Item 1A.    Risk Factors.

        Investing in our common stock involves risks. You should carefully consider the following risk factors, together with all the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, before making an investment decision to purchase our common stock. The realization of any of the following risks could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations and the market price and liquidity of our common stock, which could cause you to lose all or a significant part of your investment in our common stock. Some statements in this Annual Report, including statements in the following risk factors, constitute forward-looking statements. Please refer to the section entitled "Forward-Looking Statements."

Risks Relating to Our Business

The loss of or changes in our relationships with GSEs, HUD and institutional investors would adversely affect our ability to originate commercial real estate loans through GSE and HUD programs, which would materially and adversely affect us.

        Currently, we originate a significant percentage of our loans for sale through GSE or HUD programs. We are approved as a Fannie Mae DUS lender nationwide, a Freddie Mac Program Plus lender in seven states, the District of Columbia and the metropolitan New York area, a HUD MAP lender nationwide, and a Ginnie Mae issuer. Our status as an approved lender affords us a number of advantages and may be terminated by the applicable GSE or HUD at any time. The loss of such status would, or changes in our relationships could, prevent us from being able to originate commercial real estate loans for sale through the particular GSE or HUD, which would materially and adversely affect us. It could also result in a loss of similar approvals from other GSEs or HUD.

        We also originate loans on behalf of certain life insurance companies, investment banks, commercial banks, pension funds and other institutional investors that directly underwrite and provide funding for the loans at closing. In cases where we do not fund the loan, we act as a loan broker. If these investors discontinue their relationship with us and replacement investors cannot be found on a timely basis, we could be adversely affected.

12

Table of Contents

A change to the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related actions, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the U.S. federal government, could materially and adversely affect our business.

        There continues to be substantial uncertainty regarding the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the length of time for which they may continue to exist and in what form they may operate during that period.

        Due to increased market concerns about the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to withstand future credit losses associated with securities on which they provide guarantees and loans held in their investment portfolios without the direct support of the U.S. federal government, in September 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the "FHFA") placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship and, together with the U.S. Treasury, established a program designed to boost investor confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by supporting the availability of mortgage financing and protecting taxpayers. The U.S. government program includes contracts between the U.S. Treasury and each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that seek to ensure that each GSE maintains a positive net worth by providing for the provision of cash by the U.S. Treasury to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if FHFA determines that its liabilities exceed its assets. Although the U.S. government has described some specific steps that it intends to take as part of the conservatorship process, efforts to stabilize these entities may not be successful and the outcome and impact of these events remain highly uncertain. Under the statute providing the framework for the GSE's conservatorship, either or both GSEs could also be placed into receivership under certain circumstances.

        The problems faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac resulting in their placement into conservatorship and their delistings from the New York Stock Exchange have stirred debate among some U.S. federal policymakers regarding the continued role of the U.S. government in providing liquidity for mortgage loans. Future legislation could further change the relationship between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the U.S. government, which could change their business charters or structure, or could nationalize or eliminate such entities entirely. We cannot predict if, or when any such legislation may be enacted.

        In February 2011, as part of the Obama administration's financial industry recovery proposal, the U.S. Treasury, in consultation with HUD and other government agencies, released a white paper, "Reforming America's Housing Finance Market, A Report to Congress," which put forth options to reform America's housing finance market. All options involve an eventual phasing out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The proposals identified a series of short-term modifications to the current government role which are intended to attract greater private capital to the housing market, as the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are wound down and the government's role in the housing finance sector is reduced. The modifications to the long-term structure of the U.S. housing finance system included the following three options presented by the U.S. Treasury:

•

Option 1: dramatically reduce the government's role in insuring or guaranteeing mortgages, limiting it to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and other programs targeted to creditworthy lower and moderate income borrowers; with the majority of mortgage financing coming from the private sector.



•

Option 2: dramatically reduce the government's role in insuring or guaranteeing mortgages, limiting it to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and other programs targeted to creditworthy lower and moderate income borrowers; with a government backstop mechanism to ensure access to credit during a housing crisis.



•

Option 3: dramatically reduce the government's role in insuring or guaranteeing mortgages, limiting it to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and other programs targeted to creditworthy lower and moderate income borrowers; private mortgage guarantor companies

13

Table of Contents

(subject to stringent oversight and capital requirements) would provide guarantees for mortgage-backed-securities, with government reinsurance available for the holders of the securities.

        Each of the above options assumes the continuation and possible expansion of programs operated by FHA to assist targeted borrower groups. The report also states the importance of a careful transition plan and continued financial support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during any transition period.

        Currently, the report and its proposals do not directly address the existing contractual seller/servicer relationships Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have and the impact of anticipated GSE reform on the existing servicing and/or risk-sharing agreements.

        It is widely anticipated that the U.S. Congress will address the administration's white paper and the operations of the GSEs as part of its next major legislative undertaking, although it is not known when, or if, that will occur. In Section 1491 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), signed into law on July 21, 2010, Congress stated that the "hybrid public-private status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is untenable and must be resolved" and, further, "[i]t is the sense of the Congress that efforts to enhance by [sic] the protection, limitation, and regulation of the terms of residential mortgage credit and the practices related to such credit would be incomplete without enactment of meaningful structural reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

        Currently, we originate a substantial majority of our loans for sale through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs. Furthermore, a substantial majority of our servicing rights are derived from loans we sell through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs. Changes in the business charters, structure or existence of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac could eliminate or substantially reduce the number of loans we originate, which would have a material adverse effect on us. We cannot predict the extent to which these recommendations may be implemented, or the timing of when any implementation may occur.

We are subject to risk of loss in connection with defaults on loans sold under the Fannie Mae DUS program that could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity.

