Item 1A.    Risk Factors

RISK FACTORS

         You should carefully consider these risk factors, together with all of the other information included in this annual report, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto, before you decide whether to make an investment in our securities. The risks set out below are not the only risks we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and/or operating results. If any of the following events occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In such case, the value of our common stock and the trading price of our securities could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR MANAGER AND ITS AFFILIATES

Our future success depends on our Manager, its key personnel and their access to the investment professionals of Ares Management. We may not find a suitable replacement for our Manager if our management agreement is terminated, or if such key personnel or investment professionals leave the employment of our Manager or Ares Management or otherwise become unavailable to us.

        ACRE does not employ any personnel; we rely on the resources of our Manager to manage our day-to-day operations (other than the operations of our TRS, ACRE Capital, which has employees that provide certain services in connection with our mortgage banking business). We rely completely on our Manager to provide us with investment advisory services

        Our executive officers also serve as officers of our Manager. Our Manager has significant discretion as to the implementation of our investment and operating policies and strategies. Accordingly, we believe that our success depends to a significant extent upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the officers and key personnel of our Manager. The officers and key personnel of our Manager evaluate, negotiate, close and monitor our investments; therefore, our success depends on their continued service. The departure of any of the officers or key personnel of our Manager could have a material adverse effect on our business.

        Our Manager is not obligated to dedicate any specific personnel exclusively to us. None of our officers are obligated to dedicate any specific portion of their time to our business. Each of them has significant responsibilities for other investment vehicles managed by affiliates of Ares Management. As a result, these individuals may not always be able to devote sufficient time to the management of our business. Further, when there are turbulent conditions in the real estate markets or distress in the credit markets, the attention of our Manager's personnel and our executive officers and the resources of Ares Management will also be required by other investment vehicles managed by affiliates of Ares Management.

        In addition, we offer no assurance that our Manager will remain our investment manager or that we will continue to have access to our Manager's officers and key personnel. The initial term of our management agreement with our Manager expires on May 1, 2015, and will be automatically renewed for one-year terms thereafter. Furthermore, our Manager may decline to renew the management agreement with 180 days' written notice. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to execute our investment strategy.

        We also depend on the diligence, skill and network of business contacts of key personnel of the Ares Management Direct Lending Group and access to the investment professionals of other groups within Ares Management and the information and deal flow generated by Ares Management's investment professionals in the course of their investment and portfolio management activities. The departure of any of these individuals, or of a significant number of the investment professionals or partners of Ares Management, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition

33

Table of Contents

or results of operations. We cannot assure you that we will continue to have access to Ares Management's investment professionals or its information and deal flow.

Our growth depends on the ability of our Manager to make investments on favorable terms that satisfy our investment strategy and otherwise generate attractive risk-adjusted returns initially and consistently from time to time.

        Our ability to achieve our investment objectives depends on our ability to grow, which depends, in turn, on the management and investment teams of our Manager and their ability to identify and to make investments on favorable terms in our target investments as well as on our access to financing on acceptable terms. The demands on the time of the professional staff of our Manager will increase as our portfolio grows, and we cannot assure you that our Manager will be able to hire, train, supervise, manage and retain new officers and employees to manage future growth effectively, and any such failure could have a material adverse effect on our business.

There are various conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager and Ares Management that could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our stockholders.

        We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationship with our Manager and Ares Management. In the future, we may enter into additional transactions with Ares Management or its affiliates. In particular, we may invest in, acquire, sell assets to or provide financing to portfolio companies of investment vehicles managed by Ares Management or its affiliates or co-invest with, purchase assets from, sell assets to, or arrange financing from any such investment vehicles and their portfolio companies. Any such transactions will require approval by a majority of our independent directors. There can be no assurance that any procedural protections will be sufficient to ensure that these transactions will be made on terms that will be at least as favorable to us as those that would have been obtained in an arm's-length transaction. In addition, to the extent we co-invest with other investment vehicles that are managed by affiliates of Ares Management, we will not be responsible for fees other than as set forth in our management agreement, except our proportionate share of fees charged by the managers of such other investment vehicles if approved by a majority of our independent directors.

        Our Manager and Ares Management have agreed that for so long as our Manager is managing us, neither Ares Management nor any of its affiliates will sponsor or manage any other U.S. publicly traded REIT that invests primarily in the same asset classes as us. Ares Management and its affiliates may sponsor or manage another U.S. publicly traded REIT that invests generally in real estate assets but not primarily in our target investments.

        Other than as set forth herein, neither Ares Management nor any of its affiliates (including our Manager) currently manages any other investment vehicle that primarily focuses on our target investments and none of them have any current plans to do so, but they may in the future sponsor or manage other funds or investment vehicles (other than U.S. publicly traded REITs) that invest in our target investments. Our Manager manages certain funds and real estate assets that were previously managed by Wrightwood Capital LLC, or "Wrightwood." Ares Management acquired the investment platform of Wrightwood, a provider of debt capital to the U.S. CRE sector, in August 2011. None of the Wrightwood vehicles will be making any further investments (other than follow-on investments in existing investments and additional fundings pursuant to existing commitments).

        Ares Management has an investment allocation policy in place that is intended to enable us to share equitably with any other investment vehicles that are managed by Ares Management. In general, investment opportunities are allocated taking into consideration various factors, including, among others, the relevant investment vehicles' available capital, their investment objectives or strategies, their risk profiles and their existing or prior positions in an issuer/security, as well as potential conflicts of

34

Table of Contents

interest, the nature of the opportunity and market conditions. The investment allocation policy may be amended by our Manager and Ares Management at any time without our consent.

        Certain former Wrightwood personnel who are members of the Ares Management Real Estate Group own equity, partnership, profits or other similar interests in Wrightwood and certain of its investment vehicles. The ownership of such interests may be viewed as creating a conflict of interest insofar as such persons may receive greater benefits, by virtue of such interests, than they would receive from our Manager.

        In addition to the fees payable to our Manager under the management agreement, our Manager and its affiliates may benefit from other fees paid to it in respect of our investments. For example, if we seek to securitize our CRE loans, Ares Management and/or our Manager, may act as collateral manager. In any of these or other capacities, Ares Management and/or our Manager may receive market-based fees for their roles, but only if approved by a majority of our independent directors.

The ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities may reduce the time our Manager spends managing our business and may result in certain conflicts of interest.

        Certain of our officers and directors, and the officers and other personnel of our Manager, also serve or may serve as officers, directors or partners of Ares Management, as well as Ares Management sponsored investment vehicles, including new affiliated potential pooled investment vehicles or managed accounts not yet established, whether managed or sponsored by Ares Management's affiliates or our Manager. Accordingly, the ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities may reduce the time our Manager spends managing our business. These activities could be viewed as creating a conflict of interest insofar as the time and effort of the professional staff of our Manager and its officers and employees will not be devoted exclusively to the business of the Company; instead it will be allocated between the business of the Company and the management of these other investment vehicles.

        In the course of our investing activities, we will pay base management fees to our Manager and will reimburse our Manager for certain expenses it incurs. As a result, investors in our common stock will invest on a "gross" basis and receive distributions on a "net" basis after expenses, resulting in, among other things, a lower rate of return than one might achieve through direct investments. As a result of this arrangement, our Manager's interests may be less aligned with our interests.

The management agreement with our Manager was not negotiated on an arm's-length basis and may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

        ACRE does not employ any personnel and we rely completely on our Manager to provide us with investment advisory services. Our executive officers also serve as officers of our Manager. Our management agreement with our Manager was negotiated between related parties and its terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if it had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

        We will pay our Manager substantial base management fees regardless of the performance of our portfolio. Our Manager's entitlement to a base management fee, which is not based upon performance metrics or goals, might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking investments that provide attractive risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio. This in turn could hurt both our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the market price of our common stock.

35

Table of Contents

Terminating the management agreement for unsatisfactory performance of the Manager or electing not to renew the management agreement may be difficult and terminating the agreement in certain circumstances requires payment of a substantial termination fee.

        Termination of the management agreement with our Manager without cause is difficult and costly. Our independent directors will review our Manager's performance and the management fees annually and, upon 180 days' written notice prior to the expiration of the initial three-year term that expires on May 1, 2015, or any renewal term, the management agreement may be terminated upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors based upon: (a) our Manager's unsatisfactory performance that is materially detrimental to us; or (b) a determination that the management fees payable to our Manager are not fair, subject to our Manager's right to prevent termination based on unfair fees by accepting a reduction of management fees agreed to by at least two-thirds of our independent directors. Additionally, upon any such termination, the management agreement provides that we will pay our Manager a termination fee equal to three times the sum of the average annual base management fee and incentive fee received by our Manager during the 24-month period before such termination, calculated as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal quarter. This provision increases the cost to us of terminating the management agreement and adversely affects our ability to terminate our Manager without cause.

        During the initial three-year term of the management agreement, we may not terminate the management agreement except for cause.

Our Manager's contractual commitment to manage us is limited to the initial three-year term of the management agreement.

        Our Manager is only contractually committed to serve us until May 1, 2015. Thereafter, the management agreement automatically renews for one-year terms if our Manager has not elected to terminate the management agreement upon 180 days' written notice prior to the expiration of the then-current term. If the management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us, we may not be able to execute our investment strategy.

The incentive fee payable to our Manager under the management agreement may cause our Manager to select investments in riskier assets to increase its incentive compensation.

        Our Manager is entitled to receive incentive compensation based upon our achievement of targeted levels of Core Earnings. "Core Earnings" is defined in our management agreement as GAAP net income (loss) computed in accordance with GAAP, excluding non-cash equity compensation expense, the incentive fee, depreciation and amortization (to the extent that any of our target investments are structured as debt and we foreclose on any properties underlying such debt), any unrealized gains, losses or other non-cash items recorded in net income (loss) for the period, regardless of whether such items are included in other comprehensive income or loss, or in net income (loss), and one-time events pursuant to changes in GAAP and certain non-cash charges after discussions between our Manager and our independent directors and after approval by a majority of our independent directors. For purposes of calculating the incentive fee prior to the completion of a 12-month, Core Earnings is calculated on the basis of the number of days that our management agreement has been in effect on an annualized basis. No incentive fees were earned for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation based on Core Earnings may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of Core Earnings at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative. This could result in increased risk to the value of our investment portfolio.

36

Table of Contents

Our Manager manages our portfolio in accordance with very broad investment guidelines and our board of directors does not approve each investment and financing decision made by our Manager, which may result in our making riskier investments than those currently comprising our investment portfolio.

        While our directors periodically review our investment portfolio, they do not review all of our proposed investments. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our directors may rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Our investment guidelines may be changed from time to time. Furthermore, our Manager may use complex strategies and transactions entered into by our Manager that may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our directors. Our Manager has great latitude in determining the types of assets that are proper investments for us, which could result in investment returns that are substantially below expectations or that result in losses, which would materially and adversely affect our business operations and results. In addition, our Manager is not subject to any limits or proportions with respect to the mix of target investments that we originate or acquire other than as necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT and our exemption from registration under the 1940 Act. Decisions made and investments entered into by our Manager may not fully reflect your best interests.

Our Manager may change its investment process, or elect not to follow it, without stockholder consent at any time, which may adversely affect our investments.

        Our Manager may change its investment process without stockholder consent at any time. In addition, there can be no assurance that our Manager will follow its investment process in relation to the identification and underwriting of prospective investments. Changes in our Manager's investment process may result in inferior, among other things, due diligence and underwriting standards, which may adversely affect the performance of our portfolio.

We do not have a policy that expressly prohibits our directors, officers, stockholders or affiliates from engaging for their own account in business activities of the types conducted by us.

        We do not have a policy that expressly prohibits our directors, officers, stockholders or affiliates from engaging for their own account in business activities of the types conducted by us. However, our code of business conduct and ethics contains a conflicts of interest policy that prohibits our directors, officers and employees from engaging in any transaction that involves an actual conflict of interest with us without the approval of the audit committee of our board of directors. In addition, our management agreement with our Manager does not prevent our Manager and its affiliates from engaging in additional management or investment opportunities, some of which could compete with us, and our code of business conduct and ethics acknowledges that such activities shall not be deemed a conflict of interest.

Our Manager is subject to extensive regulation as an investment adviser, which could adversely affect its ability to manage our business.

        Our Manager is subject to regulation as an investment adviser by various regulatory authorities that are charged with protecting the interests of its clients, including us. Instances of criminal activity and fraud by participants in the investment management industry and disclosures of trading and other abuses by participants in the financial services industry have led the U.S. government and regulators to consider increasing the rules and regulations governing, and oversight of, the U.S. financial system. This activity is expected to result in changes to the laws and regulations governing the investment management industry and more aggressive enforcement of the existing laws and regulations. Our Manager could be subject to civil liability, criminal liability, or sanction, including revocation of its registration as an investment adviser, revocation of the licenses of its employees, censures, fines, or temporary suspension or permanent bar from conducting business, if it is found to have violated any of

37

Table of Contents

these laws or regulations. Any such liability or sanction could adversely affect our Manager's ability to manage our business. Our Manager must continually address conflicts between its interests and those of its clients, including us. In addition, the SEC and other regulators have increased their scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest. Our Manager has procedures and controls that are reasonably designed to address these issues. However, appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult and if our Manager fails, or appears to fail, to deal appropriately with conflicts of interest, it could face litigation or regulatory proceedings or penalties, any of which could adversely affect its ability to manage our business.

We may not replicate Ares Management's historical performance.

        We cannot assure you that we will replicate Ares Management's historical performance, and we caution you that our investment returns could be substantially lower than the returns achieved by other entities managed by Ares Management or its affiliates. Although such funds share our general objective of targeting investments in senior secured debt, each of them is or has been focused on making senior debt investments secured primarily by the corporate assets of their borrowers and none of them target investments in senior or any other loans secured by CRE, which is our specific investment objective.

We do not own the Ares name, but we may use the name pursuant to a license agreement with Ares Management. Use of the name by other parties or the termination of our license agreement may harm our business.

        We have entered into a license agreement with Ares Management pursuant to which it has granted us a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use the name "Ares." Under this agreement, we have a right to use this name for so long as Ares Commercial Real Estate Management LLC serves as our Manager pursuant to the management agreement. Ares Management retains the right to continue using the "Ares" name. We cannot preclude Ares Management from licensing or transferring the ownership of the "Ares" name to third parties, some of whom may compete with us. Consequently, we would be unable to prevent any damage to goodwill that may occur as a result of the activities of Ares Management or others. Furthermore, in the event that the license agreement is terminated, we will be required to change our name and cease using the name. Any of these events could disrupt our recognition in the market place, damage any goodwill we may have generated and otherwise harm our business. The license agreement may be terminated by either party without penalty upon 180 days written notice to the other.

