as a REIT depends in part on the actions of third parties over which we have no control or only limited influence, including in cases where we own an equity interest in an entity that is classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Maintaining our REIT status may limit flexibility in managing our operations. For instance:
•If we make frequent asset sales from our REIT entities to persons deemed customers, we could be viewed as a “dealer,” and thus subject to 100% prohibited transaction taxes or other entity level taxes on income from such transactions.
•Compliance with the REIT income and asset requirements may limit the type or extent of hedging that we can undertake and could limit our ability to invest in TBA securities.
•Our ability to own non-real estate related assets and earn non-real estate related income is limited. Our ability to own equity interests in other entities is limited. If we fail to comply with these limits, we may be forced to liquidate attractive assets on short notice on unfavorable terms in order to maintain our REIT status.
•Our ability to invest in taxable subsidiaries is limited under the REIT rules. Maintaining compliance with this limitation could require us to constrain the growth of future taxable REIT affiliates.
•Notwithstanding our NOL carryforward, meeting minimum REIT dividend distribution requirements could reduce our liquidity. Earning non-cash REIT taxable income could necessitate our selling assets, incurring debt, or raising new equity in order to fund dividend distributions.
•Stock ownership tests may limit our ability to raise significant amounts of equity capital from one source.
If we do not qualify as a REIT or fail to remain qualified as a REIT, we may be subject to tax as a regular corporation and could face a tax liability, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our shareholders.
We intend to operate in a manner that will allow us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. Our qualification as a REIT will depend on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis.
If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we would be subject to federal income tax, after consideration of our NOL carryforward but not considering any dividends paid to our shareholders during the respective tax year. If we could not otherwise offset this taxable income with our NOL carryforward, the resulting corporate tax liability could be material to our results and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our shareholders, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of our common stock. Unless we were entitled to relief under certain Code provisions, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT until the fifth taxable year following the year for which we failed to qualify as a REIT.
Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates available for some dividends.
The maximum tax rate applicable to “qualified dividend income” payable to U.S. stockholders that are taxed at individual rates is lower than corresponding maximum ordinary income tax rates. Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates on qualified dividend income. Rather, under the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”), qualified REIT dividends constitute “qualified business income” and thus a 20% deduction is available to individual taxpayers with respect to such dividends, resulting in a 29.6% maximum federal tax rate (plus the 3.8% surtax on net investment income, if applicable) for individual U.S. stockholders. Additionally, without further legislative action, the 20% deduction applicable to qualified REIT dividends will expire on January 1, 2026. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are taxed at individual rates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our common stock.
Legislative or other actions affecting REITs could materially and adversely affect us and our stockholders.
The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury. Changes to the tax laws, with or without retroactive application, could materially and adversely affect us and our stockholders. We cannot predict how changes in the tax laws might affect us or our stockholders. New legislation, U.S. Treasury regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could significantly and negatively affect our ability to qualify as a REIT or the U.S. federal income tax consequences of such qualification.
In addition, the effect of substantive changes made by the TCJA is highly uncertain, both in terms of their direct effect on the taxation of an investment in our common stock and their indirect effect on the value of our assets. Furthermore, many of the provisions of the TCJA will require guidance through the issuance of U.S. Treasury regulations in order to assess their effect. There may be a substantial delay before such regulations are promulgated, increasing the uncertainty as to the ultimate effect of the statutory amendments on us. It is also likely that there will be technical corrections legislation proposed with respect to the TCJA, the timing and effect of which cannot be predicted and may be adverse to us or our stockholders.
Our ability to invest in and dispose of TBA securities could be limited by our REIT status, and we could lose our REIT status as a result of these investments.
The Code is unclear regarding whether TBA securities are qualifying assets for the 75% asset test and whether income and gains from dispositions of TBA securities are qualifying income for the 75% gross income test. In addition, there is uncertainty under the Code pursuant to the “5% asset test,” whereby ownership of any stocks or securities that do not qualify under the 75% asset test must be limited, in respect of any single non-governmental issuer, to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of our total assets (excluding ownership of any taxable REIT subsidiaries). Given the uncertainty regarding the tax treatment of TBAs, we will seek to limit our investment in TBAs and any other non-qualifying assets to no more than 25% of our assets at the end of any calendar quarter and will limit our investments in TBAs with a single counterparty to no more than 5% of our total assets at the end of any calendar quarter. Further, we will attempt to limit our gains from TBA transactions and any other non-qualifying income to no more than 25% of our gross income for each calendar year. Accordingly, our ability to invest in TBAs utilizing dollar roll transactions could be limited.
We could be subject to a penalty tax or we could fail to qualify as a REIT if (i) the value of our TBAs, together with our other non-qualifying assets for the 75% asset test, exceeded 25% of our gross assets at the end of any calendar quarter or if the value of our investments in TBAs with a single counterparty exceeded 5% of our total assets at the end of any calendar quarter or (ii) our income and gains from the disposition of TBAs, together with our other non-qualifying income for the 75% gross income test, exceeded 25% of our gross income for any taxable year. Any such penalty tax or failure to qualify as a REIT could adversely affect our business operations, financial condition or results of operations.