        Under the Fannie Mae DUS program, we originate and service multifamily loans for Fannie Mae without having to obtain Fannie Mae's prior approval for certain loans, as long as the loans meet the underwriting guidelines set forth by Fannie Mae. In return for the delegated authority to make loans and the commitment to purchase loans by Fannie Mae, we must maintain minimum collateral and generally are required to share risk of loss on loans sold through Fannie Mae. Under the full risk-sharing formula, we are required to absorb the first 5% of any losses on the unpaid principal balance of a loan, and above 5% we are required to share the loss with Fannie Mae, with our maximum loss capped at 20% of the unpaid principal balance of a loan. Our risk-sharing obligations have been modified and reduced on some Fannie Mae DUS loans. In addition, Fannie Mae can double or triple our risk-sharing obligations if the loan does not meet specific underwriting criteria or if the loan defaults within 12 months of its sale to Fannie Mae. As of December 31, 2010, we had pledged securities of $14.3 million as collateral against future losses under $6.7 billion of Fannie Mae DUS loans outstanding that are subject to risk-sharing obligations, as more fully described under "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources," which we refer to as our "at risk balance." As of December 31, 2010, our allowance for risk-sharing as a percentage of the at risk balance was 0.16%, or $10.9 million, and reflects our current estimate of our future payouts under our risk-sharing obligations. We cannot assure you that our estimate will be sufficient to cover future write offs. While we originate loans that meet the underwriting guidelines defined by Fannie Mae, in addition to our own internal underwriting guidelines, underwriting criteria may not always protect against loan defaults. In addition, commercial real estate values have generally declined in recent years, in some cases to levels below the current

14

Table of Contents

outstanding principal balance of the loan. Also, underwriting standards, including loan-to-value ratios, have become stricter. These factors create a risk that some older loans may not be able to be refinanced at maturity and thus may experience maturity defaults. Other factors may also affect a borrower's decision to default on a loan, such as property, cash flow, occupancy, maintenance needs, and other financing obligations. As of December 31, 2010, our 60 or more days delinquency rate was 0.85% of the Fannie Mae DUS at risk portfolio. If loan defaults continue to increase, actual risk-sharing obligation payments under the Fannie Mae DUS program may increase, and such defaults and payments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and liquidity. In addition, any failure to pay our share of losses under the Fannie Mae DUS program could result in the revocation of our license from Fannie Mae and the exercise of various remedies available to Fannie Mae under the Fannie Mae DUS program.

If we fail to act proactively with delinquent borrowers in an effort to avoid a default, the number of delinquent loans could increase, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

        As a loan servicer, we maintain the primary contact with the borrower throughout the life of the loan and are responsible, pursuant to our servicing agreements with GSEs, HUD and institutional investors, for asset management. We are also responsible, together with the applicable GSE, HUD or institutional investor, for taking actions to mitigate losses. We believe we have developed an extensive asset management process for tracking each loan that we service. However, we may be unsuccessful in identifying loans that are in danger of underperforming or defaulting or in taking appropriate action once those loans are identified. While we can recommend a loss mitigation strategy for GSEs and HUD, decisions regarding loss mitigation are within the control of GSEs and HUD. Recent turmoil in the real estate, credit and capital markets have made this process even more difficult and unpredictable. When loans become delinquent, we incur additional expenses in servicing and asset managing the loan, we are typically required to advance principal and interest payments and tax and insurance escrow amounts, we could be subject to a loss of our contractual servicing fee and we could suffer losses of up to 20% (or more for loans that do not meet specific underwriting criteria or default within 12 months) of the unpaid principal balance of a Fannie Mae DUS loan with full risk-sharing, as well as potential losses on Fannie Mae DUS loans with modified risk-sharing. These items could have a negative impact on our cash flows and a negative effect on the net carrying value of the mortgage servicing right (MSR) on our balance sheet and could result in a charge to our earnings. As a result of the foregoing, a continuing rise in delinquencies could have a material adverse effect on us.

A reduction in the prices paid for our loans and services or an increase in loan or security interest rates by investors could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity.

        Our results of operations and liquidity could be materially and adversely affected if GSEs, HUD or institutional investors lower the price they are willing to pay to us for our loans or services or adversely change the material terms of their loan purchases or service arrangements with us. A number of factors determine the price we receive for our loans. With respect to Fannie Mae related originations, our loans are generally sold as Fannie Mae-insured securities to third-party investors. With respect to HUD related originations, our loans are generally sold as Ginnie Mae securities to third-party investors. In both cases, the price paid to us reflects, in part, the competitive market bidding process for these securities.

        We sell loans directly to Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac may choose to hold, sell or later securitize such loans. We believe terms set by Freddie Mac are influenced by similar market factors as those that impact the price of Fannie Mae-insured or Ginnie Mae securities, although the pricing process differs. With respect to loans that are placed with institutional investors, the origination fees that we receive from borrowers are determined through negotiations, competition and other market conditions.

15

Table of Contents

        Loan servicing fees are based, in part, on the risk-sharing obligations associated with the loan and the market pricing of credit risk. The credit risk premium offered by Fannie Mae for new loans can change periodically but remains fixed once we enter into a commitment to sell the loan. Over the past several years, Fannie Mae loan servicing fees have been higher due to the market pricing of credit risk. There can be no assurance that such fees will continue to remain at such levels or that such levels will be sufficient if delinquencies occur.

        Servicing fees for loans placed with institutional investors are negotiated with each institutional investor pursuant to agreements that we have with them. These fees for new loans vary over time and may be materially and adversely affected by a number of factors, including competitors that may be willing to provide similar services at better rates.

Over the past few years, we have originated mostly multifamily real estate loans that are eligible for sale through GSE or HUD programs. This focus may expose us to greater risk if the CMBS market recovers or alternative sources of liquidity become more readily available to the commercial real estate finance market.