Our Manager's and Ares Management's liability is limited under the management agreement, and we have agreed to indemnify our Manager against certain liabilities. As a result, we could experience poor performance or losses for which our Manager would not be liable.

        Pursuant to the management agreement, our Manager does not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder and will not be responsible for any action of our board of directors in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Under the terms of the management agreement, our Manager, its officers, members, managers, directors, personnel, any person controlling or controlled by our Manager, including Ares Management, and any person providing services to our Manager will not be liable to us, any subsidiary of ours, our stockholders or partners or any subsidiary's stockholders or partners for acts or omissions performed in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement, except by reason of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of their duties under the management agreement. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify our Manager, its officers, stockholders, members, managers, directors, personnel, any person controlling or controlled by our Manager and any person providing services to our Manager with respect to all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims arising from acts of our Manager not constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence,

38

Table of Contents

or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement.

Our Manager and its affiliates, including Ares Management, have limited experience managing a portfolio of assets in the manner necessary to maintain our exemption under the 1940 Act.

        In order to maintain our exemption from registration under the 1940 Act, the assets in our portfolio are subject to certain restrictions that limit our operations meaningfully. Our Manager and its affiliates, including Ares Management, have limited experience managing a portfolio in the manner necessary to maintain our exemption from registration under the 1940 Act.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMPANY GENERALLY

We have limited operating history and may not be able to operate our business successfully or generate sufficient revenue to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders.

        We were organized on September 1, 2011, completed our IPO on May 1, 2012 and have limited operating history. We cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our business successfully or implement our operating policies and strategies as described in this annual report. The results of our operations depend on several factors, including the availability of opportunities for the origination or acquisition of target investments, the level and volatility of interest rates, the availability of adequate short and long-term financing, conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions. In addition, our future operating results and financial data may vary materially from the historical operating results and financial data contained in this annual report because of a number of factors, including costs and expenses associated with the management agreement and being a public company. Consequently, the historical financial statements contained in this annual report may not be useful in assessing our likely future performance.

Our board of directors may change our investment strategy or guidelines, financing strategy or leverage policies without stockholder consent.

        Our board of directors may change our investment strategy or guidelines, financing strategy or leverage policies with respect to investments, originations, acquisitions, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and distributions at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in an investment portfolio with a different risk profile than that of our current investment portfolio or of a portfolio comprised of our target investments. A change in our investment strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, default risk and real estate market fluctuations. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our making investments in asset categories different from those described in this annual report. These changes could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Changes in laws or regulations governing our operations, changes in the interpretation thereof or newly enacted laws or regulations (including, without limitation, laws and regulations having the effect of exempting mortgage REITs from the 1940 Act) and any failure by us to comply with these laws or regulations, could require changes to certain of our business practices, negatively impact our operations, cash flow or financial condition, impose additional costs on us or otherwise adversely affect our business.

        We are subject to regulation by laws and regulations at the local, state and federal levels. These laws and regulations, as well as their interpretation, may change from time to time, and new laws and regulations may be enacted. Accordingly, any change in these laws or regulations, changes in their interpretation, or newly enacted laws or regulations and any failure by us to comply with current or

39

Table of Contents

new laws or regulations or such changes thereto, could require changes to certain of our business practices, negatively impact our operations, cash flow or financial condition, impose additional costs on us or otherwise adversely affect our business. Furthermore, if regulatory capital requirements imposed on our private lenders change, they may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price.

        On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"). Many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have had extended implementation periods and delayed effective dates and have required extensive rulemaking by regulatory authorities. While many of the rules required to be written have been promulgated, some have not yet been implemented. Although the full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on us may not be known for an extended period of time, the Dodd-Frank Act, including the rules implementing its provisions and the interpretation of those rules, along with other legislative and regulatory proposals directed at the financial services industry or affecting taxation that are proposed or pending in the U.S. Congress, may negatively impact our operations, cash flows or financial condition, impose additional costs on us, intensify the regulatory supervision of us or otherwise adversely affect our business.

        Over the last several years, there also has been an increase in regulatory attention to the extension of credit outside of the traditional banking sector, raising the possibility that some portion of the non-bank financial sector will be subject to new regulation. While it cannot be known at this time whether any regulation will be implemented or what form it will take, increased regulation of non-bank credit extension could negatively impact our operations, cash flows or financial condition, impose additional costs on us, intensify the regulatory supervision of us or otherwise adversely affect our business.

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

        State mortgage loan finance licensing laws vary considerably. Many states and the District of Columbia impose a licensing obligation to originate or purchase real estate loans. Many of these mortgage loan licensing laws also impose a licensing obligation to service 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 requirements vary 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 or service real estate loans, which would materially and adversely affect us.

Uncertainty about the financial stability of the United States and of several countries in the European Union (EU) could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Due to federal budget deficit concerns, S&P downgraded the federal government's credit rating from AAA to AA+ for the first time in history on August 5, 2011. Further, Moody's and Fitch have warned that they may downgrade the federal government's credit rating. Further downgrades or warnings by S&P or other rating agencies, and the United States government's credit and deficit concerns in general, including issues around the federal debt ceiling, could cause interest rates and

40

Table of Contents

borrowing costs to rise, which may negatively impact both the perception of credit risk associated with our debt portfolio and our ability to access the debt markets on favorable terms. In addition, a decreased credit rating could create broader financial turmoil and uncertainty, which may weigh heavily on our financial performance and the value of our common stock.

        In 2010, a financial crisis emerged in Europe, triggered by high budget deficits and rising direct and contingent sovereign debt in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, which created concerns about the ability of these nations to continue to service their sovereign debt obligations. While the financial stability of such countries has improved significantly, risks resulting from the debt crisis in Europe or any similar crisis could have a detrimental impact on the global economic recovery, sovereign and non-sovereign debt in these countries and the financial condition of European financial institutions. Market and economic disruptions have affected, and may in the future affect, consumer confidence levels and spending, personal bankruptcy rates, levels of incurrence and default on consumer debt and home prices, among other factors. We cannot assure you that market disruptions in Europe, including the increased cost of funding for certain governments and financial institutions, will not impact the global economy, and we cannot assure you that assistance packages will be available, or if available, be sufficient to stabilize countries and markets in Europe or elsewhere affected by a debt crisis. To the extent uncertainty regarding any economic recovery in Europe negatively impacts consumer confidence and consumer credit factors, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be significantly and adversely affected.

        On December 18, 2013, the Federal Reserve announced that it would scale back its bond-buying program, or quantitative easing, which is designed to stimulate the economy and expand the Federal Reserve's holdings of long-term securities until key economic indicators, such as the unemployment rate, show signs of improvement. The Federal Reserve signaled it would reduce its purchases of long-term Treasury bonds and would scale back on its purchases of mortgage-backed securities. It is unclear what effect, if any, the incremental reduction in the rate of the Federal Reserve's monthly purchases will have on the value of our investments. However, it is possible that absent continued quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, these developments, along with the United States government's federal debt ceiling issues and the European sovereign debt crisis, could cause interest rates and borrowing costs to rise, which may negatively impact our ability to access the debt markets on favorable terms.

We are highly dependent on information systems and systems failures could significantly disrupt our business, which may, in turn, negatively affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends.

        Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems of Ares Management. Any failure or interruption of Ares Management's systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and negatively affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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 its reputation would be harmed, which would materially adversely affect us.

        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

41

Table of Contents

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, which could materially adversely affect us.

RISKS RELATED TO SOURCES OF FINANCING AND HEDGING

We may incur significant debt, which may subject us to increased risk of loss and may reduce cash available for distributions to our stockholders.

        We borrow funds under the Funding Agreements. As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately $264.4 million of outstanding borrowings under the Funding Agreements. Subject to market conditions and availability, we may incur significant debt through bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities), repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities and structured financing arrangements, public and private debt issuances and derivative instruments, in addition to transaction or asset specific funding arrangements. The percentage of leverage we employ will vary depending on our available capital, our ability to obtain and access financing arrangements with lenders, debt restrictions contained in those financing arrangements and the lenders' and rating agencies' estimate of the stability of our investment portfolio's cash flow. We may significantly increase the amount of leverage we utilize at any time without approval of our board of directors. In addition, we may leverage individual assets at substantially higher levels. Incurring substantial debt could subject us to many risks that, if realized, would materially and adversely affect us, including the risk that:

•

our cash flow from operations may be insufficient to make required payments of principal of and interest on the debt or we may fail to comply with all of the other covenants contained in the debt, which is likely to result in (a) acceleration of such debt (and any other debt containing a cross-default or cross-acceleration provision) that we may be unable to repay from internal funds or to refinance on favorable terms, or at all, (b) our inability to borrow unused amounts under our financing arrangements, even if we are current in payments on borrowings under those arrangements, and/or (c) the loss of some or all of our assets to foreclosure or sale;



•

our debt may increase our vulnerability to adverse economic and industry conditions with no assurance that investment yields will increase with higher financing costs;



•

we may be required to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on our debt, thereby reducing funds available for operations, future business opportunities, stockholder distributions or other purposes; and



•

we are not able to refinance debt that matures prior to the investment it was used to finance on favorable terms, or at all.

        There can be no assurance that our leveraging strategy will be successful.

Our secured funding agreements impose, and any additional lending facilities will impose, restrictive covenants.

        We borrow funds under the Funding Agreements. The documents that govern the Funding Agreements contain, and any additional lending facilities would be expected to contain, customary negative covenants and other financial and operating covenants, that among other things, may affect our ability to incur additional debt, make certain investments or acquisitions, reduce liquidity below certain levels, make distributions to our stockholders, redeem debt or equity securities and impact our flexibility to determine our operating policies and investment strategies. For example, such loan documents contain negative covenants that limit, among other things, our ability to repurchase our common stock, distribute more than a certain amount of our net income or funds from operations to

42

Table of Contents

our stockholders, employ leverage beyond certain amounts, sell assets, engage in mergers or consolidations, grant liens, and enter into transactions with affiliates (including amending the management agreement with our Manager in a material respect). Certain of the restrictive covenants that apply to the Wells Fargo Facility, the Citibank Facility and the Capital One Facility are further described in "Business—Funding Agreements." If we fail to meet or satisfy any of these covenants, we would be in default under these agreements, and our lenders could elect to declare outstanding amounts due and payable, terminate their commitments, require the posting of additional collateral and enforce their interests against existing collateral. We are also subject to cross-default and acceleration rights and, with respect to collateralized debt, the posting of additional collateral and foreclosure rights upon default. Further, these restrictions could also make it difficult for us to satisfy the qualification requirements necessary to maintain our status as a REIT.

Interest rate fluctuations could increase our financing costs and reduce our ability to generate income on our investments, each of which could lead to a significant decrease in our results of operations, cash flows and the market value of our investments.

        We are affected by the fiscal and monetary policies of the U.S. government and its agencies, including the policies of 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 CRE loans. Changes in fiscal and monetary policies are beyond our control, are difficult to predict and could materially adversely affect us. Our primary interest rate exposures will relate to the yield on our investments and the financing cost of our debt, as well as our interest rate swaps that we utilize for hedging purposes. Changes in interest rates will affect our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income we earn on our interest-earning investments and the interest expense we incur in financing these investments. In addition, the fair value of ACRE Capital's mortgage servicing rights ("MSRs") is subject to changes in interest rates. For example, a 100 basis point increase or decrease in the weighted average discount rate would decrease or increase, respectively, the fair value of ACRE Capital's MSRs outstanding as of December 31, 2013 by approximately $1.8 million. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding interest income would result in operating losses for us. Changes in the level of interest rates also may affect our ability to invest in investments, the value of our investments and our ability to realize gains from the disposition of assets. Changes in interest rates may also affect borrower default rates.

        To the extent that our financing costs will be determined by reference to floating rates, such as LIBOR or a Treasury index, plus a margin, the amount of such costs will depend on a variety of factors, including, without limitation, (a) for collateralized debt, the value and liquidity of the collateral, and for non-collateralized debt, our credit, (b) the level and movement of interest rates, and (c) general market conditions and liquidity. In a period of rising interest rates, our interest expense on floating rate debt would increase, while any additional interest income we earn on our floating rate investments may be subject to caps and may not compensate for such increase in interest expense. At the same time, the interest income we earn on our fixed rate investments would not change, the duration and weighted average life of our fixed rate investments would increase and the market value of our fixed rate investments would decrease. Similarly, in a period of declining interest rates, our interest income on floating rate investments would decrease, while any decrease in the interest we are charged on our floating rate debt may be subject to floors and not compensate for such decrease in interest income. Additionally, the interest we are charged on our fixed rate debt would not change. Any such scenario could materially and adversely affect us.

43

Table of Contents

        Our operating results will depend, in part, on differences between the income earned on our investments, net of credit losses, and our financing costs. For any period during which our investments are not match-funded, the income earned on such investments may respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, may immediately and significantly decrease our results of operations and cash flows and the market value of our investments.

        ACRE Capital also is significantly affected by the fiscal and monetary policies of the U.S. government and its agencies. ACRE Capital is particularly affected by the policies of 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 CRE 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 adversely affect us.

The Wells Fargo Facility, the Citibank Facility, the Capital One Facility, the ASAP Line of Credit, the BAML Line of Credit and any bank credit facilities and repurchase agreements that we may use in the future to finance our assets, may require us to provide additional collateral or pay down debt.

        We borrow funds under the Funding Agreements. We anticipate that we will also utilize additional bank credit facilities or repurchase agreements (including term loans and revolving facilities) to finance our assets if they become available on acceptable terms. Such financing arrangements would involve the risk that the value of the loans pledged or sold by us to the provider of the bank credit facility or repurchase agreement counterparty may decline in value, in which case the lender may require us to provide additional collateral or to repay all or a portion of the funds advanced. With respect to certain facilities, subject to certain conditions, our lenders retain the sole discretion over the market value of loans that serve as collateral for the borrowings under such facilities for purposes of determining whether we are required to pay margin to such lenders. We may not have the funds available to repay our debt at that time, which would likely result in defaults unless we are able to raise the funds from alternative sources, which we may not be able to achieve on favorable terms or at all. Posting additional collateral would reduce our liquidity and limit our ability to leverage our assets. If we cannot meet these requirements, the lender could accelerate our indebtedness, increase the interest rate on advanced funds and terminate our ability to borrow funds from it, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and ability to implement our investment strategy. In addition, if the lender files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, our loans may become subject to bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, thus depriving us, at least temporarily, of the benefit of these assets. Such an event could restrict our access to bank credit facilities and increase our cost of capital. The providers of bank credit facilities and repurchase agreement financing may also require us to maintain a certain amount of cash or set aside assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position that would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to leverage our assets as fully as we would choose, which could reduce our return on assets. If we are unable to meet these collateral obligations, our financial condition and prospects could deteriorate rapidly.