For REIT test purposes, we treat repurchase agreement transactions as financing of the investments pledged as collateral. If the IRS disagrees with this treatment our ability to qualify as a REIT could be adversely affected.
Repurchase agreement financing arrangements are structured legally as a sale and repurchase whereby we sell certain of our investments to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase these securities at a later date in exchange for a purchase price. Economically, these agreements are financings which are secured by the investments sold pursuant thereto. We believe that we would be treated for REIT asset and income test purposes as the owner of the securities that are the subject of any such sale and repurchase agreement, notwithstanding that such agreement may legally transfer record ownership of the securities to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the securities during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.
Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow and our profitability.
Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure or considered prohibited transactions under the Code, and state or local income taxes. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our shareholders. In addition, in order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, or to avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from prohibited transactions, we may hold some of our assets through a taxable REIT subsidiary (“TRS”) or other subsidiary corporations that will be subject to corporate-level income tax at regular rates to the extent that such TRS does not have an NOL carryforward. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our shareholders.
Recognition of excess inclusion income by us could have adverse consequences to us or our shareholders.
Certain of our securities have historically generated excess inclusion income and may continue to do so in the future. Certain categories of shareholders, such as foreign shareholders eligible for treaty or other benefits, shareholders with NOLs, and certain tax-exempt shareholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income from us that is attributable to excess inclusion income. In addition, to the extent that our stock is owned by tax-exempt “disqualified organizations,” such as certain government-related entities and charitable remainder trusts that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we may incur a corporate level tax on a portion of our income. In that case, we may reduce the amount of our distributions to any disqualified organization whose stock ownership gave rise to the tax.
The stock ownership limit imposed by the Code for REITs and our Articles of Incorporation may restrict our business combination opportunities. The stock ownership limitation may also result in reduced liquidity in our stock and may result in losses to an acquiring shareholder.
To qualify as a REIT under the Code, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year. Our Articles of Incorporation, with certain exceptions, authorize our Board of Directors to take the actions that are necessary and desirable to qualify as a REIT. Pursuant to our Articles of Incorporation, no person may beneficially or constructively own more than 9.8% of our capital stock (including our common stock, or any Series of our Preferred Stocks). Our Board of Directors may grant an exemption from this 9.8% stock ownership limitation, in its sole discretion, subject to such conditions, representations and undertakings as it may determine are reasonably necessary. Our Board of Directors has waived this ownership limitation with respect to FMR LLC. Per the terms of the waiver, FMR LLC may own up to 15% of our outstanding capital stock.
Whether we would waive the ownership limitation for any other shareholder will be determined by our Board of Directors on a case by case basis. Our Articles of Incorporation’s constructive ownership rules are complex and may cause the outstanding stock owned by a group of related individuals or entities to be deemed as constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of less than these percentages of the outstanding stock by an individual or entity could cause that individual or entity to own constructively in excess of these percentages of the outstanding stock and thus be subject to the ownership limit. The Board of Directors has the right to refuse to transfer any shares of our capital stock in a transaction that would result in ownership in excess of the ownership limit. In addition, we have the right to redeem shares of our capital stock held in excess of the ownership limit.
The ownership limits imposed by the tax law are based upon direct or indirect ownership by “individuals,” but only during the last half of a tax year. The ownership limits contained in our Articles of Incorporation apply to the ownership at any time by any “person,” which includes entities, and are intended to assist us in complying with the tax law requirements and to minimize administrative burdens. However, these ownership limits might also delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our shareholders.
The stock ownership limit imposed by the Code for REITs and our Articles of Incorporation may impair the ability of holders to convert shares of our outstanding preferred stock into shares of our common stock upon a change of control.
The terms of our outstanding preferred stock provide that, upon occurrence of a change of control (as defined in the Articles of Incorporation), each holder of our outstanding preferred stock will potentially have the right to convert in conjunction with a change in control all or part of such outstanding preferred stock held by such holder into a number of shares of our common stock per share of outstanding preferred stock, respectively, based on formulas set forth in our Articles of Incorporation. However, the stock ownership restrictions in our Articles of Incorporation also restrict ownership of shares of our outstanding preferred stock. As a result, no holder of outstanding preferred stock will be entitled to convert such stock into our common stock to the extent that receipt of our common stock would cause the holder to exceed the ownership limitations contained in our Articles of Incorporation, endanger the tax status of one or more real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”) in which we have or plan to have an interest, or result in the imposition of a direct or indirect penalty tax on us. These provisions may limit the ability of a holder of outstanding preferred stock to convert shares of preferred stock into our common stock upon a change of control, which could adversely affect the market price of shares of our outstanding preferred stock.