        We originate mostly multifamily real estate loans that are eligible for sale through GSE or HUD programs. Over the past few years, the number of multifamily loans financed by GSE and HUD programs has represented a significantly greater percentage of overall multifamily loan origination volume than in prior years. We believe that this increase is the result, in part, of market dislocation and illiquidity in the secondary markets for non-GSE or HUD loans. To the extent the CMBS market recovers or liquidity in the commercial real estate finance market significantly increases, there may be less demand for loans that are eligible for sale through GSE or HUD programs, and our loan origination volume may be adversely impacted, which could materially and adversely affect us.

A significant portion of our revenue is derived from loan servicing fees, and declines in or terminations of servicing engagements or breaches of servicing agreements, including as a result of non-performance by third parties that we engage for back-office loan servicing functions, could have a material adverse effect on us.

        We expect that loan servicing fees will continue to constitute a significant portion of our revenues for the foreseeable future. Nearly all of these fees are derived from loans that we originate and sell through GSE and HUD programs or place with institutional investors. A decline in the number or value of loans that we originate for these investors or terminations of our servicing engagements will decrease these fees. HUD has the right to terminate our current servicing engagements for cause. In addition to termination for cause, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may terminate our servicing engagements without cause by paying a termination fee. Our institutional investors typically may terminate our servicing engagements at any time with or without cause, without paying a termination fee. We are also subject to losses that may arise as a result of servicing errors, such as a failure to maintain insurance, pay taxes or provide notices. In addition, we have contracted with a third party to perform certain routine back-office aspects of loan servicing. If we or this third party fails to perform, or we breach or the third-party causes us to breach our servicing obligations to GSEs, HUD and institutional investors, our servicing engagements may be terminated. Declines or terminations of servicing engagements or breaches of such obligations could materially and adversely affect us.

If one or more of our warehouse facilities, on which we are highly dependent, are terminated, we may be unable to find replacement financing on favorable terms, or at all, which would have a material adverse effect on us.

        We require a significant amount of funding capacity on an interim basis for loans we originate. As of December 31, 2010, we had $300 million of committed loan funding available through two commercial banks, $250 million of uncommitted funding available through Fannie Mae As Soon As Pooled ("ASAP") program, and an unlimited amount of uncommitted funding available for Freddie Mac loans through Kemps Landing Capital Company, LLC, an affiliate of Guggenheim Partners.

16

Table of Contents

Consistent with industry practice, three of our existing warehouse facilities are short-term, requiring annual renewal. If any of our committed facilities are terminated or are not renewed or our uncommitted facilities are not honored, we may be unable to find replacement financing on favorable terms, or at all, and we might not be able to originate loans, which would have a material adverse effect on us.

        If we fail to meet or satisfy any of the financial or other covenants included in our warehouse facilities, we would be in default under one or more of these facilities and our lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the facilities to be immediately due and payable, enforce their interests against loans pledged under such facilities and restrict our ability to make additional borrowings. These facilities also contain cross-default provisions, such that if a default occurs under any of our debt agreements, generally the lenders under our other debt agreements could also declare a default. These restrictions may interfere with our ability to obtain financing or to engage in other business activities, which could materially and adversely affect us. As of June 30, 2010, we were in breach of a covenant in one of our warehouse facilities that required the delinquency rate of the Fannie Mae loans on which we have risk-sharing to not increase more than 0.5% from quarter-end to quarter-end. Our delinquency rate increased 0.71% from March 31, 2010 to June 30, 2010. The delinquency rate is calculated based on the unpaid principal amount of Fannie Mae DUS loans on which we have risk-sharing that are sixty or more days delinquent. The lenders under this warehouse line waived the breach, and all related cross-defaults were waived. The covenant was subsequently amended to increase the maximum delinquency rate increase to 1% from quarter-end to quarter-end. While we were in compliance with all financial and other covenants included in our warehouse facilities as of December 31, 2010, there can be no assurance that we will not experience another default of this nature in the future.

We are subject to the risk of failed loan deliveries, and even after a successful closing and delivery, may be required to repurchase the loan or to indemnify the investor if we breach a representation or warranty made by us in connection with the sale of the loan through a GSE or HUD program, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us.

        We bear the risk that a borrower will choose not to close on a loan that has been pre-sold to an investor or that the investor will choose not to close on the loan, including because a catastrophic change in the condition of a property occurs after we fund the loan and prior to the investor purchase date. We also have the risk of serious errors in loan documentation which prevent timely delivery of the loan prior to the investor purchase date. A complete failure to deliver a loan could be a default under the warehouse line used to finance the loan. Although we have experienced only one failed delivery in our history, we can provide no assurance that we will not experience additional failed deliveries in the future or that any losses will not be material or will be mitigated through property insurance or payment protections.

        We must make certain representations and warranties concerning each loan originated by us for GSE or HUD programs. The representations and warranties relate to our practices in the origination and servicing of the loans and the accuracy of the information being provided by us. For example, we are generally required to provide the following, among other, representations and warranties: we are authorized to do business and to sell or assign the loan; the loan conforms to the requirements of the GSE or HUD and certain laws and regulations; the underlying mortgage represents a valid lien on the property and there are no other liens on the property; the loan documents are valid and enforceable; taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, rents and similar other payments have been paid or escrowed; the property is insured, conforms to zoning laws and remains intact; and we do not know of any issues regarding the loan that are reasonably expected to cause the loan to be delinquent or unacceptable for investment or adversely affect its value. We are permitted to satisfy certain of these representations and warranties by furnishing a title insurance policy.