        In addition, if a counterparty to our repurchase transactions defaults on its obligation to resell the underlying security back to us at the end of the transaction term, or if the value of the underlying security has declined as of the end of that term, or if we default on our obligations under the repurchase agreement, we will likely incur a loss on our repurchase transactions.

44

Table of Contents

        There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain additional bank credit facilities or repurchase agreements on favorable terms, or at all.

Our access to sources of financing may be limited and thus our ability to grow our business and to maximize our returns may be adversely affected.

        We borrow funds under the Wells Fargo Facility, the Citibank Facility and the Capital One Facility, and ACRE Capital, which maintains lines of credit under the ASAP Line of Credit and the BAML Line of Credit, requires a significant amount of funding capacity on an interim basis. Subject to market conditions and availability, we may incur significant additional debt through bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities), repurchase agreements, warehouse facilities and structured financing arrangements, public and private debt issuances and derivative instruments, in addition to transaction or asset specific funding arrangements. We may also issue additional debt or equity securities to fund our growth.

        Our access to sources of financing will depend upon a number of factors, over which we have little or no control, including:

•

general economic or market conditions;



•

the market's view of the quality of our assets;



•

the market's perception of our growth potential;



•

our current and potential future earnings and cash distributions; and



•

the market price of the shares of our common stock.

        From time to time, capital markets may experience periods of disruption and instability. For example, between 2008 and 2009, the global capital markets were unstable as evidenced by periodic disruptions in liquidity in the debt capital markets, significant write-offs in the financial services sector, the re-pricing of credit risk in the broadly syndicated credit market and the failure of major financial institutions. Despite actions of the U.S. federal government and foreign governments, these events contributed to worsening general economic conditions that materially and adversely impacted the broader financial and credit markets and reduced the availability of debt and equity capital for the market as a whole and financial services firms in particular. While market conditions have experienced relative stability in recent years, there have been continuing periods of volatility and there can be no assurance that adverse market conditions will not repeat themselves or worsen in the future.

        We will need to periodically access the capital markets to raise cash to fund new investments in excess of our repayments. We have elected and qualified for taxation as a REIT. Among other things, in order to maintain our REIT status, we are generally required to annually distribute to our stockholders an amount equal to at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, and, as a result, such distributions will not be available to fund investment originations. We must continue to borrow from financial institutions and issue additional securities to fund the growth of our investments. Unfavorable economic or capital market conditions may increase our funding costs, limit our access to the capital markets or could result in a decision by our potential lenders not to extend credit. An inability to successfully access the capital markets could limit our ability to grow our business and fully execute our business strategy and could decrease our earnings, if any. In addition, weakness in the capital and credit markets could adversely affect one or more private lenders and could cause one or more of our private lenders to be unwilling or unable to provide us with financing or to increase the costs of that financing. In addition, if regulatory capital requirements imposed on our private lenders change, they may be required to limit, or increase the cost of, financing they provide to us. In general, this could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity or require us to sell assets at an inopportune time or price. No assurance can be given that we will be able to obtain any such financing,

45

Table of Contents

including any replacement of the Wells Fargo Facility, the Citibank Facility, the Capital One Facility, the ASAP Line of Credit or the BAML Line of Credit on favorable terms or at all.

Any warehouse facilities that we may obtain in the future may limit our ability to originate or acquire assets, and we may incur losses if the collateral is liquidated.

        We may utilize, if available, warehouse facilities pursuant to which we would accumulate mortgage loans in anticipation of a securitization financing, which assets would be pledged as collateral for such facilities until the securitization transaction is consummated. In order to borrow funds to originate or acquire assets under any future warehouse facilities, we expect that our lenders thereunder would have the right to review the potential assets for which we are seeking financing. We may be unable to obtain the consent of a lender to originate or acquire assets that we believe would be beneficial to us and we may be unable to obtain alternate financing for such assets. In addition, no assurance can be given that a securitization structure would be consummated with respect to the assets being warehoused. If the securitization is not consummated, the lender could demand repayment of the facility, and in the event that we were unable to timely repay, could liquidate the warehoused collateral and we would then have to pay any amount by which the original purchase price of the collateral assets exceeds its sale price, subject to negotiated caps, if any, on our exposure. In addition, regardless of whether the securitization is consummated, if any of the warehoused collateral is sold before the completion, we would have to bear any resulting loss on the sale.

We have utilized and may continue to utilize in the future non-recourse long-term securitizations. Such structures may expose us to risks which could result in losses.

        We have utilized and, if available, we may utilize in the future non-recourse long-term securitizations of our investments in mortgage loans, especially loan originations, if and when they become available. Prior to any such financing, we may seek to finance these investments with relatively short-term facilities until a sufficient portfolio is accumulated. As a result, we would be subject to the risk that we would not be able to originate or acquire, during the period that any short-term facilities are available, sufficient eligible assets to maximize the efficiency of a securitization. We also would bear the risk that we would not be able to obtain new short-term facilities or would not be able to renew any short-term facilities after they expire should we need more time to seek and originate or acquire sufficient eligible assets for a securitization. In addition, conditions in the capital markets, including volatility and disruption in the capital and credit markets, may not permit a non-recourse securitization at any particular time or may make the issuance of any such securitization less attractive to us even when we do have sufficient eligible assets. While we would intend to retain the unrated equity component of securitizations and, therefore, still have exposure to any investments included in such securitizations, our inability to enter into such securitizations would increase our overall exposure to risks associated with direct ownership of such investments, including the risk of default. Our inability to refinance any short-term facilities would also increase our risk because borrowings thereunder would likely be recourse to us as an entity. If we are unable to obtain and renew short-term facilities or to consummate securitizations to finance our investments on a long-term basis, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price.

The securitization process is subject to an evolving regulatory environment that may affect certain aspects of our current business.

        The pools of commercial loans in which we acquire subordinated securities and for which we act as special servicer are structures commonly referred to as securitizations. As a result of the dislocation of the credit markets, the securitization industry has crafted and continues to craft proposed changes to securitization practices, including proposed new standard representations and warranties, underwriting

46

Table of Contents

guidelines and disclosure guidelines. In addition, the securitization industry is becoming far more regulated. For example, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, various federal agencies are in the process of promulgating regulations with respect to various issues that affect securitizations, including (1) a requirement under the Dodd-Frank Act that issuers in securitizations retain 5% of the risk associated with the securities, (2) requirements for additional disclosure, (3) requirements for additional review and reporting and (4) a possible requirement that a portion of potential profit that would be realized on the securitization must be deposited in a reserve account and used as additional credit support for the related commercial mortgage backed securities until the loans are repaid. The regulations ultimately adopted will take effect over the next few years. Certain proposed regulations, if adopted, could alter the structure of securitizations in the future and could pose additional risks to our participation in future securitizations or could reduce or eliminate the economic incentives of participating in future securitizations. In addition, Fannie Mae and other investors may also change underwriting criteria as a result of such regulations, which could affect the volume and value of loans that ACRE Capital orginates.

We may enter into hedging transactions that could expose us to contingent liabilities in the future.

        Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, part of our investment strategy will involve entering into hedging transactions that could require us to fund cash payments in certain circumstances (such as the early termination of the hedging instrument caused by an event of default or other early termination event, or the decision by a counterparty to request margin securities it is contractually owed under the terms of the hedging instrument). The amount due would be equal to the unrealized loss of the open swap positions with the respective counterparty and could also include other fees and charges. These economic losses will be reflected in our results of operations, and our ability to fund these obligations will depend on the liquidity of our assets and access to capital at the time, and the need to fund these obligations could adversely impact our financial condition.

Hedging against interest rate exposure may adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

        Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. This hedging activity may vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the type of assets held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

•

interest rate hedging can be expensive, particularly during periods of rising and volatile interest rates;



•

available interest rate hedges may not correspond directly with the interest rate risk for which protection is sought;



•

due to a credit loss, the duration of the hedge may not match the duration of the related liability;



•

the amount of income that a REIT may earn from hedging transactions (other than hedging transactions that satisfy certain requirements of the Code or that are done through a TRS) to offset interest rate losses is limited by U.S. federal income tax provisions governing REITs;



•

the credit quality of the hedging counterparty 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 hedging counterparty owing money in the hedging transaction may default on its obligation to pay.

47

Table of Contents

        In addition, we may fail to recalculate, readjust and execute hedges in an efficient manner. Any hedging activity in which we engage may materially and adversely affect our business. Therefore, while we may enter into such transactions seeking to reduce interest rate risks, unanticipated changes in interest rates may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in a hedging strategy and price movements in the portfolio positions or liabilities being hedged may vary materially. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not seek to establish a perfect correlation between such hedging instruments and the portfolio positions or liabilities being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss.

Hedging instruments often are not traded on regulated exchanges or guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, and involve risks and costs that could result in material losses.

        The cost of using hedging instruments increases as the period covered by the instrument increases and during periods of rising and volatile interest rates, we may increase our hedging activity and thus increase our hedging costs. In addition, hedging instruments involve risk since they often are not traded on regulated exchanges or guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house. Consequently, there are no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying hedging transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in its default. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our commitments, if any, at the then current market price. Although generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging positions, it may not always be possible to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract in order to cover our risk. We cannot assure you that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in significant losses.

Changes to derivatives regulation imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act could increase our costs of entering into derivative transactions, which could adversely impact our results of operation, financial condition and business.

        Through its comprehensive new regulatory regime for derivatives, the Dodd-Frank Act will impose mandatory clearing, exchange-trading and margin requirements on many derivatives transactions (including formerly unregulated over-the-counter derivatives) in which we may engage. The Dodd-Frank Act also creates new categories of regulated market participants, such as "swap dealers," "security-based swap dealers," "major swap participants," and "major security-based swap participants" that will be subject to significant new capital, registration, recordkeeping, reporting, disclosure, business conduct and other regulatory requirements. The details of these requirements and the parameters of these categories remain to be clarified through rulemaking and interpretations by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the "CFTC," the SEC, the Federal Reserve and other regulators in a regulatory implementation process which is expected to take a year or more to complete.

        Nonetheless, based on information available as of the date of this annual report, the possible effect of the Dodd-Frank Act will be likely to increase our overall costs of entering into derivatives transactions. In particular, new margin requirements, position limits and capital charges, even if not directly applicable to us, may cause an increase in the pricing of derivatives transactions sold by market participants to whom such requirements apply. Administrative costs, due to new requirements such as

48

Table of Contents

registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance, even if not directly applicable to us, may also be reflected in higher pricing of derivatives. New exchange-trading and trade reporting requirements may lead to reductions in the liquidity of derivative transactions, causing higher pricing or reduced availability of derivatives, or the reduction of arbitrage opportunities for us, adversely affecting the performance of certain of our trading strategies.

        In addition, it is possible that we may be determined by a governmental authority to be a swap dealer, major swap participant, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant or otherwise become subject to new entity and transaction level regulation as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act. This additional regulation could lead to significant new costs which could materially adversely affect our business.

We may fail to qualify for hedge accounting treatment.

        We intend to record derivative and hedging transactions in accordance with FASB ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging . Under these standards, we may fail to qualify for hedge accounting treatment for a number of reasons, including if we use instruments that do not meet the FASB ASC 815 definition of a derivative (such as short sales), we fail to satisfy FASB ASC 815 hedge documentation and hedge effectiveness assessment requirements or our instruments are not highly effective. If we fail to qualify for hedge accounting treatment, our operating results may suffer because losses on the derivatives that we enter into may not be offset by a change in the fair value of the related hedged transaction or item.

We may enter into derivative contracts that could expose us to contingent liabilities in the future.

        Subject to maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may enter into derivative contracts that could require us to fund cash payments in the future under certain circumstances ( e.g. , the early termination of the derivative agreement caused by an event of default or other early termination event, or the decision by a counterparty to request margin securities it is contractually owed under the terms of the derivative contract). The amount due would be equal to the unrealized loss of the open swap positions with the respective counterparty and could also include other fees and charges. These economic losses may materially and adversely affect our business.

We are currently exempt from being regulated as a commodity pool operator in part because we comply with certain restrictions regarding our use of certain derivative instruments, and failure to comply with such restrictions could subject us to additional regulation and compliance requirements which could materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

        Recently adopted rules under the Dodd-Frank Act establish a comprehensive new regulatory framework for derivative contracts commonly referred to as "swaps." Under these recently adopted rules, any investment fund that trades in swaps may be considered a "commodity pool," which would cause its directors to be regulated as "commodity pool operators," or "CPOs." Unless an exemption is available, a CPO must register with the CFTC and become a member of the National Futures Association, or the "NFA," which requires compliance with NFA's rules, and renders such CPO subject to regulation by the CFTC, including with respect to disclosure, reporting, recordkeeping and business conduct.

49

Table of Contents

        We do not currently invest in any instruments that meet the definition of "swap" under the new rules, and we do not currently expect to engage in any speculative derivatives activities or other non-hedging transactions using swaps, futures or options on futures. However, we may use hedging instruments in conjunction with our investment portfolio and related borrowings to reduce or mitigate risks associated with changes in interest rates, mortgage spreads, yield curve shapes and market volatility. These hedging instruments could include interest rate swaps, interest rate futures and options on interest rate futures, each of which is considered a "swap" under CFTC rules. We have submitted a claim for relief from any registration requirements pursuant to a no-action letter issued by the CFTC for mortgage REITs. In order to qualify for relief from registration, we are restricted to using swaps within certain specific parameters, including a limitation that our annual income derived from commodity interest trading be less than 5% of our gross annual income and that the initial margin and premiums required to establish commodity interest positions be no more than 5 percent of the fair market value of our total assets. If we fail to comply with the applicable restrictions, our directors may be compelled to register as CPOs, or we may be required to seek other hedging instruments or techniques at increased cost to us, or that may not be as effective as the use of swaps.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INVESTMENTS

We will allocate our available capital without input from our stockholders.

        You will not be able to evaluate the manner in which our available capital is invested or the economic merit of our expected investments. As a result, we may use our available capital to invest in investments with which you may not agree. Additionally, our investments will be selected by our Manager and our stockholders will not have input into such investment decisions. Both of these factors will increase the uncertainty, and thus the risk, of investing in our securities. The failure of our Manager to apply this capital effectively or find investments that meet our investment criteria in sufficient time or on acceptable terms could result in unfavorable returns, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders, and could cause the value of our common stock to decline.