17

Table of Contents

        In the event of a breach of any representation or warranty, investors could, among other things, increase the level of risk-sharing on the Fannie Mae DUS loan or require us to repurchase the full amount of the loan and seek indemnification for losses from us. Our obligation to repurchase the loan is independent of our risk-sharing obligations. The GSE or HUD could require us to repurchase the loan if representations and warranties are breached, even if the loan is not in default. Because the accuracy of many such representations and warranties generally is based on our actions or on third-party reports, such as title reports and environmental reports, we may not receive similar representations and warranties from other parties that would serve as a claim against them. Even if we receive representations and warranties from third parties and have a claim against them in the event of a breach, our ability to recover on any such claim may be limited. Our ability to recover against a borrower that breaches its representations and warranties to us may be similarly limited. Our ability to recover on a claim against any party would also be dependent, in part, upon the financial condition and liquidity of such party. Although we believe that we have capable personnel at all levels, use qualified third parties and have established controls to ensure that all loans are originated pursuant to requirements established by the GSEs and HUD, in addition to our own internal requirements, there can be no assurance that we, our employees or third parties will not make mistakes. Although we have never been required to repurchase any loan, there can be no assurance that we will not be required to do so in the future. Any significant repurchase or indemnification obligations imposed on us could have a material adverse effect on us.

We expect to offer new loan products to meet evolving borrower demands, including loans that we originate for our balance sheet. Balance sheet lending would increase our risk of loss, and because we are not as experienced with such loan products, we may not be successful or profitable in offering such products.

        Currently, we do not originate loans for our balance sheet, and all loans are pre-sold or placed with an investor before we close on the loan with the borrower. In the future, we expect to offer new loan products to meet evolving borrower demands, including loans that we originate for our balance sheet. Carrying loans for longer periods of time on our balance sheet would expose us to greater risks of loss than we currently face for loans that are pre-sold or placed with investors, including, without limitation, 100% exposure for defaults, impairment charges and interest rate movements. We may initiate new loan product and service offerings or acquire them through acquisitions of operating businesses. Because we may not be as experienced with new loan products or services, we may require additional time and resources for offering and managing such products and services effectively or may be unsuccessful in offering such new products and services at a profit.

Our business is significantly affected by general business, economic and market conditions and cycles, particularly in the multifamily and commercial real estate industry, including changes in government fiscal and monetary policies, and, accordingly, we could be materially harmed in the event of a continued market downturn or changes in government policies.

        We are sensitive to general business, economic and market conditions and cycles, particularly in the multifamily and commercial real estate industry. These conditions include changes in short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation and deflation, fluctuations in the real estate and debt capital markets and developments in national and local economies, unemployment rates, commercial property vacancy and rental rates. Any sustained period of weakness or weakening business or economic conditions in the markets in which we do business or in related markets could result in a decrease in the demand for our loans and services, which could materially harm us. In addition, the number of borrowers who become delinquent, become subject to bankruptcy laws or default on their loans could increase, resulting in a decrease in the value of our MSRs and servicer advances and higher levels of loss on our Fannie Mae loans for which we share risk of loss, and could materially and adversely affect us.

18

Table of Contents

        We also are significantly affected by the fiscal and monetary policies of the U.S. government and its agencies. We are particularly affected by the policies of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve"), which regulates the supply of money and credit in the United States. The Federal Reserve's policies affect interest rates, which have a significant impact on the demand for commercial real estate loans. Significant fluctuations in interest rates as well as protracted periods of increases or decreases in interest rates could adversely affect the operation and income of multifamily and other commercial real estate properties, as well as the demand from investors for commercial real estate debt in the secondary market. In particular, higher interest rates tend to decrease the number of loans originated. An increase in interest rates could cause refinancing of existing loans to become less attractive and qualifying for a loan to become more difficult. Changes in fiscal and monetary policies are beyond our control, are difficult to predict and could materially and adversely affect us.

We are dependent upon the success of the multifamily real estate sector and conditions that negatively impact the multifamily sector may reduce demand for our products and services and materially and adversely affect us.

        We provide commercial real estate financial products and services primarily to developers and owners of multifamily properties. Accordingly, the success of our business is closely tied to the overall success of the multifamily real estate market. Various changes in real estate conditions may impact the multifamily sector. Any negative trends in such real estate conditions may reduce demand for our products and services and, as a result, adversely affect our results of operations. These conditions include:

•

oversupply of, or a reduction in demand for, multifamily housing;



•

a favorable interest rate environment that may result in a significant number of potential residents of multifamily properties deciding to purchase homes instead of renting;



•

rent control or stabilization laws, or other laws regulating multifamily housing, which could affect the profitability of multifamily developments;



•

the inability of residents and tenants to pay rent;



•

increased competition in the multifamily sector based on considerations such as the attractiveness, location, rental rates, amenities and safety record of various properties; and



•

increased operating costs, including increased real property taxes, maintenance, insurance and utilities costs.

        Moreover, other factors may adversely affect the multifamily sector, including changes in government regulations and other laws, rules and regulations governing real estate, zoning or taxes, changes in interest rate levels, the potential liability under environmental and other laws and other unforeseen events. Any or all of these factors could negatively impact the multifamily sector and, as a result, reduce the demand for our products and services. Any such reduction could materially and adversely affect us.

For most loans that we service under the Fannie Mae and HUD programs, we are required to advance payments due to investors if the borrower is delinquent in making such payments, which requirement could adversely impact our liquidity and harm our results of operations.

        For most loans we service under the Fannie Mae DUS program, we are currently required to advance the principal and interest payments and tax and insurance escrow amounts up to 5% of the unpaid principal balance if the borrower is delinquent in making loan payments. Once the 5% threshold is met, we can apply to Fannie Mae to have the advance rate reduced to 25% of any

19

Table of Contents

additional principal and interest payments and tax and insurance escrow amounts, which Fannie Mae may approve at its discretion. We are reimbursed by Fannie Mae for these advances in the event the loan is brought current. In the event of a default, any advances made by us are used to reduce the proceeds required to settle any loss. Our advances may also be reimbursed, to the extent that the default settlement proceeds on the collateral exceed the unpaid principal balance.

        Under the HUD program, we are obligated to continue to advance principal and interest payments and tax and insurance escrow amounts on Ginnie Mae securities until the HUD mortgage insurance claim and the Ginnie Mae security have been fully paid. In the event of a default on a HUD insured loan, HUD will reimburse approximately 99% of any losses of principal and interest on the loan and Ginnie Mae will reimburse the remaining losses of principal and interest. Ginnie Mae is currently considering a change to its programs that would eliminate the Ginnie Mae obligation to reimburse us for any losses not paid by HUD in return for our receiving an increased servicing fee. It is uncertain whether these changes will be implemented. An elimination of Ginnie Mae's reimbursement obligation could adversely impact us.

        Although we have funded all required advances from operating cash flow in the past, there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so in the future. If we do not have sufficient operating cash flows to fund such advances, we would need to finance such amounts. Such financing could be costly and could prevent us from pursuing our business and growth strategies.

If we securitize our loans in the future, we will be subject to additional risks that we do not currently face.

        Although some of our loans back Fannie Mae-insured or Ginnie Mae securities, we currently do not directly securitize the loans that we originate. Securitizing our loans would subject us to numerous additional risks, including:

•

delayed operating cash flows;



•

conditions in the general securities and securitization markets;



•

the need to obtain satisfactory credit enhancements;



•

retention of credit enhancing residual interests;



•

increased potential for earnings fluctuations; and



•

risk of mismatch between securitization yields and borrowing rates on our warehouse and other loan funding debt.

        If we were to securitize our loans, we would have to adequately address these and other related risks. Our failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on us.

The requirements associated with being a public company, which will require us to implement significant control systems and procedures, require significant company resources and management attention.

        As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act"). The Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition and performance within specified time periods and maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting within specified deadlines. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that our management evaluate, and our independent registered public accountant report on, our internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. We will be required to complete our initial internal controls assessment by the time of the filing of our Form 10-K for our fiscal year ending December 31, 2011. As a result, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur prior to the time we became

20

Table of Contents

subject to the requirements of the Exchange Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We have made, and will continue to make, changes to our corporate governance standards, disclosure controls, internal control over financial reporting and financial reporting and accounting systems designed to meet our reporting obligations on a timely basis, including the timely filing of Exchange Act reports. However, if the measures we take are not sufficient to satisfy our obligations, we may incur further costs and experience continued diversion of management attention, adverse reputational effects and possible regulatory sanctions or civil litigation.

The loss of our key management could result in a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

        Our future success depends to a significant extent on the continued services of our senior management, particularly Mr. Walker, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Howard Smith III, our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Richard Warner, our Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer. The loss of the services of any of these individuals could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. We only maintain "key person" life insurance on Mr. Walker.

We may not be able to hire and retain qualified loan originators or grow and maintain our relationships with key loan correspondents, and if we are unable to do so, our ability to implement our business and growth strategies could be limited.

        We depend on our loan originators to generate borrower clients by, among other things, developing relationships with commercial property owners, real estate agents and brokers, developers and others, which we believe leads to repeat and referral business. Accordingly, we must be able to attract, motivate and retain skilled loan originators. We currently employ approximately 30 loan originators throughout our eight offices. The market for loan originators is highly competitive and may lead to increased costs to hire and retain them. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to attract or retain qualified loan originators. If we cannot attract, motivate or retain a sufficient number of skilled loan originators, or even if we can motivate or retain them but at higher costs, we could be materially and adversely affected.

        We also depend on our network of loan correspondents, who generate a significant portion of our loan originations. During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, correspondents generated 51% and 40%, respectively, of the loans that we originated during those periods. Unlike our loan originators, correspondents are not directly employed by us but are paid a percentage of the origination fee and the ongoing servicing fee for each loan that they help originate. In addition, although we have an exclusive relationship with our correspondents with respect to GSE and HUD loan products, we do not have an exclusive arrangement for any other loan products. While we strive to cultivate long-standing relationships that generate repeat business for us by making available co-marketing materials and educational resources to them, correspondents are free to transact business with other lenders and have done so in the past and will do so in the future. Our competitors also have relationships with some of our correspondents and actively compete with us in our efforts to expand our correspondent networks. Competition for loans originated by correspondents was particularly acute when the CMBS market was more robust. Although recent difficulties in the CMBS market have increased demand for GSE and HUD loans, we cannot guarantee that correspondents will continue to provide a strong source of originations for us if and when the CMBS market recovers. We also cannot guarantee that we will be able to maintain or develop new relationships with additional correspondents. If we cannot maintain and enhance our existing relationships and develop new relationships, particularly in geographic areas, specialties or niche markets where our loan originators are not as experienced or well-situated, our growth strategy will be significantly hampered and we would be materially and adversely affected.

21

Table of Contents

We have numerous significant competitors and potential future competitors, many of which may have greater resources and access to capital than we do, and we may not be able to compete effectively in the future.

        We face significant competition across our business, including, but not limited to, commercial banks, commercial real estate service providers and life insurance companies, some of which are also investors in loans we originate. Many of these competitors enjoy competitive advantages over us, including:

•

greater name recognition;



•

a stronger, more established network of correspondents and loan originators;



•

established relationships with institutional investors;



•

an established market presence in markets where we do not yet have a presence or where we have a smaller presence;



•

ability to diversify and grow by providing a greater variety of commercial real estate loan products on more attractive terms, some of which require greater access to capital and the ability to retain loans on the balance sheet; and



•

greater financial resources and access to capital to develop branch offices and compensate key employees.

        Commercial banks may have an advantage over us in originating loans if borrowers already have a line of credit with the bank. Commercial real estate service providers may have an advantage over us to the extent they also offer an investment sales platform. We compete on the basis of quality of service, relationships, loan structure, terms, pricing and industry depth. Industry depth includes the knowledge of local and national real estate market conditions, commercial real estate, loan product expertise and the ability to analyze and manage credit risk. Our competitors seek to compete aggressively on the basis of these factors and our success depends on our ability to offer attractive loan products, provide superior service, demonstrate industry depth, maintain and capitalize on relationships with investors, borrowers and key loan correspondents and remain competitive in pricing. In addition, future changes in laws, regulations and GSE and HUD program requirements and consolidation in the commercial real estate finance market could lead to the entry of more competitors. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to compete effectively in the future, and our failure to do so would materially and adversely affect us.