        Until appropriate investments can be identified, our Manager may invest our available capital in interest-bearing short-term investments, including money market accounts or funds, CMBS or corporate bonds, which are consistent with our intention to qualify as a REIT. These investments are expected to provide a lower net return than we seek to achieve from investments in our target investments. Our Manager intends to conduct due diligence with respect to each investment and suitable investment opportunities may not be immediately available. Even if opportunities are available, there can be no assurance that our Manager's due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts or that any investment will be successful.

        We cannot assure you that we will be able to enter into definitive agreements to invest in any new investments that meet our investment objective; that we will be successful in consummating any investment opportunities we identify; or that one or more investments we may make will yield attractive risk-adjusted returns. Our inability to do any of the foregoing likely would materially and adversely affect our business and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The lack of liquidity in our investments may adversely affect our business.

        The illiquidity of our target investments may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need or desire arises. Certain target investments such as B-Notes, transitional, mezzanine and other loans are also particularly illiquid investments due to their short life, their potential unsuitability for securitization and the greater difficulty of recovery in the event of a borrower's default. In addition, many of the loans and securities we invest in will not be registered under the relevant securities laws, resulting in a prohibition against their transfer, sale, pledge or disposition except in a transaction that is

50

Table of Contents

exempt from the registration requirements of, or otherwise in accordance with, those laws. As a result, we expect many of our investments will be illiquid, and if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded investments. Further, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment in a business entity to the extent that we or our Manager has or could be attributed as having material, non-public information regarding such business entity. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be relatively limited, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our portfolio is concentrated in a limited number of loans, which subjects us to a risk of significant loss if any of these loans default.

        As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, we were invested in 33 (and one additional loan held for sale) and 15 loans in our principal lending business, respectively. The number of loans we are invested in may be higher or lower depending on the amount of our assets under management at any given time, market conditions and the extent to which we employ leverage, and will likely fluctuate over time. A consequence of this limited number of investments is that the aggregate returns we realize may be significantly adversely affected if a small number of investments perform poorly, if we need to write down the value of any one investment or if an investment is repaid prior to maturity and we are not able to promptly redeploy the proceeds. We do not have fixed guidelines for diversification, and our investments could be concentrated in relatively few loans.

        While we intend to continue to diversify our portfolio of investments in the manner described in our filings with the SEC, we do not have fixed guidelines for diversification. As a result, our investments could be concentrated in relatively few loans and/or relatively few property types. If our portfolio of target investments is concentrated in certain property types that are subject to higher risk of foreclosure, or secured by properties concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations, downturns relating generally to such region or type of asset may result in defaults on a number of our investments within a short time period, which may reduce our net income and the value of our common stock and accordingly reduce our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

A prolonged economic slowdown, a lengthy or severe recession or further declines in real estate values could impair our investments and ACRE Capital's MSRs and harm our operations.

        We believe the risks associated with our business will be more severe during periods of economic slowdown or recession if these periods are accompanied by declining real estate values. For example, the severe economic downturn that occurred from 2008 through 2009 limited the availability of debt financing in the overall marketplace and generally made leveraged acquisitions and refinancing more difficult. Consequently, our investment model may be adversely affected by prolonged economic downturns or recessions where declining real estate values would likely reduce the level of new mortgage and other real estate-related loan originations, since borrowers often use appreciation in the value of their existing properties to support the purchase or investment in additional properties. Borrowers may also be less able to pay principal and interest on our loans if the value of real estate weakens. 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 ACRE Capital's MSRs and servicer advances and higher levels of loss on ACRE Capital's Fannie Mae loans for which it shares risk of loss. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on our loans in the event of default because the value of our collateral may be insufficient to cover our cost on the loan. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect our manager's ability to invest in, sell and securitize loans, which would materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and business and our ability to pay dividends to stockholders.

51

Table of Contents

Our real estate investments are subject to risks particular to real property. These risks may result in a reduction or elimination of, or return from, a loan secured by a particular property.

        We may own CRE directly in the future as a result of a default of mortgage or other real estate related loans. Real estate investments are subject to various risks, including:

•

acts of God, including earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters, which may result in uninsured losses;



•

acts of war or terrorism, including the consequences of terrorist attacks;



•

adverse changes in national and local economic and market conditions;



•

changes in governmental laws and regulations (including their interpretations), fiscal policies and zoning ordinances and the related costs of compliance with laws and regulations, fiscal policies and ordinances;



•

costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions such as indoor mold;



•

the potential for uninsured or under-insured property losses.

        If any of these or similar events occurs, it may reduce our return from an affected property or investment and services and reduce or eliminate our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

The senior CRE loans we originate and the mortgage loans underlying any CMBS investments that we may make will be subject to the ability of the commercial property owner to generate net income from operating the property, as well as the risks of delinquency and foreclosure.

        Our senior CRE loans are secured by commercial property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss that may be greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower's ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be adversely affected by, among other things,

•

tenant mix;



•

success of tenant businesses;



•

property management decisions;



•

property location, condition and design;



•

competition from comparable types of properties;



•

changes in laws that increase operating expenses or limit rents that may be charged;



•

changes in national, regional or local economic conditions and/or specific industry segments, including the credit and securitization markets;



•

declines in regional or local real estate values;



•

declines in regional or local rental or occupancy rates;



•

increases in interest rates, real estate tax rates and other operating expenses;



•

costs of remediation and liabilities associated with environmental conditions;

52

Table of Contents

•

the potential for uninsured or underinsured property losses;



•

changes in governmental laws and regulations, including fiscal policies, zoning ordinances and environmental legislation and the related costs of compliance; and



•

acts of God, terrorist attacks, social unrest and civil disturbances.

        In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the principal and accrued interest of the mortgage loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow from operations and limit amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. In the event of the bankruptcy of a mortgage loan borrower, the mortgage loan to such borrower will be deemed to be secured only to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral at the time of bankruptcy (as determined by the bankruptcy court), and the lien securing the mortgage loan will be subject to the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession to the extent the lien is unenforceable under state law. Foreclosure of a mortgage loan can be an expensive and lengthy process, which could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on the foreclosed mortgage loan.

We operate in a competitive market for investment opportunities and loan originations and competition may limit our ability to originate or acquire desirable investments in our target investments and could also affect the pricing of these securities.

        A number of entities compete with us to make the types of investments that we seek to make and originate the types of loans that we seek to originate. Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to originate or acquire our target investments on attractive terms. In originating or acquiring our target investments, we compete with a variety of institutional investors, including other REITs, specialty finance companies, public and private funds (including other funds managed by Ares Management), commercial and investment banks, commercial real estate service providers, commercial finance and insurance companies and other financial institutions. Several other REITs have raised, or are expected to raise, significant amounts of capital, and may have investment objectives that overlap with ours, which may create additional competition for investment opportunities. Many of our anticipated competitors are significantly larger than we are and have considerably greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are not available to us, such as the U.S. Government. In addition, future changes in laws, regulations and Fannie Mae or HUD program requirements could lead to the entry of more competitors. Many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with REIT tax compliance or maintenance of an exemption from the 1940 Act. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments, deploy more aggressive pricing and establish more relationships than us. Furthermore, competition for originations of and investments in our target investments may lead to the price of such assets increasing, which may further limit our ability to generate desired returns. We cannot assure you that the competitive pressures we face will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Also, as a result of this competition, desirable investments in our target investments may be limited in the future and we may not be able to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities from time to time, as we can provide no assurance that we will be able to identify and make investments that are consistent with our investment objectives.

53

Table of Contents

If our Manager overestimates the yields or incorrectly prices the risks of our investments, we may experience losses.

        Our Manager values our potential investments based on yields and risks, taking into account estimated future losses on the mortgage loans and the collateral underlying our mortgage loans and included in securitization pools, and the estimated impact of these losses on expected future cash flows and returns. Our Manager's loss estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. If our Manager underestimates the asset-level losses relative to the price we pay for a particular investment, we may experience losses with respect to such investment.

Loans on properties in transition will involve a greater risk of loss than traditional investment-grade mortgage loans with fully insured borrowers.

        We may originate transitional loans secured by first lien mortgages on a property to borrowers who are typically seeking short-term capital to be used in an acquisition or rehabilitation of a property. The typical borrower under a transitional loan has usually identified an undervalued asset that has been under-managed and/or is located in a recovering market. If the market in which the asset is located fails to improve according to the borrower's projections, or if the borrower fails to improve the quality of the asset's management and/or the value of the asset, the borrower may not receive a sufficient return on the asset to satisfy the transitional loan, and we bear the risk that we may not recover some or all of our investment.

        In addition, borrowers usually use the proceeds of a conventional mortgage to repay a transitional loan. Transitional loans therefore are subject to risks of a borrower's inability to obtain permanent financing to repay the transitional loan. Transitional loans are also subject to risks of borrower defaults, bankruptcies, fraud, losses and special hazard losses that are not covered by standard hazard insurance. In the event of any default under transitional loans that may be held by us, we bear the risk of loss of principal and non-payment of interest and fees to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the mortgage collateral and the principal amount and unpaid interest of the transitional loan. To the extent we suffer such losses with respect to these transitional loans, the value of the Company and the price of our shares of common stock may be adversely affected.

Risks of cost overruns and noncompletion of renovation of the properties underlying short term senior loans on properties in transition may result in significant losses.

        The renovation, refurbishment or expansion by a borrower under a mortgaged property involves risks of cost overruns and noncompletion. Estimates of the costs of improvements to bring an acquired property up to standards established for the market position intended for that property may prove inaccurate. Other risks may include rehabilitation costs exceeding original estimates, possibly making a project uneconomical, environmental risks and rehabilitation and subsequent leasing of the property not being completed on schedule. If such renovation is not completed in a timely manner, or if it costs more than expected, the borrower may experience a prolonged impairment of net operating income and may not be able to make payments on our investment, which could result in significant losses.

Investments in non-conforming and non-investment grade rated loans or securities involve increased risk of loss.

        Many of our investments will not conform to conventional loan standards applied by traditional lenders and either will not be rated or will be rated as non-investment grade by the rating agencies. The non-investment grade ratings for these assets typically result from the overall leverage of the loans, the lack of a strong operating history for the properties underlying the loans, the borrowers' credit history, the underlying properties' cash flow or other factors. As a result, these investments should be expected to have a higher risk of default and loss than investment grade rated assets. Any loss we incur

54

Table of Contents

may be significant and may reduce distributions to our stockholders and adversely affect the market value of our common stock. There are no limits on the percentage of unrated or non-investment grade rated assets we may hold in our investment portfolio.

The B-Notes that we have originated or may originate or acquire in the future may be subject to additional risks related to the privately negotiated structure and terms of the transaction, which may result in losses to us.

        We have originated and may continue to originate or acquire B-Notes. A B-Note is a mortgage loan typically (a) secured by a first mortgage on a single large commercial property or group of related properties and (b) subordinated to an A-Note secured by the same first mortgage on the same collateral. As a result, if a borrower defaults, there may not be sufficient funds remaining for B-Note holders after payment to the A-Note holders. Because each transaction is privately negotiated, B-Notes can vary in their structural characteristics and risks. For example, the rights of holders of B-Notes to control the process following a borrower default may vary from transaction to transaction. Further, B-Notes typically are secured by a single property and accordingly reflect the risks associated with significant concentration. Significant losses related to our B-Notes would result in operating losses for us and may limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our mezzanine loan assets involve greater risks of loss than senior loans secured by income-producing properties.

        We have originated and may continue to originate or acquire mezzanine loans, which take the form of subordinated loans secured by second mortgages on the underlying property or loans secured by a pledge of the ownership interests of either the entity owning the property or a pledge of the ownership interests of the entity that owns the interest in the entity owning the property. These types of assets involve a higher degree of risk than long-term senior mortgage lending secured by income producing real property, because the loan may become unsecured as a result of foreclosure by the senior lender. In the event of a bankruptcy of the entity providing the pledge of its ownership interests as security, we may not have full recourse to the assets of such entity, or the assets of the entity may not be sufficient to satisfy our mezzanine loan. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt. As a result, we may not recover some or all of our initial expenditure. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional mortgage loans, resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal. Significant losses related to our mezzanine loans would result in operating losses for us and may limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Any credit ratings assigned to our investments will be subject to ongoing evaluations and revisions and we cannot assure you that those ratings will not be downgraded.

        Some of our investments may be rated by rating agencies such as Moody's Investors Service, Fitch Ratings, Standard & Poor's, DBRS, Inc. or Realpoint LLC. Any credit ratings on our investments are subject to ongoing evaluation by credit rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that any such ratings will not be changed or withdrawn by a rating agency in the future if, in its judgment, circumstances warrant. If rating agencies assign a lower-than-expected rating or reduce or withdraw, or indicate that they may reduce or withdraw, their ratings of our investments in the future, the value of our investments could significantly decline, which would adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and could result in losses upon disposition or the failure of borrowers to satisfy their debt service obligations to us.

55

Table of Contents

We may experience a decline in the fair value of our assets.

        A decline in the fair market value of our assets may require us to recognize an "other-than-temporary" impairment against such assets under GAAP, if we were to determine that, with respect to any assets in unrealized loss positions, we do not have the ability and intent to hold such assets to maturity or for a period of time sufficient to allow for recovery to the original acquisition cost of such assets. If such a determination were to be made, we will record an allowance to reduce the carrying value of the loan to the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan's contractual effective rate or the fair value of the collateral, if repayment is expected solely from the collateral. Such impairment charges reflect non-cash losses at the time of recognition; subsequent disposition or sale of such assets could further affect our future losses or gains, as they are based on the difference between the sale price received and adjusted amortized cost of such assets at the time of sale. If we experience a decline in the fair value of our assets, our results of operations, financial condition and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected.

Some of our portfolio investments may be recorded at fair value and, as a result, there will be uncertainty as to the value of these investments.

        Some of our portfolio investments may be in the form of positions or securities that are not publicly traded. The fair value of securities and other investments that are not publicly traded may not be readily determinable. Currently, the financial instruments recorded at fair value on a recurring basis in the Company's consolidated financial statements are MSRs, loan commitments, forward sale commitments, loans held for sale and an embedded conversion option related to the Company's 2015 Convertible Notes. The Company has not elected the fair value option for the remaining financial instruments, including loans held for investment, secured funding agreements, convertible notes and debt issued by a consolidated variable interest entity. Such financial instruments are carried at cost. For loans held for investment that are evaluated for impairment at least quarterly, we estimate the fair value of the instrument, which may include unobservable inputs. Because such valuations are subjective, the fair value of certain of our assets may fluctuate over short periods of time and our determinations of fair value may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these securities existed. The value of our common stock could be adversely affected if our determinations regarding the fair value of these investments were materially higher than the values that we ultimately realize upon their disposal.