The continuation of certain indemnification obligations of certain of our predecessors could have a material adverse effect on us.

        In connection with the Column transaction, certain predecessor entities that became our wholly owned subsidiaries through the Formation Transaction agreed to indemnify Walker & Dunlop, LLC and its members (including Column) for certain matters, including (i) breaches of representations, warranties and covenants, (ii) any repurchase requirements with respect to loans originated by those subsidiaries, and (iii) liabilities in connection with excluded assets and excluded liabilities. Those indemnification obligations of our subsidiaries will continue following the Formation Transaction. The survival of those obligations will permit the indemnified parties, including Column, to the extent that they sustain damages resulting from any indemnified matter, to assert claims for indemnification against our subsidiaries for the survival period of those obligations. While we are unaware of any potential claims for indemnification against our subsidiaries, any such claims could have a material adverse effect on us.

22

Table of Contents

We have experienced significant growth over the past several years, which may be difficult to sustain and which may place significant demands on our administrative, operational and financial resources.

        Our recent significant growth may not reflect our future growth potential, and we may not be able to maintain similarly high levels of growth in the future. Our recent growth reflects, in part, the acquisition of certain mortgage banking operations from Column in January 2009, which contributed $5.0 billion to our servicing portfolio and expanded our product lines as well as origination capacity. Much of our growth has also occurred since the onset of the 2008 credit crisis and the resulting tightening of credit standards, as many traditional lenders decreased or ceased their investments in commercial real estate debt. As a result, borrowers looked instead to GSEs, HUD and other sources of lending for multifamily loans. We intend to pursue continued growth by adding more loan originators, expanding our loan product offerings and acquiring complementary businesses, as appropriate, but we cannot guarantee such efforts will be successful. We do not know whether the favorable conditions that enabled our recent growth will continue. Because our recent significant growth is not likely to accurately reflect our future growth or our ability to grow in the future, there can be no assurance that we will continue to grow at the same pace or achieve the same financial results as we have in the past.

        In addition, if our growth continues, it could increase our expenses and place additional demands on our management, personnel, information systems and other resources. Sustaining our growth will require us to commit additional management, operational and financial resources to maintain appropriate operational and financial systems to adequately support expansion. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage any growth effectively and any failure to do so could adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and control our expenses, which could materially and adversely affect us.

If we acquire companies in the future, we may experience high transaction and integration costs, the integration process may be disruptive to our business and the acquired businesses may not perform as we expect.

        Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to expand or modify our business in response to changing borrower demands and competitive pressures. In some circumstances, we may determine to do so through the acquisition of complementary businesses rather than through internal growth. The identification of suitable acquisition candidates can be difficult, time consuming and costly, and we may not be able to successfully complete identified acquisitions on favorable terms, or at all. Furthermore, even if we successfully complete an acquisition, we may not be able to successfully integrate newly acquired businesses into our operations, and the process of integration could be expensive and time consuming and may strain our resources. Acquisitions also typically involve significant costs related to integrating information technology, accounting, reporting and management services and rationalizing personnel levels and may require significant time to obtain new or updated regulatory approvals from GSEs, HUD and other authorities. Acquisitions could divert management's attention from the regular operations of our business and result in the potential loss of our key personnel, and we may not achieve the anticipated benefits of the acquisitions, any of which could materially and adversely affect us. In addition, future acquisitions could result in significantly dilutive issuances of equity securities or the incurrence of substantial debt, contingent liabilities or expenses or other charges, which could also materially and adversely affect us.

23

Table of Contents

Risks Relating to Regulatory Matters

If we fail to comply with the numerous government regulations and program requirements of GSEs and HUD, we may lose our approved lender status with these entities and fail to gain additional approvals or licenses for our business. We are also subject to changes in laws, regulations and existing GSE and HUD program requirements, including potential increases in reserve and risk retention requirements that could increase our costs and affect the way we conduct our business, which could materially and adversely affect us.

        Our operations are subject to regulation by federal, state and local government authorities, various laws and judicial and administrative decisions, and regulations and policies of GSEs and HUD. These laws, regulations, rules and policies impose, among other things, minimum net worth, operational liquidity and collateral requirements. Fannie Mae requires us to maintain operational liquidity based on a formula that considers the balance of the loan and the level of credit loss exposure (level of risk-sharing). Fannie Mae requires Fannie Mae DUS lenders to maintain collateral, which may include pledged securities, for our risk-sharing obligations. The amount of collateral required under the Fannie Mae DUS program is calculated at the loan level and is based on the balance of the loan, the level of risk-sharing, the seasoning of the loans and the rating of the Fannie Mae DUS lender.

        Regulatory authorities also require us to submit financial reports and to maintain a quality control plan for the underwriting, origination and servicing of loans. Numerous laws and regulations also impose qualification and licensing obligations on us and impose requirements and restrictions affecting, among other things: our loan originations; maximum interest rates, finance charges and other fees that we may charge; disclosures to consumers; the terms of secured transactions; collection, repossession and claims handling procedures; personnel qualifications; and other trade practices. We also are subject to inspection by GSEs, HUD and regulatory authorities. Our failure to comply with these requirements could lead to, among other things, the loss of a license as an approved GSE or HUD lender, the inability to gain additional approvals or licenses, the termination of contractual rights without compensation, demands for indemnification or loan repurchases, class action lawsuits and administrative enforcement actions.

        Regulatory and legal requirements are subject to change. For example, Fannie Mae has recently increased its collateral requirements, on loans classified by Fannie Mae as Tier II, from 35 basis points to 60 basis points, effective as of January 1, 2011, which applies to approximately 73% of our outstanding Fannie Mae at risk portfolio at December 31, 2010. The incremental collateral required for existing loans will be funded over approximately the next three years in accordance with Fannie Mae requirements. The incremental requirement for any newly originated Fannie Mae Tier II loans will be funded over the 36 months subsequent to the sale of the loan to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae also has indicated that it intends to reassess the adequacy of its collateral requirements on an annual basis, starting as of October 2011. New and existing loans in other Fannie Mae tier classifications will have no change in collateral requirements, at this time. Ginnie Mae has indicated that it is currently considering a change to its programs that would eliminate the Ginnie Mae obligation to reimburse us for any losses not paid by HUD in return for our receiving an increased servicing fee, although it is uncertain whether these changes will be implemented. In addition, Congress has also been considering proposals requiring lenders to retain a portion of all loans sold to GSEs and HUD. The Dodd-Frank Act imposes a requirement that lenders retain "not less than 5 percent of the credit risk" of certain securitized loans, particularly those that are not "qualified residential mortgages." It is currently unclear whether and how the Dodd-Frank Act will apply to commercial real estate lenders. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal banking agencies, the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC"), HUD, and FHFA to issue rules implementing this requirement no later than 270 days after Dodd-Frank's enactment. It also requires the federal banking agencies, the FTC, HUD, and FHFA to issue a joint rule defining a "qualified residential mortgage." Therefore, the applicability of this provision to us and its effect upon our business will not be fully known until these agencies issue the joint rule. It is also impossible to predict any future legislation that Congress may enact regarding the selling of loans to GSEs or any

24

Table of Contents

other matter relating to GSEs or loan securitizations. GSEs, HUD and other investors may also change underwriting criteria, which could affect the volume and value of loans that we originate. Changes to regulatory and legal requirements could be difficult and expensive with which to comply and could affect the way we conduct our business, which could materially and adversely affect us.

If we do not obtain and maintain the appropriate state licenses, we will not be allowed to originate or service commercial real estate loans in some states, which could materially and adversely affect us.

        State mortgage loan finance licensing laws vary considerably. Most states and the District of Columbia impose a licensing obligation to originate, broker or purchase commercial real estate loans. Many of those mortgage loan licensing laws also impose a licensing obligation to service commercial real estate loans. If we are unable to obtain the appropriate state licenses or do not qualify for an exemption, we could be materially and adversely affected.

        If these licenses are obtained, state regulators impose additional ongoing obligations on licensees, such as maintaining certain minimum net worth or line of credit requirements. The minimum net worth requirement varies from state to state. Further, in limited instances, the net worth calculation may not include recourse on any contingent liabilities. If we do not meet these minimum net worth or line of credit requirements or satisfy other criteria, regulators may revoke or suspend our licenses and prevent us from continuing to originate, broker or service commercial real estate loans, which would materially and adversely affect us.

If we fail to comply with laws, regulations and market standards regarding the privacy, use and security of customer information, we may be subject to legal and regulatory actions and our reputation would be harmed.

        We receive, maintain and store the non-public personal information of our loan applicants. The technology and other controls and processes designed to secure our customer information and to prevent, detect and remedy any unauthorized access to that information were designed to obtain reasonable, not absolute, assurance that such information is secure and that any unauthorized access is identified and addressed appropriately. Accordingly, such controls may not have detected, and may in the future fail to prevent or detect, unauthorized access to our borrower information. If this information is inappropriately accessed and used by a third party or an employee for illegal purposes, such as identity theft, we may be responsible to the affected applicant or borrower for any losses he or she may have incurred as a result of misappropriation. In such an instance, we may be liable to a governmental authority for fines or penalties associated with a lapse in the integrity and security of our customers' information.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The trading and market price of our common stock may be volatile and could decline substantially.

        The stock markets, including the NYSE (on which our common stock is listed), have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. As a result, the trading and market price of our common stock is likely to be similarly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations, and investors in our common stock may experience a decrease in the value of their shares, including decreases unrelated to our operating performance. The market price of our common stock could decline substantially in response to a number of factors, including those listed in this "Risk Factors" section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and others such as:

•

our actual or anticipated financial condition, liquidity and operating performance;



•

actual or anticipated changes in our business and growth strategies or the success of their implementation;



•

failure to meet, or changes in, our earnings estimates or those of stock analysts;

25

Table of Contents

•

publication of research reports about us, the commercial real estate finance market or the real estate industry;



•

equity issuances by us, or stock resales by our stockholders, or the perception that such issuances or resales could occur;



•

the passage of adverse legislation or other regulatory developments, including those from or affecting GSEs or HUD;



•

general business, economic and market conditions and cycles;



•

changes in market valuations of similar companies;



•

additions to or departures of our key personnel;



•

actions by our stockholders;



•

actual, potential or perceived accounting problems or changes in accounting principles;



•

failure to satisfy the listing requirements of the New York Stock Exchange;



•

failure to comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;



•

speculation in the press or investment community;



•

the realization of any of the other risk factors presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K; and



•

general market and economic conditions.

        In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of their common stock. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management's attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to execute our business and growth strategies.

Future issuances of debt securities, which would rank senior to our common stock upon our liquidation, and future issuances of equity securities, which would dilute the holdings of our existing common stockholders and may be senior to our common stock for the purposes of paying dividends, periodically or upon liquidation, may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.