        Additionally, the Company's results of operations for a given period could be adversely affected if its determinations regarding the fair value of these investments were materially higher than the values that the Company ultimately realizes upon their disposal. The valuation process has been particularly challenging recently, as market events have made valuations of certain assets more difficult, unpredictable and volatile.

If we invest in CMBS, such investments would pose additional risks, including the risks of the securitization process and the risk that the special servicer may take actions that could adversely affect our interests.

        We may acquire CMBS. In general, losses on a mortgaged property securing a mortgage loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the equity holder of the property, then by a cash reserve fund or letter of credit, if any, then by the holder of a mezzanine loan or B-Note, if any, then by the "first loss" subordinated stockholder and then by the holder of a higher-rated security. In the event of default and the exhaustion of any equity support, reserve fund, letter of credit, mezzanine loans or B-Notes, and any classes of securities junior to those in which we invest, we will not be able to recover all of our investment in the securities we purchase. In addition, if the underlying mortgage portfolio has been overvalued by the originator, or if the values subsequently decline and, as a result,

56

Table of Contents

less collateral value is available to satisfy interest and principal payments due on the related mortgage-backed securities. The prices of lower credit quality securities are generally less sensitive to interest rate changes than more highly rated investments, but more sensitive to adverse economic downturns or individual issuer developments.

        With respect to the CMBS in which we may invest, overall control over the special servicing of the related underlying mortgage loans will be held by a "directing certificateholder" or a "controlling class representative," which is appointed by the holders of the most subordinated class of CMBS in such series. Because we may acquire classes of existing series of CMBS, we will not have the right to appoint the directing certificateholder. In connection with the servicing of the specially serviced mortgage loans, the related special servicer may, at the direction of the directing certificateholder, take actions with respect to the specially serviced mortgage loans that could adversely affect our interests.

Insurance on mortgage loans and real estate securities collateral may not cover all losses.

        There are certain types of losses, generally of a catastrophic nature, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, terrorism or acts of war, which may be uninsurable or not economically insurable. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors, including terrorism or acts of war, also might result in insurance proceeds insufficient to repair or replace a property if it is damaged or destroyed. Under these circumstances, the insurance proceeds received with respect to a property relating one of our investments might not be adequate to restore our economic position with respect to our investment. Any uninsured loss could result in the loss of cash flow from, and the asset value of, the affected property and the value of our investment related to such property.

Liability relating to environmental matters may impact the value of properties that we may acquire upon foreclosure of the properties underlying our investments.

        To the extent we foreclose on properties with respect to which we have extended mortgage loans, we may be subject to environmental liabilities arising from such foreclosed properties. Under various U.S. federal, state and local laws, an owner or operator of real property may become liable for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released on its property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release of such hazardous substances.

        The presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect an owner's ability to sell real estate or borrow using real estate as collateral. To the extent that an owner of a property underlying one of our debt investments becomes liable for removal costs, the ability of the owner to make payments to us may be reduced, which in turn may adversely affect the value of the relevant mortgage asset held by us and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

        If we foreclose on any properties underlying our investments, the presence of hazardous substances on a property may adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs, thus harming our financial condition. The discovery of material environmental liabilities attached to such properties could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Construction loans involve an increased risk of loss.

        We invest in construction loans. If we fail to fund our entire commitment on a construction loan or if a borrower otherwise fails to complete the construction of a project, there could be adverse consequences associated with the loan, including, but not limited to: a loss of the value of the property securing the loan, especially if the borrower is unable to raise funds to complete it from other sources; a borrower claim against us for failure to perform under the loan documents; increased costs to the

57

Table of Contents

borrower that the borrower is unable to pay; a bankruptcy filing by the borrower; and abandonment by the borrower of the collateral for the loan.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR MORTGAGE BANKING BUSINESS AND OUR ACQUISITION OF ACRE CAPITAL

The loss of or changes to ACRE Capital's relationships with Fannie Mae, HUD and institutional investors would adversely affect its ability to originate CRE loans through Fannie Mae and HUD programs, which would materially adversely affect us.

        Currently, ACRE Capital originates and services its loans for sale through Fannie Mae or HUD programs. ACRE Capital is approved as a Fannie Mae DUS lender, Ginnie Mae issuer and FHA (including MAP and LEAN) lender nationwide. ACRE Capital's status as an approved lender and issuer under these programs affords ACRE Capital a number of advantages and may be terminated by the applicable agency at any time. The loss of such status would, or changes in ACRE Capital's relationships could, prevent ACRE Capital from being able to originate and service CRE loans for sale through Fannie Mae or HUD, which would materially adversely affect us. It could also result in ACRE Capital's loss of similar approvals from other agencies.

We may not realize all of the anticipated benefits of the Acquisition or such benefits may take longer to realize than expected.

        The success of the Acquisition depends, in part, on our ability to realize the anticipated benefits from successfully integrating ACRE Capital's business with ours. The combination of two independent companies is a complex, costly and time-consuming process. As a result, we have been required to devote significant management attention and resources to integrating the business practices and operations of ACRE Capital. The integration process may disrupt our business and, if implemented ineffectively, could preclude us from realizing all of the potential benefits we expect to realize with respect to the Acquisition. Our failure to meet the challenges involved in successfully integrating our operations and ACRE Capital's operations or to fully realize the anticipated benefits of the transaction could cause an interruption of, or a loss of momentum in, our business and could seriously harm our results of operations. In addition, the overall integration of the two companies may result in material unanticipated problems, expenses, liabilities, competitive responses, loss of business relationships and diversion of management's attention, and may cause our stock price to decline. The difficulties of integrating ACRE Capital's business with our operations include, among others:

•

managing a significantly larger company, including an internally managed subsidiary with approximately 90 employees;



•

managing a business subject to significant regulations previously inapplicable to us;



•

the fact that we and our Manager have limited experience operating a TRS;



•

the potential diversion of management focus and resources from other strategic opportunities and from operational matters and potential disruption associated with the Acquisition;



•

maintaining ACRE Capital employee morale and retaining key ACRE Capital management and other ACRE Capital employees;



•

integrating two unique business cultures;



•

the possibility of faulty assumptions underlying expectations regarding the integration process;



•

consolidating corporate and administrative infrastructures and eliminating duplicative operations;



•

coordinating geographically separate organizations;

58

Table of Contents

•

unanticipated issues in integrating information technology, communications and other systems;



•

unanticipated changes in applicable laws and regulations;



•

managing tax costs or inefficiencies associated with integrating our operations and ACRE Capital's;



•

suffering losses if we do not experience the anticipated benefits of the transaction;



•

unforeseen expenses or delays associated with the Acquisition; and



•

making any necessary modifications to ACRE Capital's internal financial control standards to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

        Many of these factors are outside of our control and any one of them could result in increased costs, decreases in the amount of expected revenues and diversion of management's time and energy, which could materially impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even if our operations and ACRE Capital's are successfully integrated, we may not realize the full benefits of the Acquisition within the anticipated time frame, or at all.

ACRE Capital may not be able to hire and retain qualified loan originators, and if it is unable to do so, its ability to implement its business and growth strategies could be limited.

        ACRE Capital depends on its 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 ACRE Capital believes leads to repeat and referral business. Accordingly, ACRE Capital must be able to attract, motivate and retain skilled loan originators. As of December 31, 2013, ACRE Capital employed approximately 13 loan originators throughout its nine offices. The market for loan originators is highly competitive and may lead to increased costs to hire and retain them. ACRE Capital cannot guarantee that it will be able to attract or retain qualified loan originators. If it cannot attract, motivate or retain a sufficient number of skilled loan originators, or even if it can motivate or retain them but at higher costs, we could be materially adversely affected.

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

        Under the Fannie Mae DUS program, ACRE Capital originates and services 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, ACRE Capital must maintain minimum collateral and is generally required to share the risk of loss on loans sold through Fannie Mae. Under the pari passu risk-sharing formula, ACRE Capital is required to share the loss with Fannie Mae, with its maximum loss capped at one-third of the original principal balance of a loan. ACRE Capital's risk-sharing obligations have been modified and reduced on some Fannie Mae DUS loans. In addition, Fannie Mae can significantly increase ACRE Capital's 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 or if Fannie Mae determines that there was fraud, material misrepresentation or gross negligence by ACRE Capital in its underwriting, closing, delivery or servicing of the loan. As of December 31, 2013, ACRE Capital had pledged securities and cash of $13.7 million as collateral against future losses under $3.7 billion of loans outstanding that are subject to risk-sharing obligations, which we refer to as ACRE Capital's "at risk balance."

        ACRE Capital's DUS lender contract with Fannie Mae gives Fannie Mae the ability to increase the amounts required to be held in reserve as operational liquidity or restricted reserves for a number

59

Table of Contents

of reasons in order to protect its interests. In this regard, Fannie Mae had previously required ACRE Capital to bolster its operational and restricted liquidity positions by increasing its total acceptable operational liquidity by $6.0 million and also increasing its restricted reserve liquidity by $2.5 million. In August of 2012, Fannie Mae agreed to allow ACRE Capital to use the $6.0 million of additional operational liquidity to make advances on defaulted Fannie Mae loans and/or to meet future loss sharing obligations on Fannie Mae loans. Upon the consummation of our acquisition of ACRE Capital, Fannie Mae agreed to lift the requirement that ACRE Capital maintain the additional restricted reserve of $2.5 million and the $6.0 million of additional operational liquidity. If Fannie Mae deems it necessary and appropriate, it may raise these collateral requirements again in the future, which would limit ACRE Capital's ability to utilize those funds. As of December 31, 2013, ACRE Capital's allowance for risk-sharing as a percentage of the at-risk balance was 1.27%, or $16.5 million, and reflects ACRE Capital's current estimate of its future payouts under its risk-sharing obligations. We cannot assure you that ACRE Capital's estimate will be sufficient to cover future write offs.

        While ACRE Capital originates loans that meet the underwriting guidelines defined by Fannie Mae, in addition to its 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 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, 2013, the outstanding unpaid principal balance of the assets comprising ACRE Capital's 60+ days delinquency rate segment represented 0.53% of the at-risk portfolio's aggregate unpaid principal balance. If loan defaults 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 by ACRE Capital to pay its share of losses under the Fannie Mae DUS program could result in the revocation of its license from Fannie Mae and the exercise of various remedies available to Fannie Mae under the Fannie Mae DUS program.

If ACRE Capital fails to act proactively with delinquent borrowers in an effort to avoid a default, its number of delinquent loans could increase, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

        As a loan servicer, ACRE Capital maintains the primary contact with the borrower throughout the life of the loan and is responsible, pursuant to its servicing agreements with Fannie Mae, for asset management. ACRE Capital is also responsible, together with Fannie Mae, for taking actions to mitigate losses. We believe that ACRE Capital has developed an extensive asset management process for tracking each loan that it services. However, ACRE Capital 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 ACRE Capital can recommend a loss mitigation strategy for Fannie Mae, decisions regarding loss mitigation are within the control of Fannie Mae. Recent turmoil in the real estate, credit and capital markets have made this process even more difficult and unpredictable. When loans become delinquent, ACRE Capital incurs additional expenses in servicing and asset managing the loan, it is typically required to advance principal and interest payments and tax and insurance escrow amounts, it could be subject to a loss of its contractual servicing fee and it could suffer losses of up to 33.33% (or more for loans that do not meet specific underwriting criteria or default within 12 months of their sale to Fannie Mae) of the unpaid principal balance of a Fannie Mae DUS loan with Level I pari passu risk-sharing, as well as potential losses on Fannie Mae DUS loans with modified risk-sharing. These items could have a negative impact on its cash flows and a negative effect on the net carrying value of the MSRs on its balance sheet and could result in a charge to its earnings. As a result of the foregoing, a continuing rise in ACRE Capital's delinquencies could have a material adverse effect on us.

60

Table of Contents

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

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

        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 ACRE Capital enters 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 ACRE Capital has with them. These fees for new loans vary over time and may be materially 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, ACRE Capital has originated multifamily real estate loans that are eligible for sale through Fannie Mae programs, and in 2013 ACRE Capital was approved to originate loans that are eligible to be insured by FHA and securitized through Ginnie Mae. This focus may expose ACRE Capital to greater risk if the CMBS market continues its nascent recovery or alternative sources of liquidity become more readily available to the commercial real estate finance market.

        ACRE Capital originates multifamily real estate loans that are eligible for sale through Fannie Mae programs or are eligible to be insured by FHA and securitized through Ginnie Mae. Over the past few years, the number of multifamily loans financed by Fannie Mae programs has represented a significantly greater percentage of overall multifamily loan origination volume than in prior years. ACRE Capital believes that this increase is the result, in part, of market dislocation and illiquidity in the secondary markets for non-Fannie Mae loans. The CMBS market continues to show signs of a recovery over the past few years. To the extent the CMBS market continues its recovery or liquidity in the commercial real estate finance market significantly increases, there may be less demand for loans that are eligible for sale through Fannie Mae programs or eligible to be insured by FHA and securitized through Ginnie Mae, and ACRE Capital's loan origination volume may be adversely impacted, which could materially adversely affect us. In addition, ACRE Capital is not currently licensed to provide loans through Freddie Mac. In the event there is a disproportionate increase in demand for loans through Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae is wound down while Freddie Mac survives, ACRE Capital's loan origination volume may be adversely impacted, which could materially adversely affect us.

61

Table of Contents

A significant portion of ACRE Capital's 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 ACRE Capital engages for back-office loan servicing functions and loan origination, could have a material adverse effect on us.

        We expect that loan servicing fees will continue to constitute a significant portion of ACRE Capital's revenues for the foreseeable future. Nearly all of these fees are derived from loans that ACRE Capital originates and sells through Fannie Mae or HUD programs or places with institutional investors. A decline in the number or value of loans that ACRE Capital originates for these investors or terminations of its servicing engagements will decrease these fees. HUD has the right to terminate ACRE Capital's current servicing engagements for cause. In addition to termination for cause, Fannie Mae may terminate ACRE Capital's servicing engagements without cause by paying a termination fee. ACRE Capital is also subject to losses that may arise as a result of servicing errors, such as errors in the timeliness or accuracy of reporting, a failure to maintain insurance, pay taxes or provide notices. In addition, ACRE Capital has contracted with a third party to perform certain routine back-office aspects of loan servicing. If ACRE Capital or this third party fails to perform, or ACRE Capital breaches or the third-party causes ACRE Capital to breach its servicing obligations to Fannie Mae or HUD, ACRE Capital's servicing engagements may be terminated. Declines or terminations of servicing engagements or breaches of such obligations could materially adversely affect us.

ACRE Capital is 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 it breaches a representation or warranty made by it in connection with the sale of the loan through a Fannie Mae program, any of which could have a material adverse effect on ACRE Capital.

        ACRE Capital bears 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 purchase the loan ("failed loan delivery"), including because a catastrophic change in the condition of a property occurs after ACRE Capital funds the loan and prior to the investor purchase date. ACRE Capital also has the risk of serious errors in loan documentation that 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. There can be no assurance that ACRE Capital will not experience failed deliveries or that any losses will not be material or will be mitigated through property insurance or payment protections.

        ACRE Capital must make certain representations and warranties concerning each loan originated by it for Fannie Mae programs. The representations and warranties relate to ACRE Capital's practices in the origination and servicing of the loans and the accuracy of the information being provided by it. For example, ACRE Capital is generally required to provide the following representations and warranties, among others: it is authorized to do business and to sell or assign the loan; the loan conforms to the requirements of Fannie Mae 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 it does 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. ACRE Capital is permitted to satisfy certain of these representations and warranties by furnishing a title insurance policy.

        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 ACRE Capital to repurchase the full amount of the loan and seek indemnification for losses from ACRE Capital. ACRE Capital's obligation to repurchase the loan is independent of its risk-sharing obligations. Fannie Mae could

62

Table of Contents

require ACRE Capital 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 ACRE Capital's actions or on third-party reports, such as title reports and environmental reports, ACRE Capital may not receive similar representations and warranties from other parties that would serve as a claim against them. Even if ACRE Capital receives representations and warranties from third parties and has a claim against them in the event of a breach, its ability to recover on any such claim may be limited. ACRE Capital's ability to recover against a borrower that breaches its representations and warranties to it may be similarly limited. ACRE Capital's 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 ACRE Capital has capable personnel at all levels, uses qualified third parties and has established controls to ensure that all loans are originated pursuant to requirements established by Fannie Mae, in addition to its own internal requirements, there can be no assurance that ACRE Capital, its employees or third parties will not make mistakes. Any significant repurchase or indemnification obligations imposed on ACRE Capital could have a material adverse effect on us.

ACRE Capital expects to offer additional new loan products to meet evolving borrower demand, including new types of loans. Because it is not as experienced with such loan products, it may not be successful or profitable in offering such products.

        In the future, ACRE Capital expects to offer new loan products to meet evolving borrower demands. ACRE Capital may initiate new loan product and service offerings or acquire them through acquisitions of operating businesses. Because ACRE Capital may not be as experienced with new loan products or services, it 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.

For most loans that ACRE Capital services under the Fannie Mae and HUD programs, ACRE Capital is 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 ACRE Capital services under the Fannie Mae DUS program, ACRE Capital is currently required to advance the principal and interest payments and tax and insurance escrow amounts if the borrower is delinquent in making loan payments. After four continuous months of making advances on behalf of the borrower, ACRE Capital can submit a reimbursement claim to Fannie Mae, which Fannie Mae may approve at its discretion. ACRE Capital is 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 ACRE Capital in accordance with Fannie Mae requirements are used to reduce the proceeds required to settle any loss, if not previously reimbursed.

        Under the HUD program, ACRE Capital is obligated to continue to advance principal and interest payments and tax and insurance escrow amounts on Ginnie Mae securities until the FHA mortgage insurance claim and the Ginnie Mae security have been fully paid. In the event of a default on an FHA insured loan, FHA will reimburse 99% of any losses of principal, plus generally most tax, insurance, and interest (at the federal debenture rate) advanced on the loan. If the loan default occurred while pooled with Ginnie Mae, that agency will reimburse 1% of principal and generally 85% of any interest slippage between the federal debenture and security rates of interest.

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

63

Table of Contents

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

        There continues to be substantial uncertainty regarding the future of each 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 portfolio without the direct support of the U.S. federal government, in September 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") placed Fannie Mae 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 of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac maintains a positive net worth by providing for the provision of cash by the U.S. Treasury to such entity 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 conservatorship, each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could also be placed into receivership under certain circumstances.

        In 2011, the Obama Administration released a white paper on the future of housing finance reform. The report provides that the Obama Administration will work with FHFA to determine the best way to responsibly reduce Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role in the market and ultimately wind down both institutions. The report identifies a number of possible policy steps for winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reducing the government's role in housing finance and helping bring private capital back to the mortgage market. These steps include (1) increasing guaranty fees, (2) gradually increasing the level of required down payments so that any mortgages insured by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac eventually have at least a 10% down payment, (3) reducing conforming loan limits to those established under the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, (4) encouraging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pursue additional credit loss protection and (5) reducing Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolios, consistent with the U.S. Treasury's senior preferred stock purchase agreements with the companies. In addition, the report outlines three potential options for a new long-term structure for the housing finance system following the wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

        On March 4, 2013, FHFA released its 2013 Conservatorship Scorecard for Fannie Mae. As part of the scorecard, FHFA directed that Fannie Mae contract its presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking certain operations (by lines of business). Specifically, FHFA directed Fannie Mae to reduce the unpaid principal balance amount of new multifamily business relative to 2012 by at least ten percent by tightening underwriting, adjusting pricing, and limiting product offerings, while not increasing the proportion of Fannie Mae's retained risk.

        If the FHFA mandates additional reductions to Fannie Mae's volumes for new multifamily originations or imposes additional restrictions on Fannie Mae's multifamily business beyond 2013, the volume of loans that ACRE Capital originates with Fannie Mae could be adversely impacted. These additional mandates and restrictions could have a material impact on our financial results in future periods.

        Congress has also continued to consider housing finance reform. In the first session of the current Congress, members of Congress introduced several bills to reform the housing finance system. In June 2013, the "Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013" was introduced in the

64

Table of Contents

Senate. The Senate bill, among other matters, would require the wind down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within five years of enactment. In July 2013, the Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives approved the "Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act of 2013." The House bill, among other matters, would require FHFA to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into receivership within five years of enactment or potentially longer in certain circumstances. Both bills would place certain restrictions on Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's activities prior to being wound down or placed into receivership, as applicable.

        In addition, two bills were introduced during the first session of the current Congress related to the terms of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's senior preferred stock purchase agreements with the U.S. Treasury. The "Jumpstart GSE Reform Act," which was introduced in the Senate in March 2013, would prohibit Congress from increasing the GSEs' guaranty fees to offset spending unrelated to the business operations of the GSEs and also would prohibit Treasury from disposing of its GSE senior preferred stock until legislation has been enacted that includes specific instruction for its disposition. The "Let the GSEs Pay Us Back Act of 2013," which was introduced in the House of Representatives in June 2013, would require the amendment of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's senior preferred stock purchase agreements with Treasury to, among other things, terminate the dividends on the senior preferred stock and allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to repay the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock.

        Congress is expected to continue to consider housing finance reform in the current congressional session, including conducting hearings and considering legislation that would alter the housing finance system or the activities or operations of the GSEs. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of legislative proposals regarding the future status of the GSEs. On March 11, 2014, the leaders of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee outlined plans for bipartisan sponsored legislation to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, though no draft legislation has been formally released.

        In August 2013, President Obama publicly discussed the Obama administration's housing policy priorities, including a core principle that included winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through a responsible transition. In a paper released by the White House, the Obama administration endorsed several initiatives to facilitate this transition, including the reduction of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's investment portfolios by at least 15% per year through 2018, engaging in credit risk transfer pilot programs and continuing to develop a common securitization platform. In January 2014, the White House issued a fact sheet reaffirming the Obama administration's view that housing finance reform should include ending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's business model.

        Currently, ACRE Capital originates a substantial majority of its loans for sale through Fannie Mae programs. Furthermore, a substantial majority of its servicing rights are derived from loans ACRE Capital sells through Fannie Mae programs. Changes in the business charter, structure or existence of Fannie Mae could eliminate or substantially reduce the number of loans ACRE Capital originates, 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.

If ACRE Capital fails to comply with the numerous government regulations and program requirements of Fannie Mae or HUD, it may lose its approved lender status and fail to gain additional approvals or licenses for its business. ACRE Capital is also subject to changes in laws, regulations and existing Fannie Mae and HUD program requirements, including potential increases in reserve and risk retention requirements that could increase its costs and affect the way it conducts its business, which could materially adversely affect ACRE Capital.

        ACRE Capital's operations are subject to regulation by federal, state and local government authorities, various laws and judicial and administrative decisions, and regulations and policies of both HUD and Fannie Mae. These laws, regulations, rules and policies impose, among other things, minimum net worth, operational liquidity and collateral requirements. Fannie Mae requires ACRE

65

Table of Contents

Capital 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 ACRE Capital's 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 ACRE Capital 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 ACRE Capital and impose requirements and restrictions affecting, among other things: ACRE Capital's loan originations; maximum interest rates, finance charges and other fees that ACRE Capital may charge; disclosures to consumers; the terms of secured transactions; collection, repossession and claims handling procedures; personnel qualifications; and other trade practices. ACRE Capital is also subject to inspection by Fannie Mae and regulatory authorities and lender qualification and monitoring by HUD. ACRE Capital's failure to comply with these requirements could lead to, among other things, the loss of a license as an approved Fannie Mae 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, in March of 2013, Fannie Mae notified all DUS lenders that collateral requirements on existing mortgage loans that are considered Tier 1 as a result of a defensive refinance or modification were increasing from 90 basis points to 110 basis points, and that the collateral requirements for Tier 2 mortgage loans were increasing from 60 basis points to 75 basis points. The new requirements were implemented retroactive to January 1, 2013, but to lessen the impact on DUS lenders, the Tier 2 requirement is increasing gradually by three basis points per quarter until December 31, 2014. The collateral requirements for Tier 3 and Tier 4 mortgage loans were not changed, but the collateral requirements for new loans with Levels II and III loss sharing (for breach penalties) were raised from 98 basis points to 120 basis points and from 130 basis points to 140 basis points, respectively. Fannie Mae indicated that the next evaluation of DUS Capital Standards will occur on or before June 30, 2014. As of December 31, 2013, ACRE Capital had 567 loans, with a collective balance of $2.4 billion, in its portfolio that were affected by the announced collateral changes and we do not expect it will have a material impact on ACRE Capital's future operations; however, Fannie Mae has indicated that it would likely increase collateral requirements in the future, which may adversely impact us.

ACRE Capital is dependent upon the success of the multifamily real estate sector and conditions that negatively impact the multifamily sector may reduce demand for ACRE Capital's products and services and materially adversely affect us.

        ACRE Capital provides commercial real estate financial products and services primarily to developers and owners of multifamily properties. Accordingly, the success of its 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 ACRE Capital's 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;

66

Table of Contents

•

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 ACRE Capital's products and services. Any such reduction could materially adversely affect us.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMMON STOCK

The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly.

        Our common stock is listed on the NYSE under the trading symbol "ACRE." Recently, the global capital and credit markets have been in an extended period of volatility and disruption. The market price and liquidity of the market for shares of our common stock may be significantly affected by numerous factors, some of which are beyond our control and may not be directly related to our operating performance.

        Some of the factors that could negatively affect the market price of our common stock include:

•

our actual or projected operating results, financial condition, cash flows and liquidity, or changes in business strategy or prospects;



•

actual or perceived conflicts of interest with our Manager or Ares Management and individuals, including our executives;



•

equity issuances by us, or share resales by our stockholders, or the perception that such issuances or resales may occur;



•

loss of a major funding source;



•

actual or anticipated accounting problems;



•

publication of research reports about us or the real estate industry;



•

changes in market valuations of similar companies;



•

adverse market reaction to any increased indebtedness we incur in the future;



•

additions to or departures of our Manager's or Ares Management's key personnel;



•

speculation in the press or investment community;



•

increases in market interest rates, which may lead investors to demand a higher distribution yield for our common stock and would result in increased interest expenses on our debt;



•

failure to maintain our REIT qualification or exemption from the 1940 Act;



•

price and volume fluctuations in the overall stock market from time to time;



•

general market and economic conditions, and trends including inflationary concerns, the current state of the credit and capital markets;

67

Table of Contents

•

significant volatility in the market price and trading volume of securities of publicly traded REITs or other companies in our sector, which are not necessarily related to the operating performance of these companies;



•

changes in law, regulatory policies or tax guidelines, or interpretations thereof, particularly with respect to REITs;



•

changes in the value of our portfolio;



•

any shortfall in revenue or net income or any increase in losses from levels expected by investors or securities analysts;



•

operating performance of companies comparable to us;



•

short-selling pressure with respect to shares of our common stock or REITs generally;



•

uncertainty surrounding the strength of the U.S. economic recovery particularly in light of the recent downgrade of the U.S. Government's credit rating; and



•

concerns regarding European sovereign debt.

        As noted above, market factors unrelated to our performance could also negatively impact the market price of our common stock. One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common stock is our distribution rate as a percentage of our stock price relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher distribution rate or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and conditions in the capital markets can affect the market value of our common stock. For instance, if interest rates rise, it is likely that the market price of our common stock will decrease as market rates on interest-bearing securities increase.

Common stock eligible for future sale may have adverse effects on our share price.

        As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, we had 28,506,977 and 9,267,162 shares of common stock outstanding, respectively, on a fully diluted basis. Of the shares outstanding as of December 31, 2013, 28,433,990 shares of our common stock are freely tradable without restriction or limitation under the Securities Act.

        Prior to our IPO, there was no established trading market for our common stock. We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of our common stock, or the availability of shares for future sales, on the market price of our common stock. The market price of our common stock may decline significantly when the restrictions on resale by certain of our stockholders lapse. Sales of substantial amounts of common stock or the perception that such sales could occur may adversely affect the prevailing market price for our common stock.

        We may issue additional restricted common stock and other equity-based awards under our 2012 Equity Incentive Plan. We may continue to issue additional shares in subsequent public offerings or private placements to make new investments or for other purposes. We are not required to offer any such shares to existing stockholders on a preemptive basis. Therefore, it may not be possible for existing stockholders to participate in such future share issuances, which may dilute the existing stockholders' interests in us.

We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and we may be unable to generate sufficient cash flows from our operations to make distributions to our stockholders at any time in the future.

        We are generally required to annually distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income, as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gains, for us to qualify as

68

Table of Contents

a REIT, which requirement we currently intend to satisfy through quarterly distributions of all or substantially all of our REIT taxable income in such year, subject to certain adjustments. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this annual report. All distributions will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our earnings, our financial condition, debt covenants, maintenance of our REIT qualification and other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. We believe that a change in any one of the following factors could adversely affect our results of operations and impair our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders:

•

our ability to make profitable investments;



•

margin calls or other expenses that reduce our cash flow;



•

defaults in our asset portfolio or decreases in the value of our portfolio; and



•

the fact that anticipated operating expense levels may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates.

        As a result, no assurance can be given that we will be able to make distributions to our stockholders at any time in the future or that the level of any distributions we do make to our stockholders will achieve a market yield or increase or even be maintained over time, any of which could materially and adversely affect us.

        In addition, distributions that we make to our stockholders out of current or accumulated earnings and profits (as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes), and not designated by us as capital gain dividends or qualified dividend income, generally will be taxable to our stockholders as ordinary income. However, a portion of our distributions may be designated by us as capital gain dividends and generally will be taxable to our stockholders as long-term capital gain to the extent that such distributions do not exceed our actual net capital gain for the taxable year, without regard to the period for which the stockholder that receives such distribution has held its stock. Distributions in excess of our current and accumulated earnings and profits, as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and not designated by us as capital gain dividends or qualified dividend income, may constitute a return of capital. A return of capital is not taxable, but has the effect of reducing the basis of a stockholder's investment in our common stock, but not below zero.

Our distributions may exceed our cash flow from our operations and our earnings.

        We intend to make regular quarterly distributions to holders of our common stock. The regular quarterly cash distributions we pay are expected to be principally sourced by cash flow from operating activities. However, there can be no assurance that our earnings or cash flow from operating activities will be sufficient to cover our future distributions, and we may use other sources of funds, such as from offering proceeds, borrowings and asset sales, to fund portions of our future distributions. Our distributions for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 exceeded, and future distributions may exceed, our cash flow from operating activities and earnings primarily because we have been in the initial stages of building our investment portfolio and as a result our earnings have been highly sensitive to a number of variables, including the pace and timing of new originations and our level of operating expenses. Such distributions reduce the amount of cash we have available for investing and other purposes and could be dilutive to our financial results.

Investing in our common stock may involve a high degree of risk.

        The investments that we make in accordance with our investment objectives may result in a high amount of risk when compared to alternative investment options and volatility or loss of principal. Our investments may be highly speculative and aggressive, and therefore an investment in our common stock may not be suitable for someone with lower risk tolerance.

69

Table of Contents

Future offerings of securities may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

        If we decide to issue securities that are senior to or convertible or exchangeable for our common stock, such securities may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. We and, indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Because our decision to issue such securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus holders of our common stock will bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting the value of their stock holdings in us.

Our stockholders may experience dilution upon the conversion of the 2015 Convertible Notes.

        Our 2015 Convertible Notes are convertible into shares of our common stock beginning on June 15, 2015 or, under certain circumstances, earlier. Upon conversion of the 2015 Convertible Notes, we have the choice to pay or deliver, as the case may be, at our election, cash, shares of our common stock or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock. The current conversion price of the 2015 Convertible Notes is approximately $18.65 per share, subject to adjustment in certain circumstances. If we elect to deliver shares of common stock upon a conversion at the time our tangible book value per share exceeds the conversion price in effect at such time, our stockholders may incur dilution. In addition, our stockholders will experience dilution in their ownership percentage of common stock upon our issuance of common stock in connection with the conversion of the 2015 Convertible Notes and any dividends paid on our common stock will also be paid on shares issued in connection with such conversion after such issuance.

We are an "emerging growth company" and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

        We are an "emerging growth company," as defined in the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not "emerging growth companies," including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

The Maryland General Corporation Law, or the "MGCL," prohibits certain business combinations, which may make it more difficult for us to be acquired.

        Under the MGCL, "business combinations" between a Maryland corporation and an "interested stockholder" or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These business combinations include a merger, consolidation, share exchange or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities. An interested stockholder is defined as: (a) any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding voting stock of the corporation; or (b) an affiliate or associate of the corporation who,

70

Table of Contents

at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding stock of the corporation.

        A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved in advance the transaction by which the person otherwise would have become an interested stockholder. However, in approving a transaction, the board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the board of directors.

        After the expiration of the five-year period described above, any business combination between the Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder must generally be recommended by the board of directors of the corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:

•

80% of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of the then-outstanding shares of voting stock of the corporation; and



•

two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast by holders of voting 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 supermajority vote requirements do not apply if the corporation's common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under the MGCL, 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. The MGCL also permits various exemptions from these provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors before the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. Pursuant to the statute, our board of directors has adopted a resolution exempting any business combination with Ares Investments or any of its affiliates. Consequently, the five-year prohibition and the supermajority vote requirements will not apply to business combinations between us and Ares Investments or any of its affiliates. As a result, Ares Investments or any of its affiliates may be able to enter into business combinations with us that may not be in the best interest of our stockholders, without compliance with the supermajority vote requirements and the other provisions of the statute. The business combination statute may discourage others from trying to acquire control of us and increase the difficulty of consummating any offer.

Stockholders have limited control over changes in our policies and operations.

        Our board of directors determines our major policies, including with regard to financing, growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise these and other policies without a vote of the stockholders. Under our charter and the MGCL, our stockholders generally have a right to vote only on the following matters:

•

the election or removal of directors;



•

the amendment of our charter, except that our board of directors may amend our charter without stockholder approval to:



•

change our name;



•

change the name or other designation or the par value of any class or series of stock and the aggregate par value of our stock;



•

increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock that we have the authority to issue;



•

increase or decrease the number of shares of any class or series of stock that we have the authority to issue; and

71

Table of Contents

•

effect certain reverse stock splits;



•

our liquidation and dissolution; and



•

our being a party to a merger, consolidation, sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of our assets or statutory share exchange.

        All other matters are subject to the discretion of our board of directors.

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

        Our charter authorizes us to issue up to 450,000,000 shares of common stock and 50,000,000 shares of preferred stock without stockholder approval. In addition, our board of directors may, without stockholder approval, amend our charter from time to time to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of our 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 into other classes or series of 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 shares of common or preferred stock that could delay or prevent a merger, third-party tender offer or similar transaction or a change in incumbent management that might involve a premium price for shares of our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Maintenance of our exemption from registration under the 1940 Act imposes significant limits on our operations. Your investment return may be reduced if we are required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act.

        We intend to conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries are required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. We believe we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act because we will not engage primarily, or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. However, under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act, because we are a holding company that will conduct its businesses primarily through wholly owned subsidiaries, the securities issued by these subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of "investment company" under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a combined value in excess of 40% of the value of our total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage through our subsidiaries. In addition, the assets we and our subsidiaries may originate or acquire are limited by the provisions of the 1940 Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the 1940 Act, which may adversely affect our business.

        If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excepted from the definition of "investment company" by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds 40% of our total assets on an unconsolidated basis, or if one or more of such subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required to either (a) substantially change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company or (b) register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, either of which could have an adverse effect on us and the market price of our securities. If we or any of our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, the registered entity would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to capital structure (including the ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly change our operations.

72

Table of Contents

        Failure to maintain an exemption would require us to significantly restructure our investment strategy. For example, because affiliate transactions are generally prohibited under the 1940 Act, we would not be able to enter into transactions with any of our affiliates if we are required to register as an investment company, and we might be required to terminate our management agreement and any other agreements with affiliates, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate our business and pay distributions. If we were required to register as an investment company but failed to do so, we would be prohibited from engaging in our business, and criminal and civil actions could be brought against us. In addition, our contracts would be unenforceable unless a court required enforcement, and a court could appoint a receiver to take control of us and liquidate our business.

        We expect that certain subsidiaries that we may form in the future will rely upon the exemption from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, which is available for entities "primarily engaged" in the business of "purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate." This exemption generally requires that at least 55% of these subsidiaries' assets must comprise qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of each of their portfolios must comprise qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets under the 1940 Act. We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses of such guidance to determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets. However, the SEC's guidance was issued in accordance with factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations we may face, and much of the guidance was issued more than 20 years ago. No assurance can be given that the SEC staff will concur with our classification of our assets. In addition, the SEC staff may, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to re-classify our assets for purposes of qualifying for an exclusion from regulation under the 1940 Act. If we are required to re-classify our assets, we may no longer be in compliance with the exclusion from the definition of an "investment company" provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. To the extent that the SEC staff publishes new or different guidance with respect to any assets we have determined to be qualifying real estate assets, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in a subsidiary holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold.

        The SEC has not published guidance with respect to the treatment of CMBS for purposes of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exemption. Unless we receive further guidance from the SEC or its staff with respect to CMBS, we intend to treat CMBS as a real estate-related asset.

        Certain of our subsidiaries may rely on the exemption provided by Section 3(c)(6) to the extent that they hold mortgage assets through majority-owned subsidiaries that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C). The SEC staff has issued little interpretive guidance with respect to Section 3(c)(6) and any guidance published by the staff could require us to adjust our strategy accordingly.

        We determine whether an entity is one of our majority-owned subsidiaries. The 1940 Act defines a majority-owned subsidiary of a person as a company 50% or more of the outstanding voting securities of which are owned by such person, or by another company which is a majority-owned subsidiary of such person. The 1940 Act further defines voting securities as any security presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote for the election of directors of a company. We treat companies in which we own at least a majority of the outstanding voting securities as majority-owned subsidiaries for purposes of the 40% test. We have not requested the SEC to approve our treatment of any company as a majority-owned subsidiary and the SEC has not done so. If the SEC were to disagree with our treatment of one or more companies as majority-owned subsidiaries, we would need to adjust our strategy and our assets in order to continue to pass the 40% test. Any such adjustment in our strategy could have a material adverse effect on us.

73

Table of Contents

        On August 31, 2011, the SEC issued a concept release titled "Companies Engaged in the Business of Acquiring Mortgages and Mortgage-Related Instruments" (SEC Release No. IC-29778). Under the concept release, the SEC is reviewing interpretive issues relating to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, including the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the exemption and whether mortgage REITs should be regulated in a manner similar to investment companies. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, including the SEC or its staff providing more specific or different guidance regarding these exemptions, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If we or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exception or exemption from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company, any of which could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions which could have an adverse effect on our business and the market price for our shares of common stock.

Rapid and steep declines in the values of our CRE finance-related investments may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or exemption from the 1940 Act.

        If the market value or income potential of real estate-related investments declines as a result of increased interest rates or other factors, we may need to increase our real estate investments and income and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets in order to maintain our REIT qualification or exemption from the 1940 Act. If the decline in real estate asset values and/or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of any non-qualifying assets that we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent the REIT and 1940 Act considerations.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to recover on claims against our directors and officers are limited, which could reduce our stockholders and our recovery against them if they negligently cause us to incur losses.

        The MGCL provides that a director has no liability in such capacity if he performs his duties in good faith, in a manner he reasonably believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. A director who performs his or her duties in accordance with the foregoing standards should not be liable to us or any other person for failure to discharge his or her obligations as a director.

        In addition, our charter provides that our directors and officers will not be liable to us or our stockholders for monetary damages unless the director or officer actually received an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services, or is adjudged to be liable to us or our stockholders based on a finding that his or her action, or failure to act, was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty and was material to the cause of action adjudicated in the proceeding. Our bylaws require us, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, to indemnify and, without requiring a preliminary determination of the ultimate entitlement to indemnification, pay or reimburse reasonable expenses in advance of final disposition of a proceeding to any individual who is a present or former director or officer and who is made or threatened to be made a party to the proceeding by reason of his or her service in that capacity or any individual who, while a director or officer and at our request, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, member or manager of another corporation, REIT, limited liability company, partnership, joint venture, trust, employee benefit plan or other enterprise and who is made or threatened to be made a party to the proceeding by reason of his or her service in that capacity. With the approval of our board of directors, we may provide such indemnification and advance for expenses to any individual who served a predecessor of the Company in any of the

74

Table of Contents

capacities described above and any employee or agent of the Company or a predecessor of the Company, including our Manager and its affiliates.

        We also are permitted to purchase and maintain insurance or provide similar protection on behalf of any directors, officers, employees and agents, including our Manager and its affiliates, against any liability asserted which was incurred in any such capacity with us or arising out of such status. This may result in us having to expend significant funds, which will reduce the available cash for distribution to our stockholders.

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 generally 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, and any director elected to fill a vacancy will hold office for the remainder of the full term of the class of directors in which the vacancy occurred and until a successor is elected and qualifies. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in control of the Company that is in the best interests of our stockholders. Pursuant to our charter, our board of directors is divided into three classes of directors serving staggered three year terms. The staggered terms of our directors may reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt at a change in control, even though a tender offer or change in control might be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Ownership limitations may restrict change of control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their shares.

        In order for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT, commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2012, no more than 50% in value of our outstanding capital stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals during the last half of each taxable year after 2012. "Individuals" for this purpose include natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts, and some charitable trusts. To preserve our REIT qualification, among other purposes, our charter generally prohibits any person (except Ares Investments which is subject to a 22% excepted holder limit) from directly or indirectly owning more than 9.8% in value of the outstanding shares of our capital stock or more than 9.8% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our stock. This ownership limitation could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then-prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX RISKS

Our failure to remain qualified as a REIT would subject us to U.S. federal income tax and potentially state and local tax, and would adversely affect our operations and the market price of our common stock.

        We have elected and qualified to be taxed as a REIT commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2012. However, we may terminate our REIT qualification, if our board of directors determines that not qualifying as a REIT is in the best interests of our stockholders, or inadvertently. Our qualification as a REIT depends upon our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. We have structured and intend to continue structuring our activities in a manner designed to satisfy all the requirements for qualification as a REIT. The REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex and

75

Table of Contents

interpretation of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT is limited. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that we will be successful in operating so we can qualify or remain qualified as a REIT. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends on 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 or quarterly asset requirements also depends on our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, if certain of our operations were to be recharacterized by the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") such recharacterization could jeopardize our ability to satisfy all the requirements for qualification as a REIT. Furthermore, future legislative, judicial or administrative changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws could be applied retroactively, which could result in our disqualification as a REIT.

        If we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT for any taxable year, and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at corporate rates. In addition, we would generally be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year of losing our REIT qualification. Losing our REIT qualification would reduce our net earnings available for investment or distribution to stockholders because of the additional tax liability. In addition, distributions to stockholders would no longer qualify for the dividends paid deduction, and we would no longer be required to make distributions. If this occurs, we might be required to borrow funds or liquidate some investments in order to pay the applicable tax.

REITs, in certain circumstances, may incur tax liabilities that would reduce our cash available for distribution to you.

        Even if we maintain our status as a REIT, we may be subject to U.S. federal income taxes and related state and local taxes. For example, net income from the sale of properties that are "dealer" properties sold by a REIT (a "prohibited transaction" under the Code) will be subject to a 100% tax. We may not make sufficient distributions to avoid excise taxes applicable to REITs. Similarly, if we were to fail an income test (and did not lose our REIT status because such failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect) we would be subject to tax on the income that does not meet the income test requirements. We also may decide to retain net capital gain we earn from the sale or other disposition of our property and pay U.S. federal income tax directly on such income. In that event, our stockholders would be treated as if they earned that income and paid the tax on it directly. However, stockholders that are tax-exempt, such as charities or qualified pension plans, would have no benefit from their deemed payment of such tax liability unless they file U.S. federal income tax returns and thereon seek a refund of such tax. We also will be subject to corporate tax on any undistributed REIT taxable income. We also may be subject to state and local taxes on our income or property, including franchise, payroll, mortgage recording and transfer taxes, either directly or at the level of the other companies through which we indirectly own our assets, such as our TRSs, which are subject to full U.S. federal, state, local and foreign corporate-level income taxes. Any taxes we pay directly or indirectly will reduce our cash available for distribution to you.

To qualify as a REIT we must meet annual distribution requirements, which may force us to forgo otherwise attractive opportunities or borrow funds during unfavorable market conditions. This could delay or hinder our ability to meet our investment objectives and reduce your overall return.

        In order to maintain our status as a REIT, we must annually distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income, as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. We will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed REIT taxable income and net capital gain and to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on any amount by which distributions we pay with respect to any calendar year are less than the sum of (a) 85% of our ordinary income, (b) 95% of our

76

Table of Contents

capital gain net income and (c) 100% of our undistributed income from prior years. These requirements could cause us to distribute amounts that otherwise would be spent on investments in real estate assets and it is possible that we might be required to borrow funds, possibly at unfavorable rates, or sell assets to fund these distributions. Although we intend to make distributions sufficient to meet the annual distribution requirements and to avoid U.S. federal income and excise taxes on our earnings while we qualify as a REIT, it is possible that we might not always be able to do so.

Certain of our business activities are potentially subject to the prohibited transaction tax, which could reduce the return on your investment.

        For so long as we qualify as a REIT, our ability to dispose of property during the first few years following acquisition may be restricted to a substantial extent as a result of our REIT qualification. Under applicable provisions of the Code regarding prohibited transactions by REITs, while we qualify as a REIT, we will be subject to a 100% penalty tax on any gain recognized on the sale or other disposition of any property (other than foreclosure property) that we own, directly or through any subsidiary entity, but generally excluding TRSs, that is deemed to be inventory or property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. Whether property is inventory or otherwise held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business depends on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each property. While we qualify as a REIT, we will avoid the 100% prohibited transaction tax by (a) conducting activities that may otherwise be considered prohibited transactions through a TRS (but such TRS will incur corporate rate income taxes with respect to any income or gain recognized by it), (b) conducting our operations in such a manner so that no sale or other disposition of an asset we own, directly or through any subsidiary, will be treated as a prohibited transaction, or (c) structuring certain dispositions of our properties to comply with a prohibited transaction safe harbor available under the Code for properties that, among other requirements, have been held for at least two years. However, no assurance can be given that any particular property we own, directly or through any subsidiary entity, but generally excluding TRSs, will not be treated as inventory or property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business.

The tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions, including certain methods of securitizing mortgage loans that would be treated as sales for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

        A REIT's net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property, other than foreclosure property, but including mortgage loans, held as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to sell or securitize loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans as inventory for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans, other than through a TRS, and we may be required to limit the structures we use for our securitization transactions, even though such sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial for us.

TRSs are subject to corporate-level taxes and dealings with TRSs may be subject to 100% excise tax.

        A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRS. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. A corporation of which a TRS directly or indirectly owns more than 35% of the voting power or value of the stock will automatically be treated as a TRS. Overall, no more than 25% of the gross value of a REIT's assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. In addition, the TRS rules limit the deductibility of interest paid or accrued by a TRS to its parent REIT to assure that the TRS is subject to an appropriate level of

77

Table of Contents

corporate taxation. The rules also impose a 100% excise tax on certain transactions between a TRS and its parent REIT that are not conducted on an arm's-length basis.

        TRS Holdings, ACRC TRS and other TRSs that we may form will pay U.S. federal, state and local income tax on their taxable income, and their after-tax net income will be available for distribution to us but will not be required to be distributed to us, unless necessary to maintain our REIT qualification. While we will be monitoring the aggregate value of the securities of our TRSs and intend to conduct our affairs so that such securities will represent less than 25% of the value of our total assets, there can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with the TRS limitation in all market conditions.

Our investments in certain debt instruments may cause us to recognize income for U.S. federal income tax purposes even though no cash payments have been received on the debt instruments, and certain modifications of such debt by us could cause the modified debt to not qualify as a good REIT asset, thereby jeopardizing our REIT qualification.

        Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined based on GAAP, or differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash may occur. For example, we may acquire assets, including debt securities requiring us to accrue OID or recognize market discount income, that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets. In addition, if a borrower with respect to a particular debt instrument encounters financial difficulty rendering it unable to pay stated interest as due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income with the effect that we will recognize income but will not have a corresponding amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

        As a result of the foregoing, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year and find it difficult or impossible to meet the REIT distribution requirements in certain circumstances. In such circumstances, we may be required to (a) sell assets in adverse market conditions, (b) borrow on unfavorable terms, (c) distribute amounts that would otherwise be used for future acquisitions or used to repay debt, or (d) make a taxable distribution of our shares of common stock as part of a distribution in which stockholders may elect to receive shares of common stock or (subject to a limit measured as a percentage of the total distribution) cash, in order to comply with the REIT distribution requirements.

        Moreover, we may acquire distressed debt investments that require subsequent modification by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding debt are "significant modifications" under the applicable Treasury Regulations, the modified debt may be considered to have been reissued to us in a debt-for-debt taxable exchange with the borrower. This deemed reissuance may prevent the modified debt from qualifying as a good REIT asset if the underlying security has declined in value and would cause us to recognize income to the extent the principal amount of the modified debt exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified debt.

The failure of mortgage loans subject to a repurchase agreement or a mezzanine loan to qualify as a real estate asset would adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

        We have entered into repurchase agreements under which we will nominally sell certain of our assets to counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase the sold assets. We believe that we will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such agreements notwithstanding that such agreements may transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the assets during the term of the repurchase agreement, in which case we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

78

Table of Contents

        In addition, in order for a loan to be treated as a qualifying real estate asset producing qualifying income for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, generally the loan must be secured by real property. We may originate or acquire mezzanine loans that are not directly secured by real property but instead secured by equity interests in a partnership or limited liability company that directly or indirectly owns real property. In Revenue Procedure 2003-65, the IRS provided a safe harbor pursuant to which a mezzanine loan that is not secured by real estate would, if it meets each of the requirements contained in the Revenue Procedure, be treated by the IRS as a qualifying real estate asset. Although the Revenue Procedure provides a safe harbor on which taxpayers may rely, it does not prescribe rules of substantive tax law and in many cases it may not be possible for us to meet all the requirements of the safe harbor. We cannot provide assurance that any mezzanine loan in which we invest would be treated as a qualifying asset producing qualifying income for REIT qualification purposes. If any such loan fails either the REIT income or asset tests, we may be disqualified as a REIT.

Our qualification as a REIT and exemption from U.S. federal income tax with respect to certain assets may be dependent on the accuracy of legal opinions or advice rendered or given or statements by the issuers of assets that we acquire, and the inaccuracy of any such opinions, advice or statements may adversely affect our REIT qualification and result in significant corporate-level tax.

        When purchasing securities, we may rely on opinions or advice of counsel for the issuer of such securities, or statements made in related offering documents, for purposes of determining whether such securities represent debt or equity securities for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and also to what extent those securities constitute real estate assets for purposes of the asset tests and produce qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test. In addition, when purchasing the equity tranche of a securitization, we may rely on opinions or advice of counsel regarding the qualification of the securitization for exemption from U.S. corporate income tax and the qualification of interests in such securitization as debt for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The inaccuracy of any such opinions, advice or statements may adversely affect our REIT qualification and result in significant corporate level tax.

The taxable mortgage pool, or "TMP," rules may increase the taxes that we or our stockholders may incur, and may limit the manner in which we effect future securitizations.

        Securitizations by us or our subsidiaries could result in the creation of TMPs for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, we could have "excess inclusion income." Certain categories of stockholders, such as non-U.S. stockholders eligible for treaty or other benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and certain tax-exempt stockholders 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 any such excess inclusion income. In the case of a stockholder that is a REIT, regulated investment company ("RIC") common trust fund or other pass-through entity, our allocable share of our excess inclusion income could be considered excess inclusion income of such entity. In addition, to the extent that our common 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 any excess inclusion income. Because this tax generally would be imposed on us, all of our stockholders, including stockholders that are not disqualified organizations, generally will bear a portion of the tax cost associated with the classification of us or a portion of our assets as a TMP. A RIC, or other pass-through entity owning our common stock in record name will be subject to tax at the highest U.S. federal corporate tax rate on any excess inclusion income allocated to their owners that are disqualified organizations. Moreover, we could face limitations in selling equity interests in these securitizations to outside investors, or selling any debt securities issued in connection with these securitizations that might be considered to be equity interests for tax purposes. Finally, if we were to fail to qualify as a REIT, any TMP securitizations would be treated as separate taxable corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes that could not

79

Table of Contents

be included in any consolidated U.S. federal corporate income tax return. These limitations may prevent us from using certain techniques to maximize our returns from securitization transactions.

We may choose to make distributions in our own stock, in which case you may be required to pay income taxes in excess of the cash dividends you receive.

        In connection with our qualification as a REIT, we are required to annually distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income, as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. In order to satisfy this requirement, we may make distributions that are payable in cash and/or shares of our common stock (which could account for up to 80% of the aggregate amount of such distributions) at the election of each stockholder. Taxable stockholders receiving such distributions will be required to include the full amount of such distributions as ordinary dividend income to the extent of our current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, U.S. stockholders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such distributions in excess of the cash portion of the distribution received. Accordingly, U.S. stockholders receiving a distribution of our shares may be required to sell shares received in such distribution or may be required to sell other stock or assets owned by them, at a time that may be disadvantageous, in order to satisfy any tax imposed on such distribution. If a U.S. stockholder sells the stock that it receives as part of the distribution in order to pay this tax, the sales proceeds may be less than the amount it must include in income with respect to the distribution, depending on the market price of our stock at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. stockholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. tax with respect to such distribution, including in respect of all or a portion of such distribution that is payable in stock, by withholding or disposing of part of the shares included in such distribution and using the proceeds of such disposition to satisfy the withholding tax imposed. In addition, if a significant number of our stockholders determine to sell shares of our common stock in order to pay taxes owed on dividend income, such sale may put downward pressure on the market price of our common stock.

        Various tax aspects of such a taxable cash/stock distribution are uncertain and have not yet been addressed by the IRS. No assurance can be given that the IRS will not impose requirements in the future with respect to taxable cash/stock distributions, including on a retroactive basis, or assert that the requirements for such taxable cash/stock distributions have not been met.

Dividends payable by REITs generally do not qualify for the reduced tax rates available for some dividends.

        Currently, the maximum tax rate applicable to qualified dividend income payable to U.S. stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for this reduced rate. Although this does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends payable by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates 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.

If we were considered to actually or constructively pay a "preferential dividend" to certain of our stockholders, our status as a REIT could be adversely affected.

        In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must annually distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income, as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. In order for distributions to be counted as satisfying the annual distribution

80

Table of Contents

requirements for REITs, and to provide us with a REIT-level tax deduction, the distributions must not be "preferential dividends." A dividend is not a preferential dividend if the distribution is pro rata among all outstanding shares of stock within a particular class, and in accordance with the preferences among different classes of stock as set forth in our organizational documents. Currently, there is uncertainty as to the IRS's position regarding whether certain arrangements that REITs have with their stockholders could give rise to the inadvertent payment of a preferential dividend (e.g., the pricing methodology for stock purchased under a distribution reinvestment program inadvertently causing a greater than 5% discount on the price of such stock purchased). There is no de minimis exception with respect to preferential dividends; therefore, if the IRS were to take the position that we inadvertently paid a preferential dividend, we may be deemed to have failed the 90% distribution test, and our status as a REIT could be terminated for the year in which such determination is made if we were unable to cure such failure. While we believe that our operations have been structured in such a manner that we will not be treated as inadvertently paying preferential dividends, we can provide no assurance to this effect.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

        The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Any income from a hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes, price changes or currency fluctuations with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets, if properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations, does not constitute "gross income" for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions will likely be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of the gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may need to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our TRSs are subject to tax on gains and may expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in a TRS generally will not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income of such TRS.

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to forgo and/or liquidate otherwise attractive investment opportunities.

        To maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must ensure that we meet the REIT gross income tests annually and that at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans and certain kinds of mortgage-related securities. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate assets from our portfolio or not make otherwise attractive investments in order to maintain our qualification as a REIT. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

81

Table of Contents

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could increase our tax liability, reduce our operating flexibility and reduce the price of our common stock.

        In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and administrative changes have been made in the provisions of U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to investments similar to an investment in shares of our common stock. Additional changes to the tax laws are likely to continue to occur, and we cannot assure you that any such changes will not adversely affect the taxation of a stockholder. Any such changes could have an adverse effect on an investment in our shares or on the market value or the resale potential of our assets. You are urged to consult with your tax advisor with respect to the impact of recent legislation on your investment in our shares and the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in our shares. You also should note that our counsel's tax opinion is based upon existing law, applicable as of the date of its opinion, all of which will be subject to change, either prospectively or retroactively.

        Although REITs generally receive better tax treatment than entities taxed as regular corporations, it is possible that future legislation would result in a REIT having fewer tax advantages, and it could become more advantageous for a company that invests in real estate to elect to be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a corporation. As a result, our charter provides our board of directors with the power, under certain circumstances, to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election and cause us to be taxed as a regular corporation, without the vote of our stockholders. Our board of directors has fiduciary duties to us and our stockholders and could only cause such changes in our tax treatment if it determines in good faith that such changes are in the best interest of our stockholders.

Potential characterization of distributions or gain on sale may be treated as unrelated business taxable income to tax-exempt investors.

        If (a) we are a "pension-held REIT," (b) a tax-exempt stockholder has incurred (or is deemed to have incurred) debt to purchase or hold our common stock or (c) a holder of common stock is a certain type of tax-exempt stockholder, dividends on, and gains recognized on the sale of, common stock by such tax-exempt stockholder may be subject to U.S. federal income tax as unrelated business taxable income under the Code.