        In the future, we may issue debt or equity securities or incur other borrowings. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and other loans and preferred stock will receive a distribution of our available assets before common stockholders. We are not required to offer any such additional debt or equity securities to existing common stockholders on a preemptive basis. Therefore, additional common stock issuances, directly or through convertible or exchangeable securities, warrants or options, will dilute our existing common stockholders' ownership in us and such issuances, or the perception that such issuances may occur, may reduce the market price of our common stock. Our preferred stock, if issued, would likely have a preference on dividend payments, periodically or upon liquidation, which could eliminate or otherwise limit our ability to pay dividends to common stockholders. Because our decision to issue debt or equity securities or otherwise incur debt in the future will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, nature or success of our future capital raising efforts. Thus, common stockholders bear the risk that our future issuances of debt or equity securities or our other borrowing will negatively affect the market price of our common stock and dilute their ownership in us.

We do not expect to pay dividends in the foreseeable future.

        We currently intend to retain all future earnings for the operation and expansion of our business and, therefore, do not anticipate declaring or paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future. The payment of any dividends in the future will be at the sole discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our results of operations, liquidity, financial condition, prospects, capital requirements and

26

Table of Contents

contractual arrangements, any limitations on payments of dividends present in any of our future financing documentation, applicable law and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant. If we do not pay dividends, a return on your investment will only occur if our stock price appreciates.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control.

        Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law (the "MGCL") may have the effect of deterring a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change in control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock. We will be subject to the "business combination" provisions of the MGCL that, subject to limitations, prohibit certain business combinations (including a merger, consolidation, share exchange, or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities) between us and an "interested stockholder" (defined generally as any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of our then outstanding voting capital stock or an affiliate or associate of ours who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of our then outstanding voting capital stock) or an affiliate thereof for five years after the most recent date on which the stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. After the five-year prohibition, any business combination between us and an interested stockholder generally must be recommended by our board of directors and approved by the affirmative vote of at least (i) 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of outstanding shares of our voting capital stock; and (ii) two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting capital stock of the corporation other than shares held by the interested stockholder with whom or with whose affiliate the business combination is to be effected or held by an affiliate or associate of the interested stockholder. These super-majority vote requirements do not apply if our common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under Maryland law, for their shares in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder for its shares. These provisions of the MGCL do not apply, however, to business combinations that are approved or exempted by a board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder.

        The "control share" provisions of the MGCL provide that "control shares" of a Maryland corporation (defined as shares which, when aggregated with other shares controlled by the stockholder (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy) entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a "control share acquisition" (defined as the direct and indirect acquisition of ownership or control of issued and outstanding "control shares") have no voting rights except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding votes entitled to be cast by the acquirer of control shares, our officers and our personnel who are also our directors.

        Certain provisions of the MGCL permit our board of directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to adopt certain mechanisms, some of which (for example, a classified board) we do not yet have. These provisions may have the effect of limiting or precluding a third party from making an acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control of our company under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price. Our charter contains a provision whereby we elect, at such time as we become eligible to do so, to be subject to the provisions of Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL relating to the filling of vacancies on our board of directors.

27

Table of Contents

Our authorized but unissued shares of common and preferred stock may prevent a change in our control.

        Our charter authorizes us to issue additional authorized but unissued shares of common or preferred stock. In addition, our board of directors may, without stockholder approval, amend our charter to increase the aggregate number of shares of our common stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have authority to issue and classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common or preferred stock and set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board of directors may establish a class or series of common or preferred stock that could delay, defer, or prevent a transaction or a change in control of our company that might involve a premium price for shares of our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event actions are taken that are not in your best interests.

        Under Maryland law generally, a director is required to perform his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the Company and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. Under Maryland law, directors are presumed to have acted with this standard of care. In addition, our charter limits the liability of our directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

•

actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services; or



•

active and deliberate dishonesty by the director or officer that was established by a final judgment as being material to the cause of action adjudicated.

        Our charter and bylaws obligate us to indemnify our directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. In addition, we are obligated to advance the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist absent the current provisions in our charter and bylaws or that might exist with companies domiciled in jurisdictions other than Maryland.

Our charter contains provisions that make removal of our directors difficult, which could make it difficult for our stockholders to effect changes to our management.

        Our charter provides that a director may only be removed for cause upon the affirmative vote of holders of two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast in the election of directors. Vacancies may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may delay, defer or prevent a change in control of our company that is in the best interests of our stockholders.

We are a holding company with no direct operations and rely on funds received from our subsidiaries for our cash requirements.

        We are a holding company and conduct all of our operations through Walker & Dunlop, LLC, our operating company. We do not have, apart from our ownership of this operating company, any independent operations. As a result, we rely on distributions from our operating company to pay any dividends we might declare on shares of our common stock. We also rely on distributions from this operating company to meet any of our cash requirements, including tax liability on taxable income allocated to us.

        In addition, because we are a holding company, your claims as common stockholders are structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities (whether or not for borrowed money) and any preferred equity of our operating company. Therefore, in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation

28

Table of Contents

or reorganization, our assets and those of our operating company will be able to satisfy the claims of our common stockholders only after all of our and our operating company's liabilities and any preferred equity have been paid in full.

Our principal stockholders, directors and executive officers own a large percentage of our common stock, which will allow them to exercise significant influence over matters subject to stockholder approval.

        Our executive officers, directors and stockholders holding 5% or more of our outstanding common stock beneficially own or control approximately 57.9% of the outstanding shares of our common stock as of December 31, 2010, on a fully diluted basis. Accordingly, these executive officers, directors and principal stockholders, collectively, will have substantial influence over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets or any other significant corporate transaction. These stockholders may also delay or prevent a change of control or otherwise discourage a potential acquirer from attempting to obtain control of us, even if such a change of control would benefit our other stockholders. Furthermore, we have agreed to nominate one Column designee, currently Edmund Taylor, for election as director at our 2011 annual meeting of stockholders. William Walker, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mallory Walker, the father of William Walker and the former Chairman of Walker & Dunlop, LLC, have agreed to vote the shares of common stock owned by them for the Column designee at the 2011 annual meeting of stockholders. This significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the market price and liquidity of our common stock due to investors' perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise.