RISK FACTORS

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risk factors and all other information contained in this prospectus before purchasing our common stock. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose some or all of your investment. Our forward looking statements in this prospectus are subject to the following risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated by our forward looking statements as a result of the risk factors below.

Risks Related To Our Business

We have no 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 incorporated on October 31, 2012 and have not commenced operations. We have no operating history. We cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our business successfully or implement our operating policies and strategies. There can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient returns to pay our operating expenses and make satisfactory distributions to our stockholders or any distributions at all. The results of our operations depend on several factors, including the availability of opportunities for the acquisition of target assets, the level and volatility of interest rates, the availability of adequate short and long-term financing, conditions in the financial markets and general economic conditions.

Difficult conditions in the mortgage and residential real estate markets as well as general market concerns may adversely affect the value of the assets in which we invest and these conditions may persist for the foreseeable future.

Our business is materially affected by conditions in the residential mortgage market, the residential real estate market, the financial markets and the economy in general. Concerns about the residential mortgage market and a declining real estate market, as well as inflation, energy costs, geopolitical issues, concerns over the creditworthiness of governments worldwide and the stability of the global banking system, unemployment and the availability and cost of credit have contributed to increased volatility and diminished expectations for the economy and markets going forward. In particular, the residential mortgage market in the United States has experienced a variety of difficulties and changed economic conditions, including defaults, credit losses and liquidity concerns. Certain commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies have announced extensive losses from exposure to the residential mortgage market. These factors have impacted investor perception of the risk associated with RMBS, other real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we may invest. As a result, values of our target asset have experienced volatility. Further deterioration of the mortgage market and investor perception of the risks associated with RMBS and other residential mortgage assets that we acquire could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We will be dependent on mortgage servicers to service the mortgage loans underlying the Excess MSRs that we acquire.

Our investments in Excess MSRs are dependent on the mortgage servicer to perform its servicing obligations. As a result, we could be materially and adversely affected if the servicer is terminated. The duties and obligations of mortgage servicers are defined through contractual agreements, which generally provide for the possibility for termination of the servicer in the absolute discretion of the GSE or Ginnie Mae. In the event of such termination by the GSE or Ginnie Mae with respect to a particular servicer, the related Excess MSRs could potentially lose all value on a going forward basis. Moreover, the termination of a servicer could take effect across all mortgages being serviced by that servicer. Therefore, to the extent we make multiple investments

27

Table of Contents

relating to mortgages serviced by the same servicer, such as our initial portfolio of Excess MSRs which will be entirely serviced by Freedom Mortgage, all such investments could lose all their value in the event of the termination of the servicer. In addition, many servicers also rely on subservicing arrangements with third parties and the failure of subservicers to adequately perform their services may negatively impact the servicer and, as a result, the performance of our Excess MSRs. We may not have recourse to the servicer if the subservicer fails to perform.

We could also be materially and adversely affected if the servicer is unable to adequately service the underlying mortgage loans due to:

Favorable ratings from third-party rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch are important to the conduct of a mortgage servicer’s loan servicing business and a downgrade in a mortgage servicer’s ratings could have an adverse effect on us and the value of our Excess MSRs. A mortgage service’s failure to maintain favorable or specified ratings may cause their termination as a servicer and may impair their ability to consummate future servicing transactions, which could have an adverse effect on our operations since we will rely heavily on mortgage servicers to achieve our investment objective with respect to Excess MSRs.

MSRs are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations and may be subject to various judicial and administrative decisions imposing various requirements and restrictions on the servicer’s business. If Freedom Mortgage or any servicer from whom we acquire Excess MSRs actually or allegedly failed to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, the servicer could be exposed to fines, penalties or other costs or the servicer could be terminated as the servicer and the MSRs to which our Excess MSRs relate would be eliminated and lose all value, which could have a material adverse effect on the associated Excess MSR, our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. If these laws, regulations and decisions change, we could be exposed to similar fines, penalties or costs.

In addition, a bankruptcy by any mortgage servicer that services the mortgage loans underlying any Excess MSRs that we have acquired or may acquire in the future could result in:

Any of the foregoing events could have a material and adverse effect on us. Moreover, our business model heavily relies upon our strategic alliance with Freedom Mortgage and our acquiring Excess MSRs through our relationship with Freedom Mortgage. To the extent Freedom Mortgage loses its ability to serve as a servicer for

28

Table of Contents

Fannie Mae or its status as a Ginnie Mae-approved issuer is terminated, we could face significant adverse consequences. Similarly, if Freedom Mortgage is unable to successfully execute its business strategy or no longer maintains its financial viability, our business strategy would be materially adversely affected and our results of operations would suffer.

Governmental investigations or examinations, or private lawsuits, including purported class action lawsuits, involving Freedom Mortgage could have a material adverse effect on Freedom Mortgage and its ability to perform its obligations under our strategic alliance agreements.

Freedom Mortgage is routinely involved in legal proceedings concerning matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. An adverse result in governmental investigations or examinations, or private lawsuits, including purported class action lawsuits, could have a material adverse effect on Freedom Mortgage’s financial results. These legal proceedings can range from private actions involving a single plaintiff to class action lawsuits with potentially thousands of class members. Participants in the mortgage industry, including Freedom Mortgage, are also routinely subject to government investigations and inquiries. An adverse result in governmental investigations or examinations, or private lawsuits, including purported class action lawsuits, could have a material adverse effect on Freedom Mortgage’s financial results. Litigation and other proceedings may require that Freedom Mortgage pay settlement costs, legal fees, damages, penalties or other charges, which could adversely affect its financial results. In particular, ongoing and other legal proceedings brought under state consumer protection statutes may result in a separate fine for each violation of the statute, which, particularly in the case of class action lawsuits, could result in damages substantially in excess of the amounts earned from the underlying activities and that could have a material adverse effect on Freedom Mortgage’s liquidity and financial position.

Governmental investigations, both state and federal, can be either formal or informal. The costs of responding to the investigations can be substantial. In addition, government-mandated changes to servicing practices could lead to higher costs and additional administrative burdens, in particular, those regarding record retention and informational obligations.

Freedom Mortgage has advised us that it does not believe that it is currently subject to any legal proceedings or government investigations that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on Freedom Mortgage or on us, but it is possible that one or more such legal proceedings or investigations could evolve into a material legal proceeding in the future. For example, Freedom Mortgage has informed us that, in February 2013, it received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the HUD OIG, in which the HUD OIG requested that Freedom Mortgage provide the HUD OIG with documents and records concerning Freedom Mortgage’s quality control and training policies and procedures relating to its FHA loan origination activities. The HUD OIG acts under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice. It is our understanding that several other FHA approved mortgage originators have received similar requests. Freedom Mortgage has informed us that, in March 2013, it provided all information that was readily available and continues to work with HUD OIG to further clarify the scope of the remaining information that was initially requested. In September 2013, the HUD OIG requested documents not previously requested from Freedom Mortgage, and we have been advised by Freedom Mortgage that it is in the process of providing those documents to the HUD OIG and continuing to cooperate with the HUD OIG. Freedom Mortgage has informed us that the HUD OIG has not communicated to Freedom Mortgage any allegations of wrongdoing or other findings. However, we cannot assure you that the HUD OIG will not do so in the future, and any such allegations or findings could result in Freedom Mortgage being required to pay settlement costs, legal fees, damages, penalties or other charges, which could adversely affect its financial results and its business operations, which in turn could impact its ability to perform under the strategic alliance agreements with us or may otherwise negatively impact its ability to act as our partner.

Our ability to invest in, and dispose of our investments in Excess MSRs may be subject to the receipt of third-party consents.

The Agencies may require that we submit ourselves to costly or burdensome conditions as a prerequisite to their consent to our investments in Excess MSRs. These conditions may diminish or eliminate the investment

29

Table of Contents

potential of certain Excess MSRs by making such investments too expensive for us or by severely limiting the potential returns available from Excess MSRs. Moreover, we have not received and do not expect to receive any assurances from the Agencies that their conditions for the disposition of an investment in Excess MSRs, including the investment in our Excess MSRs in the Initial Pools will not change. Therefore the potential costs, issues or restrictions associated with receiving such Agency’s consent for any such dispositions by us cannot be determined with any certainty. To the extent we are unable to dispose of Excess MSRs in our portfolio when we determine it would be beneficial to do so, our results of operations may be adversely impacted.

Acknowledgement agreements with Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac could expose us to potential liability in the event of a payment default.

In order to acquire Excess MSRs related to FHA and VA mortgage loans that have been pooled into securities guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, we must enter into an acknowledgment agreement with Ginnie Mae and the Ginnie Mae-approved issuer/servicer for the mortgage loans. Under that agreement, if the issuer/servicer fails to make a required payment to the holders of the Ginnie Mae-guaranteed Agency RMBS, we would be obligated to make that payment even though the payment may relate to loans for which we do not own any Excess MSRs. Our failure to make that payment could result in liability to Ginnie Mae for any losses or claims that it suffers as a result. In addition, under an acknowledgment agreement with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, we could be exposed to potential liability in the event of a payment default by an approved seller/servicer. However, the amount of the potential liability to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would be limited to the mortgage loans in the servicing portfolio identified in the acknowledgment agreement.

Given the size of Freedom Mortgage’s portfolio of FHA and VA loans that have been pooled into Ginnie Mae-guaranteed Agency RMBS, it is unlikely that we would be able to satisfy that obligation under the acknowledgment agreement should Freedom Mortgage fail to make a required payment. In that case we would be subject to claims for losses by Ginnie Mae which would have a material and adverse effect on our financial condition and operations, and our ability to enter into acknowledgement agreements in the future and to acquire Excess MSRs related to FHA and VA mortgage loans would be adversely affected. The only remedy related to the servicing permitted under the acknowledgment agreement is to request Ginnie Mae to transfer the servicing to another Ginnie Mae-approved issuer/servicer which would terminate our interest in the related Excess MSRs. The termination of our Excess MSRs could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our investments in Excess MSRs may involve complex or novel structures.

Our investments in Excess MSRs may involve complex or novel structures. It is possible that the views of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae on whether any such investment structure is appropriate or acceptable may not be known to us when we make an investment and may change from time to time for any reason or for no reason, even with respect to a completed investment. The evolving posture of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae toward an acquisition or disposition structure through which we propose to invest in or dispose of Excess MSRs may cause Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae to impose new conditions on investments in Excess MSRs, including the owner’s ability to hold such Excess MSRs directly or indirectly through a grantor trust or other means. Such new conditions may be costly or burdensome and could materially impact our obligation to invest in or dispose of Excess MSRs.

In addition, the requirements imposed by mortgage owners on servicers may require us to structure the terms, purchase price and form of consideration that we and the servicer pay differently in various deals. For example, if a mortgage owner imposes stricter requirements on a servicer to repurchase loans under certain circumstances, the servicer will be required to assume a significantly higher level of risk in connection with servicing the loans underlying the applicable mortgage servicing right and related Excess MSR than the servicer would assume if the mortgage owner did not impose such requirements. As a result, the basic fee paid to the servicer with respect to those mortgage servicing rights may be higher (and the related Excess MSR may be lower) than in deals where the mortgage owner does not impose such requirements.

30

Table of Contents

Our assumptions in determining the purchase price for our Excess MSRs may be inaccurate or the basis for such assumptions may change, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

The purchase price for our investments in Excess MSRs in the Initial Pools was negotiated with Freedom Mortgage and reflects our respective assessments of the likely performance of the mortgage loans in the Initial Pools in terms of prepayment rates, rates of delinquency and default and recapture rates. If the performance of the mortgage loans in the Initial Pools differs from that assumed, the return on our investment may be less than we anticipate and our results of operations may be adversely affected.

The value of our Excess MSRs may vary substantially by changes in interest rates unless we are able to hedge against that uncertainty.

The values of Excess MSRs are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates. The value of Excess MSRs typically increases when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect those changes in interest rates have on prepayment estimates. Subject to qualifying and maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity will 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. To the extent we do not utilize derivatives to hedge against changes in the fair value of Excess MSRs, our balance sheet, results of operations and cash flows would be susceptible to significant volatility due to changes in the fair value of, or cash flows from, Excess MSRs as interest rates change.

If delinquencies increase, the value of our Excess MSRs may decline significantly.

Delinquency rates have a significant impact on the value of Excess MSRs. An increase in delinquencies will generally result in lower revenue because typically servicers will only collect servicing fees from GSEs or mortgage owners for performing loans. Our expectation of delinquencies is a significant assumption underlying the cash flow projections on the related pools of mortgage loans. If delinquencies are significantly greater than expected, the estimated fair value of the Excess MSRs could be diminished. As a result, we could suffer a loss, which would have a negative impact on our financial results.

Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets.

The frequency at which prepayments (including voluntary prepayments by borrowers, loan buyouts and liquidations due to defaults and foreclosures) occur on mortgage loans underlying Excess MSRs and Agency RMBS is affected by a variety of factors, including the prevailing level of interest rates as well as economic, demographic, tax, social, legal, and other factors. Generally, borrowers tend to prepay their mortgages when prevailing mortgage rates fall below the interest rates on their mortgage loans. When borrowers prepay their mortgage loans at rates that are faster or slower than expected, it results in prepayments that are faster or slower than expected on the related Excess MSRs and Agency RMBS. These faster or slower than expected payments may adversely affect our profitability.

We will record Excess MSRs on our balance sheet at fair value, and changes in their fair value will be reflected in our consolidated results of operations. The determination of the fair value of Excess MSRs requires our management to make numerous estimates and assumptions that could materially differ from actual results. Such estimates and assumptions include prepayment rates, as well as estimates of the future cash flows from the Excess MSRs, interest rates, delinquencies and foreclosure rates of the underlying mortgage loans among others. The ultimate realization of the value of Excess MSRs, which are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, may be materially different than the fair values of such Excess MSRs as may be reflected in our consolidated financial statements as of any particular date. The use of different estimates or assumptions in connection with the valuation of these assets could produce materially different fair values for such assets. Our failure to make accurate assumptions regarding prepayment rates or the other factors examined in determining fair value could cause the fair value of our Excess MSRs to materially vary, which could have a material adverse effect on our

31

Table of Contents

financial position, results of operations and cash flows. If the fair value of our Excess MSRs decreases, we would be required to record a non-cash charge, which would have a negative impact on our financial results. Furthermore, a significant increase in prepayment speeds could materially reduce the ultimate cash flows we receive from Excess MSRs, and we could ultimately receive substantially less than what we paid for such assets.

We may purchase securities or loans that have a higher interest rate than the then prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this higher interest rate, we may pay a premium to par value to acquire the security or loan. In accordance with GAAP, we amortize this premium over the expected term of the security or loan based on our prepayment assumptions. If a security or loan is prepaid in whole or in part at a faster than expected rate, however, we must expense all or a part of the remaining unamortized portion of the premium that was paid at the time of the purchase, which will adversely affect our profitability.

We also may purchase securities or loans that have a lower interest rate than the then prevailing market interest rate. In exchange for this lower interest rate, we may pay a discount to par value to acquire the security or loan. We accrete this discount over the expected term of the security or loan based on our prepayment assumptions. If a security or loan is prepaid at a slower than expected rate, however, we must accrete the remaining portion of the discount at a slower than expected rate. This will extend the expected life of investment portfolio and result in a lower than expected yield on securities and loans purchased at a discount to par.

Prepayment rates generally increase when interest rates fall and decrease when interest rates rise, but changes in prepayment rates are difficult to predict. Prepayments can also occur when borrowers sell the property and use the sale proceeds to prepay the mortgage as part of a physical relocation or when borrowers default on their mortgages and the mortgages are prepaid from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale of the property. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will generally, among other conditions, purchase mortgages that are 120 days or more delinquent from mortgage-backed securities trusts when the cost of guaranteed payments to security holders, including advances of interest at the security coupon rate, exceeds the cost of holding the nonperforming loans in their portfolios. Ginnie Mae provides the issuer the option to buy 90 days or more delinquent loans out of the mortgage-backed securities that it services, which may also contribute to an increase in prepayment rates. Consequently, prepayment rates also may be affected by conditions in the housing and financial markets, which may result in increased delinquencies on mortgage loans, the government-sponsored entities, cost of capital, general economic conditions and the relative interest rates on fixed and adjustable rate loans, which could lead to an acceleration of the payment of the related principal. Additionally, changes in the government-sponsored entities’ decisions as to when to repurchase delinquent loans can materially impact prepayment rates.

The adverse effects of prepayments may impact us in various ways. First, particular investments may experience outright losses, as in the case of Excess MSRs, IOs and inverse IOs in an environment of faster actual or anticipated prepayments. Second, particular investments may under-perform relative to any hedges that our Manager may have constructed for these assets, resulting in a loss to us. In particular, prepayments (at par) may limit the potential upside of many RMBS to their principal or par amounts, whereas their corresponding hedges often have the potential for unlimited loss. Furthermore, to the extent that faster prepayment rates are due to lower interest rates, the principal payments received from prepayments will tend to be reinvested in lower-yielding assets, which may reduce our income in the long run. Therefore, if actual prepayment rates differ from anticipated prepayment rates our business, financial condition and results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected.

With respect to our Excess MSRs, voluntary prepayments eliminate the Excess MSR on the mortgage loans being prepaid. In recent years, Freedom Mortgage has experienced relatively high rates of recapture. There can be no assurance that Freedom Mortgage will continue to successfully enjoy the levels of recapture it has historically had, particularly as interest rate environments change. In addition, although we expect Freedom Mortgage to replace the Excess MSRs on loans in the pools that are refinanced by Freedom Mortgage, there can be no assurance that Freedom Mortgage will enter into recapture agreements with us in the future or that it will be successful in replacing any Excess MSRs, which would negatively impact our cash flows. When we purchase

32

Table of Contents

Excess MSRs, we base the price we pay and the rate of amortization of those assets on, among other things, our projection of the cash flows from the pool of mortgage loans underlying the related MSRs. Our expectation of prepayment speeds and recapture rates is a significant assumption underling our cash flow projections and if prepayment speeds are significantly greater than expected or recapture rates significantly lower than expected, the carrying value of our Excess MSRs could exceed their estimated fair value.

The federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae and the U.S. Government, may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The payments we receive on our Agency RMBS depend upon a steady stream of payments by borrowers on the underlying mortgages and such payments are guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs, but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Ginnie Mae, which guarantees Agency RMBS backed by mortgage loans insured by the FHA or partially guaranteed by the VA, is part of a U.S. Government agency and its guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

During 2008, there were increased market concerns about Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s ability to withstand future credit losses associated with securities held in their investment portfolios, and on which they provide guarantees, without the direct support of the U.S. Government. In September 2008 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into the conservatorship of the FHFA, their federal regulator, pursuant to its powers under The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, a part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Under this conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to reduce the amount of mortgage loans they own or for which they provide guarantees on Agency RMBS.

Shortly after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed in federal conservatorship, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury noted that the guarantee structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac required examination and that changes in the structures of the entities were necessary to reduce risk to the financial system. The future roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be significantly reduced and the nature of their guarantees could be considerably limited relative to historical measurements or even eliminated. The U.S. Treasury could also stop providing financial support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the future. The substantial financial assistance provided by the U.S. Government to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, especially in the course of their being placed into conservatorship and thereafter, together with the substantial financial assistance provided by the U.S. Government to the mortgage-related operations of other GSEs and government agencies, such as the FHA, the VA, and Ginnie Mae, has stirred debate among many federal policymakers over the continued role of the U.S. Government in providing such financial support for the mortgage-related GSEs in particular, and for the mortgage and housing markets in general. In fact, in February 2011, the U.S. Treasury released a white paper entitled “Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market” in which the U.S. Treasury outlined three possible options for reforming the U.S. Government’s role in housing finance. Under each option, the role of the U.S. Government in the mortgage market would be reduced. Each of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could be dissolved and the U.S. Government could determine to stop providing liquidity support of any kind to the mortgage market. If Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae were eliminated, or their structures were to change radically or the U.S. Government significantly reduced its support for any or all of them, we may be unable or significantly limited in our ability to acquire Agency RMBS, which would drastically reduce the amount and type of Agency RMBS available for purchase which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. Moreover, any changes to the nature of the guarantees provided by, or laws affecting, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the credit quality of the guarantees, could increase the risk of loss on purchases of Agency RMBS issued by these GSEs and could have broad adverse market implications for the Agency RMBS they currently guarantee. Any action that affects the credit quality of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae could materially adversely affect the value of our Agency RMBS. We expect

33

Table of Contents

to rely on our Agency RMBS as collateral for our financings under the repurchase agreements that we expect to enter into. Any decline in their value, or perceived market uncertainty about their value, would make it more difficult for us to obtain financing on our Agency RMBS on acceptable terms or at all, or to maintain compliance with the terms of any financing transactions.

In addition to the FHFA becoming the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in August 2012, the U.S. Treasury announced its intention to restructure the preferred stock agreements with the GSEs. In March 2013, the FHFA announced that it will build a new entity as it winds down operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and may eventually replace them with the new entity. In June 2013, a draft bill entitled the “Secondary Mortgage Market Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013” gave a name to this new entity—the Federal Mortgage Insurance Company (the “FMIC”). As proposed in the draft bill, the FMIC would be modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and provide catastrophic reinsurance in the secondary market for mortgage-backed securities. It would also take over multi-family guarantees as the existing portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are wound down by at least 15% annually until they are completely liquidated.

In addition, although we do not expect Excess MSRs that have already been created to be subject to any changes implemented by the GSEs, it is possible that, because of the significant role of the GSEs in the secondary mortgage market, any changes they implement could become prevalent in the mortgage servicing industry generally. Other industry stakeholders or regulators may also implement or require changes in response to the perception that the current mortgage servicing practices and compensation do not appropriately serve broader housing policy objectives.

The downgrade of the U.S. Government’s or certain European countries’ credit ratings and any future downgrades of the U.S. Government’s or certain European countries’ credit ratings may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. Government’s credit rating for the first time in history. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in conservatorship of the U.S. Government, downgrades to the U.S. Government’s credit rating could impact the credit risk associated with Agency RMBS and, therefore, decrease the value of the Agency RMBS in which we expect to invest. In addition, the downgrade of the U.S. Government’s credit rating and the credit ratings of certain European countries has created broader financial turmoil and uncertainty, which has recently weighed heavily on the global banking system. Therefore, the recent downgrade of the U.S. Government’s credit rating and the credit ratings of certain European countries and any future downgrades of the U.S. Government’s credit rating or the credit ratings of certain European countries may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Interest rate mismatches between our assets and any borrowings used to fund purchases of our assets may reduce our income during periods of changing interest rates.

Some of our assets will be fixed-rate securities or have a fixed rate component (such as RMBS backed by hybrid ARMs). This means that the interest we earn on these assets will not vary over time based upon changes in a short-term interest rate index. Although the interest we earn on our RMBS backed by ARMs generally will adjust for changing interest rates, such interest rate adjustments may not occur as quickly as the interest rate adjustments to any related borrowings, and such interest rate adjustments will generally be subject to interest rate caps, which potentially could cause such RMBS to acquire many of the characteristics of fixed-rate securities if interest rates were to rise above the cap levels. We intend to fund our fixed-rate target assets with short-term borrowings. Therefore, to the extent we finance our assets with floating-rate debt or debt with shorter maturities, such as repurchase agreements, there will be an interest rate mismatch between our assets and liabilities. The use of interest rate hedges also will introduce the risk of other interest rate mismatches and exposures, as will the use of other financing techniques. During periods of changing interest rates, these mismatches could cause our business, financial condition and results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders to be materially adversely affected.

34

Table of Contents

Ordinarily, short-term interest rates are lower than long-term interest rates. If short-term interest rates rise disproportionately relative to long-term interest rates (a flattening of the yield curve), our borrowing costs may increase more rapidly than the interest income earned on our assets. Because we expect that our investments in Agency RMBS, on average, generally will bear interest based on longer-term rates than our borrowings, a flattening of the yield curve would tend to decrease our net income and the market value of our assets. Additionally, to the extent cash flows from RMBS are reinvested in new RMBS, the spread between the yields of the new RMBS and available borrowing rates may decline, which could reduce our net interest margin or result in losses. Any one of the foregoing risks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders. It is also possible that short-term interest rates may exceed long-term interest rates, in which event our borrowing costs may exceed our interest income and we could incur operating losses.

We cannot predict the impact future actions by regulators or U.S. government bodies, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, will have on our business, and any such actions may negatively impact us.

Regulators and U.S. government bodies have a major impact on our business. The U.S. Federal Reserve is a major participant in, and its actions significantly impact, the residential mortgage market. For example, quantitative easing, a program implemented by the U.S. Federal Reserve to keep long-term interest rates low and stimulate the U.S. economy, has had the effect of reducing the difference between short-term and long-term interest rates. As a result of the reduction in long-term interest rates, prepayment speeds increased. Its purchases of Agency RMBS has resulted in a narrowing of the spread earned by Agency RMBS investors. While there have been recent discussions surrounding an eventual tapering of quantitative easing, no assurance can be given as to when the U.S. Federal Reserve will discontinue quantitative easing. We cannot predict or control the impact future actions by regulators or U.S. government bodies such as the U.S. Federal Reserve will have on our business. Accordingly, future actions by regulators or U.S. government bodies, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

Mortgage loan modification programs and future legislative action may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our targeted assets.

In the second half of 2008, the U.S. Government, through the U.S. Treasury, FHA and the FDIC, commenced implementation of programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding foreclosure. The programs involve, among other things, the modification of mortgage loans to reduce the principal amount of the loans or the rate of interest payable on the loans, or to extend the payment terms of the loans. Extension and expansion of these programs and adoption of new mortgage loan modification programs have been regularly discussed as part of the ongoing debate regarding the country’s housing market including most recently as part of President Obama’s “Blueprint for an America Built to Last,” announced as part of his January 2012 State of the Union address. It is likely that loan modifications would result in interest rate reductions or principal reductions on some of the mortgage loans underlying our Excess MSRs and backing our RMBS. However, it is also likely that loan modifications would result in increased prepayments on some RMBS. See “—Prepayment rates can change, adversely affecting the performance of our assets” above for information relating to the impact of prepayments on our business.

Congress and various state and local legislatures are considering, and in the future may consider, legislation, which, among other provisions, would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, and would allow judicial modification of loan principal in the event of personal bankruptcy. We cannot predict whether or in what form Congress or the various state and local legislatures may enact legislation affecting our business or whether any such legislation will require us to change our practices or make changes in our portfolio in the future. These changes, if required, could materially adversely affect our business,

35

Table of Contents

results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders, particularly if we make such changes in response to new or amended laws, regulations or ordinances in any state where we acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans, or if such changes result in us being held responsible for any violations in the mortgage loan origination process.

Interest rate caps on the ARMs and hybrid ARMs that back our RMBS may reduce our net interest margin during periods of rising interest rates.

ARMs and hybrid ARMs are typically subject to periodic and lifetime interest rate caps. Periodic interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase during any given period. Lifetime interest rate caps limit the amount an interest rate can increase through the maturity of the loan. We may fund our RMBS with borrowings that typically are not subject to similar restrictions. Accordingly, in a period of rapidly increasing interest rates, our financing costs could increase without limitation while caps could limit the interest we earn on the ARMs and hybrid ARMs that will back our RMBS. This problem is magnified for ARMs and hybrid ARMs that are not fully indexed because such periodic interest rate caps prevent the coupon on the security from fully reaching the specified rate in one reset. Further, some ARMs and hybrid ARMs may be subject to periodic payment caps that result in a portion of the interest being deferred and added to the principal outstanding. As a result, we may receive less cash income on RMBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs than necessary to pay interest on our related borrowings. Interest rate caps on RMBS backed by ARMs and hybrid ARMs could reduce our net interest margin if interest rates were to increase beyond the level of the caps, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

Changes in the underwriting standards by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae could have an adverse impact on Agency mortgage investments in which we may invest or make it more difficult to acquire attractive non-Agency mortgage investments.

In 2010, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae announced tighter underwriting guidelines for ARMs and hybrid interest-only ARMs in particular. Specifically, Freddie Mac announced that it would no longer purchase interest-only mortgages and Fannie Mae changed its eligibility criteria for purchasing and securitizing ARMs to protect consumers from potentially dramatic payment increases. Our targeted assets include Agency RMBS that may be backed by, and prime jumbo mortgage loans that may include, ARMs and hybrid ARMs. Tighter underwriting standards by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae could reduce the supply of ARMs, resulting in a reduction in the availability of the asset class. More lenient underwriting standards could also substantially reduce the supply and attractiveness of investments in non-Agency MBS.

Our Manager relies on analytical models and other data to analyze potential asset acquisition and disposition opportunities and to manage our portfolio. These models could cause us to purchase assets that do not meet our expectations or to make asset management decisions that are not in line with our strategy.

Our Manager relies on analytical models and information and data supplied by third parties. These models and data may be used to value assets or potential asset acquisitions and dispositions and also in connection with our asset management activities. If these models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon could expose us to potential risks. Our Manager’s use of models and data may induce it to purchase certain assets at prices that are too high, sell certain other assets at prices that are too low or miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging activities that are based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful.

Some models, such as prepayment models or mortgage default models, may be predictive in nature. The use of predictive models has inherent risks. For example, such models may incorrectly forecast future behavior, leading to potential losses. In addition, the predictive models used by our Manager may differ substantially from those models used by other market participants, with the result that valuations based on these predictive models

36

Table of Contents

may be substantially higher or lower for certain assets than actual market prices. Furthermore, because predictive models are usually constructed based on historical data supplied by third parties, the success of relying on such models may depend heavily on the accuracy and reliability of the supplied historical data, and, in the case of predicting performance in scenarios with little or no historical precedent (such as extreme broad-based declines in home prices, or deep economic recessions or depressions), such models must employ greater degrees of extrapolation, and are therefore more speculative and of more limited reliability.

All valuation models rely on correct market data inputs. If incorrect market data is entered into even a well-founded valuation model, the resulting valuations will be incorrect. However, even if market data is input correctly, “model prices” will often differ substantially from market prices, especially for securities with complex characteristics or whose values are particularly sensitive to various factors. If our market data inputs are incorrect or our model prices differ substantially from market prices, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected.

Valuations of some of our assets will be inherently uncertain, may be based on estimates, may fluctuate over short periods of time and may differ from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these assets existed.

While in many cases our determination of the fair value of our assets will be based on valuations provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, we will value assets based upon our judgment, and such valuations may differ from those provided by third-party dealers and pricing services. Valuations of certain assets are often difficult to obtain or unreliable. In general, dealers and pricing services heavily disclaim their valuations. Additionally, dealers may claim to furnish valuations only as an accommodation and without special compensation, and so they may disclaim any and all liability for any direct, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in valuations, including any act of negligence or breach of any warranty. Depending on the complexity and illiquidity of an asset, valuations of the same asset can vary substantially from one dealer or pricing service to another. The valuation process has been particularly difficult recently because market events have made valuations of certain assets unpredictable, and the disparity of valuations provided by third-party dealers has widened.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected if our fair value determinations of these assets were materially higher than the values that would exist if a ready market existed for these assets.

Increases in interest rates could adversely affect the value of our assets and cause our interest expense to increase, which could result in reduced earnings or losses and negatively affect our profitability as well as the cash available for distribution to stockholders.

Our operating results will depend in large part on the difference between the income from our assets, net of credit losses, and financing costs. We anticipate that, in many cases, the income from our assets will respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings. Consequently, changes in interest rates, particularly short-term interest rates, may significantly influence our financial results.

Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary and tax policies, domestic and international economic and political considerations and other factors beyond our control. Interest rate fluctuations present a variety of risks, including the risk of a narrowing of the difference between asset yields and borrowing rates, flattening or inversion of the yield curve and fluctuating prepayment rates.

The relationship between short-term and longer-term interest rates is referred to as the “yield curve.” In a normal yield curve environment, generally fixed income assets decline in value if interest rates increase. If long-term rates increased significantly, not only will the market value of these assets be expected to decline, but the duration and weighted-average life of the assets could increase as well because borrowers are less likely to

37

Table of Contents

prepay mortgages. Further, an increase in short-term interest rates would increase the rate of interest payable on any repurchase agreements required to finance these securities more rapidly than the interest earned on our assets.

Subject to qualifying and maintaining our qualification as a REIT, we will endeavor to economically hedge our exposure to changes in interest rates, but there can be no assurances that our hedges will be successful, or that we will be able to enter into or maintain such hedges. As a result, interest rate fluctuations can cause significant losses, reductions in income, and limitations on our cash available for distribution to stockholders.

An increase in interest rates may cause a decrease in the volume of certain of our target assets, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire target assets that satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends.

Rising interest rates generally reduce the demand for mortgage loans due to the higher cost of borrowing. A reduction in the volume of mortgage loans originated may affect the volume of target assets available to us, which could adversely affect our ability to acquire assets that satisfy our investment objectives. Rising interest rates may also cause our target assets that were issued prior to an interest rate increase to provide yields that are below prevailing market interest rates. If rising interest rates cause us to be unable to acquire a sufficient volume of our target assets with a yield that is above our borrowing cost, our ability to satisfy our investment objectives and to generate income and pay dividends may be materially and adversely affected.

The lack of liquidity of our assets may adversely affect our business, including our ability to sell our assets.

We may acquire assets or other instruments that are not liquid, including securities and other instruments that are not publicly traded, and market conditions could significantly and negatively affect the liquidity of other assets. In particular, Excess MSRs are highly illiquid and subject to numerous restrictions on transfers. The duties and obligations of mortgage servicers are defined through contractual agreements. These contracts generally require that holders of Excess MSRs obtain a third-party consent prior to any change of ownership of such Excess MSRs. Such approval may be withheld for any reason or no reason in the discretion of the third party. Additionally, investments in Excess MSRs are a new type of transaction, and there have been extremely few investment products that pursue a similar investment strategy. Accordingly, the risks associated with the transaction and structure are not fully known to buyers or sellers. As a result of the foregoing, there is some risk that we will be unable to locate a buyer at the time we wish to sell an Excess MSR. Additionally, there is some risk that we will be required to dispose of Excess MSRs either through an in-kind distribution or other liquidation vehicle, which will, in either case, provide little or no economic benefit to us, or a sale to a co-investor in the Excess MSR, which may be an affiliate. Therefore, we cannot provide any assurance that we will obtain any return or any benefit of any kind from any disposition of Excess MSRs.

In addition, mortgage-related assets generally experience periods of illiquidity, including the recent period of delinquencies and defaults with respect to residential and commercial mortgage loans. In addition, validating third-party pricing for illiquid assets may be more subjective than more liquid assets. Any illiquidity of our assets may make it difficult for us to sell such assets if the need or desire arises. In addition, 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 previously recorded our assets. We may also face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate any assets for which we or our Manager has or could be attributed with material non-public information. If we are unable to sell our assets at favorable prices or at all, it could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Assets that are illiquid are more difficult to finance, and to the extent that we use leverage to finance assets that become illiquid we may lose that leverage or have it reduced. Assets tend to become less liquid during times of financial stress, which is often the time that liquidity is most needed. As a result, our ability to sell assets or vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be limited by liquidity constraints, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

38

Table of Contents

The failure of servicers to service effectively the mortgage loans underlying the Non-Agency RMBS in our investment portfolio or any mortgage loans we own would materially and adversely affect us.

Most securitizations of residential mortgage loans require a servicer to manage collections on each of the underlying loans. Both default frequency and default severity of loans may depend upon the quality of the servicer. If servicers are not vigilant in encouraging borrowers to make their monthly payments, the borrowers may be far less likely to make these payments, which could result in a higher frequency of default. If servicers take longer to liquidate non-performing assets, loss severities may tend to be higher than originally anticipated. The failure of servicers to effectively service the mortgage loans underlying the non-Agency RMBS in our investment portfolio or any mortgage loans we own could negatively impact the value of our investments and our performance. Servicer quality is of prime importance in the default performance of non-Agency RMBS. Many servicers have gone out of business in recent years, requiring a transfer of servicing to another servicer. This transfer takes time and loans may become delinquent because of confusion or lack of attention. When servicing is transferred, servicing fees may increase, which may have an adverse effect on the credit support of non-Agency RMBS held by us. In the case of pools of securitized loans, servicers may be required to advance interest on delinquent loans to the extent the servicer deems those advances recoverable. In the event the servicer does not advance funds, interest may be interrupted even on more senior securities. Servicers may also advance more than is in fact recoverable once a defaulted loan is finally liquidated, and the loss to the securitization trust may be greater than the outstanding principal balance of that loan (greater than 100% loss severity).

We may be affected by deficiencies in foreclosure practices of third parties, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.

One of the biggest risks overhanging the RMBS market has been uncertainty around the timing and ability of servicers to remove delinquent borrowers from their homes, so that they can liquidate the underlying properties and ultimately pass the liquidation proceeds through to RMBS holders. Given the magnitude of the housing crisis, and in response to the well-publicized failures of many servicers to follow proper foreclosure procedures (such as involving “robo-signing”), mortgage servicers are being held to much higher foreclosure-related documentation standards than they previously were. However, because many mortgages have been transferred and assigned multiple times (and by means of varying assignment procedures) throughout the origination, warehouse and securitization processes, mortgage servicers are generally having much more difficulty furnishing the requisite documentation to initiate or complete foreclosures. This leads to stalled or suspended foreclosure proceedings, and ultimately additional foreclosure-related costs. Foreclosure-related delays also tend to increase ultimate loan loss severities as a result of property deterioration, amplified legal and other costs, and other factors. Servicers have generally maintained that most of their problems are process-oriented and can be fixed in the near term; however, many factors delaying foreclosure, such as borrower lawsuits and judicial backlog and scrutiny, are outside of servicers’ control and have delayed, and will likely continue to delay, foreclosure processing in both judicial states (where foreclosures require court involvement) and non-judicial states.

The risk of extended foreclosure timelines is very difficult to quantify, and uncertainty has often been magnified by court cases with conflicting outcomes. Recent announcements of deficiencies in foreclosure documentation by, among others, several large mortgage servicers have raised various concerns relating to foreclosure practices. A number of mortgage servicers have temporarily suspended foreclosure proceedings in some or all states in which they do business while they review and correct their foreclosure practices. In addition, on February 9, 2012, a group consisting of state attorneys general and state bank and mortgage regulators in 49 states reached a settlement with the largest mortgage servicers regarding foreclosure practices in the states’ various jurisdictions. The extension of foreclosure timelines also increases the inventory backlog of distressed homes on the market and creates greater uncertainty about housing prices. Prior to making an opportunistic investment in non-Agency RMBS or an investment in Excess MSRs related to mortgage loans other than conforming mortgage loans or FHA and VA mortgage loans, we expect our Manager to carefully consider many factors, including housing prices and foreclosure timelines, and estimate loss assumptions. The concerns about

39

Table of Contents

deficiencies in foreclosure practices of servicers and related delays in the foreclosure process may impact our loss assumptions and affect the values of, and our returns on, our investments in these assets.

We intend to use leverage in executing our business strategy, which may adversely affect the return on our assets and may reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders, as well as increase losses when economic conditions are unfavorable.

We intend to use leverage to finance our investment operations and to enhance our financial returns. We expect that our primary source of leverage will be short-term borrowings under master repurchase agreements collateralized by our Agency RMBS assets. Other sources of leverage may include credit facilities, including term loans and revolving credit facilities.

Through the use of leverage, we may acquire positions with market exposure significantly greater than the amount of capital committed to the transaction. Although we are not required to maintain any particular minimum or maximum target debt-to-equity leverage ratio with respect to our Agency RMBS assets, the amount of leverage we may employ for this asset class will depend upon the availability of particular types of financing and our Manager’s assessment of the credit, liquidity, price volatility, financing counterparty risk and other factors. Our Manager’s Investment Committee will have discretion, without the need for further approval by our board of directors, to change the amount of leverage we utilize for our Agency RMBS. We do not have a targeted debt-to-equity ratio for our Agency RMBS, although currently we expect that our debt-to-equity ratio initially will be approximately 8:1 for our Agency RMBS assets and could be as high as 10:1 depending on market conditions. We intend to use leverage for the primary purpose of financing our Agency RMBS portfolio and not for the purpose of speculating on changes in interest rates. We may, however, be limited or restricted in the amount of leverage we may employ by the terms and provisions of any financing or other agreements that we may enter into in the future, and we may be subject to margin calls as a result of our financing activity. In the future, we expect to acquire prime jumbo mortgage loans. We anticipate evaluating leverage policies for prime jumbo mortgage loans at such time. Currently, we do not intend to acquire non-Agency RMBS, but we may do so in the future, and we anticipate evaluating leverage policies for this asset class if and when we begin to acquire this asset class.

Our ability to achieve our investment and leverage objectives will depend on our ability to borrow money in sufficient amounts and on favorable terms. In addition, we must be able to renew or replace our maturing borrowings on a continuous basis. In recent years, investors and financial institutions that lend in the securities repurchase market have tightened lending standards in response to the difficulties and changed economic conditions that have materially adversely affected the RMBS market. These market disruptions have been most pronounced in the non-Agency RMBS market, and the impact has also extended to Agency RMBS, which has made the value of these assets unstable and relatively illiquid compared to prior periods. This could potentially increase our financing costs and reduce our liquidity. In addition, because we intend to rely on short-term financing, we are exposed to changes in the availability of financing. For example, the terms of a repurchase transaction under a master repurchase agreement is typically 30 to 90 days. Because repurchase agreements are short-term commitments of capital, lenders may respond to market conditions making it more difficult for us to secure continued financing.

Leverage will magnify both the gains and the losses of our positions. Leverage will increase our returns as long as we earn a greater return on investments purchased with borrowed funds than our cost of borrowing such funds. However, if we use leverage to acquire an asset and the value of the asset decreases, the leverage will increase our losses. Even if the asset increases in value, if the asset fails to earn a return that equals or exceeds our cost of borrowing, the leverage will decrease our returns.

We may be required to post large amounts of cash as collateral or margin to secure our leveraged positions. In the event of a sudden, precipitous drop in value of our financed assets, we might not be able to liquidate assets quickly enough to repay our borrowings, further magnifying losses. Even a small decrease in the value of a leveraged asset may require us to post additional margin or cash collateral. This may decrease the cash available

40

Table of Contents

to us for distributions to stockholders, which could adversely affect the price of our common stock. In addition, our debt service payments will reduce cash flow available for distribution to stockholders. We may not be able to meet our debt service obligations. To the extent that we cannot meet our debt service obligations, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to sale to satisfy our debt obligations.

To the extent we might be compelled to liquidate qualifying real estate assets to repay debts, our compliance with the REIT rules regarding our assets and our sources of income could be negatively affected, which could jeopardize our qualification as a REIT. Failing to qualify as a REIT would cause us to be subject to U.S. federal income tax (and any applicable state and local taxes) on all of our income and decrease profitability and cash available for distributions to stockholders.

We may not be able to achieve our optimal leverage or target leverage ratios.

We will use leverage as a strategy to increase the return to our investors. However, we may not be able to achieve our desired leverage for any of the following reasons:

In addition, if we exceed our target leverage ratios the potential adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operation described above may be amplified.

We may incur increased borrowing costs.

Our borrowing costs may vary depending upon a number of factors, including, without limitation:

Most of our borrowings will be collateralized borrowings in the form of repurchase transactions under master repurchase agreements, which will be generally adjustable and relate to short-term interest rates such as LIBOR or a short-term U.S. Treasury index. If the interest rates on these borrowings increase, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected.

Adverse market developments could cause our lenders to require us to pledge additional assets as collateral. If our assets were insufficient to meet these collateral requirements, we might be compelled to liquidate particular assets at inopportune times and at unfavorable prices.

Adverse market developments, including a sharp or prolonged rise in interest rates, a change in prepayment rates or increasing market concern about the value or liquidity of one or more types of our target assets, might reduce the market value of our portfolio, which might cause our lenders to initiate margin calls. A margin call means that the lender requires us to pledge additional collateral to re-establish the ratio of the value of the collateral to the amount of the borrowing. The specific collateral value to borrowing ratio that would trigger a margin call is not set in our master repurchase agreements and will not be determined until we engage in a repurchase transaction under these agreements. If we are unable to satisfy margin calls, our lenders may foreclose on our collateral. The threat of or occurrence of a margin call could force us to sell, either directly or through a foreclosure, our assets under adverse market conditions. Because we intend to use leverage, we may incur losses upon the threat or occurrence of a margin call, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial

41

Table of Contents

condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders. Additionally, the liquidation of collateral may jeopardize our ability to qualify as a REIT. Our failure to qualify as a REIT would cause us to be subject to U.S. federal income tax (and any applicable state and local taxes) on all of our income and decrease profitability and cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

If we are unable to negotiate favorable terms and conditions under our master repurchase arrangements, our financial condition and earnings could be negatively impacted.

The terms and conditions of each of our repurchase transactions will be negotiated on a transaction-by-transaction basis, and these borrowings generally will be re-established, or rolled, at maturity. Key terms and conditions of each transaction will include interest rates, maturity dates, asset pricing procedures and margin requirements. We cannot assure you that we will be able to negotiate favorable terms and conditions on our repurchase transactions. In addition, our counterparties may require less favorable pricing procedures or increased margin requirements during periods of market illiquidity or due to perceived credit quality deterioration of the collateral pledged.

Our use of repurchase transactions may give our lenders greater rights in the event that either we or any of our lenders file for bankruptcy, which may make it difficult for us to recover our collateral in the event of a bankruptcy filing.

Our borrowings under master repurchase agreements may qualify for special treatment under the bankruptcy code, giving our lenders the ability to void the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code and take possession of and liquidate collateral pledged in our repurchase transactions without delay if we file for bankruptcy. Furthermore, the special treatment of repurchase agreements under the bankruptcy code may make it difficult for us to recover our pledged assets in the event that any of our lenders files for bankruptcy. Thus, the use of repurchase transactions exposes our pledged assets to risk in the event of a bankruptcy filing by either our lenders or us.

If our lenders default on their obligations to resell the RMBS back to us at the end of the repurchase transaction term, the value of the RMBS has declined by the end of the repurchase transaction term or we default on our obligations under the repurchase transaction, we will lose money on these transactions, which, in turn, may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

When we engage in a repurchase transaction, we will initially sell securities to the financial institution in exchange for cash and our counterparty will be obligated to resell the securities to us at the end of the term of the transaction, which is typically from 30 to 180 days, but which may have terms up to 364 days or more. The cash we will receive when we initially sell the securities will be less than the value of those securities, which is referred to as the haircut. Many financial institutions from whom we may obtain repurchase financing have increased their haircuts in the past and may do so again in the future. If these haircuts are increased we will be required to post additional cash collateral for our Agency RMBS. If our counterparty defaults on its obligation to resell the securities to us, we would incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the value of the securities). We would also lose money on a repurchase transaction if the value of the underlying securities has declined as of the end of the transaction term, as we would have to repurchase the securities for their initial value but would receive securities worth less than that amount. Any losses we incur on our repurchase transactions could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

If we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase transaction, the counterparty can terminate the transaction and cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. In that case, we would likely need to establish a replacement repurchase facility with another financial institution in order to continue to leverage our portfolio and carry out our investment strategy. There is no assurance we would be able to establish a suitable replacement facility on acceptable terms or at all.

42

Table of Contents

Hedging against interest rate changes and other risks may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Subject to qualifying and maintaining our qualification as a REIT and exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act, we may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity would vary in scope based on the level and volatility of interest rates, the types of liabilities and assets held and other changing market conditions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

Our hedging transactions, which would be intended to limit losses, may actually adversely affect our earnings, which could reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Our use of certain hedging techniques may expose us to counterparty risks.

If an interest rate swap counterparty cannot perform under the terms of the interest rate swap, we may not receive payments due under that swap, and thus, we may lose any unrealized gain associated with the interest rate swap. The hedged liability could cease to be hedged by the interest rate swap. Additionally, we may also risk the loss of any collateral we have pledged to secure our obligations under the interest rate swap if the counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy. If we are required to sell our derivatives under these circumstances, we may incur losses. Similarly, if an interest rate cap counterparty fails to perform under the terms of the interest rate cap agreement, in addition to not receiving payments due under that agreement that would off-set our interest expense, we could also incur a loss for all remaining unamortized premium paid for that agreement.

Hedging instruments and other derivatives may not, in many cases, be traded on regulated exchanges, or may not be guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities and involve risks and costs that could result in material losses.

Hedging instruments and other derivatives, including credit default swaps, involve risk because they may not, in many cases, be traded on regulated exchanges and may not be guaranteed or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, for these instruments there are no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. While Title VII of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd-Frank Act, provides for new federal regulation of the swaps market and sweeping changes to its structure, the provisions of Title VII that will have the most fundamental impact on the swaps

43

Table of Contents

market have not been finalized. Any such rulemaking may make our hedging more difficult to obtain or increase costs. Our Manager is not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of its transactions with one counterparty. Furthermore, our Manager has only a limited internal credit function to evaluate the creditworthiness of its counterparties, mainly relying on its experience with such counterparties and their general reputation as participants in these markets. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we enter into a hedging transaction will most likely result in a default under the hedging agreement. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in losses and may force us to re-initiate similar hedges with other counterparties at the then-prevailing market levels. Generally we will seek to reserve the right to terminate our hedging transactions upon a counterparty’s insolvency, but absent an actual insolvency, we may not be able to terminate a hedging transaction without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to assign or otherwise dispose of a hedging transaction to another counterparty without the consent of both the original hedging counterparty and the potential assignee. If we terminate a hedging transaction, we may not be able to enter into a replacement contract in order to cover our risk. There can be no assurance that a liquid secondary market will exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and therefore we may be required to maintain any hedging position until exercise or expiration, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, and certain commodity exchanges have established limits referred to as speculative position limits or position limits on the maximum net long or net short position which any person or group of persons may hold or control in particular futures and options. Limits on trading in options contracts also have been established by the various options exchanges. It is possible that trading decisions may have to be modified and that positions held may have to be liquidated in order to avoid exceeding such limits. Such modification or liquidation, if required, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Changes in regulations relating to swaps activities may cause us to limit our swaps activity or subject us and our Manager to additional disclosure, recordkeeping, and other regulatory requirements.

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. Recently, new regulations have been promulgated by U.S. and foreign regulators attempting to strengthen oversight of derivative contracts. Any actions taken by regulators could constrain our strategy and could increase our costs, either of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act requires most derivatives to be executed on a regulated market and cleared through a central counterparty, which may result in increased margin requirements and costs. On December 7, 2012, the CFTC issued a No-Action Letter that provides mortgage REITs relief from such registration, or No-Action Letter, if they meet certain conditions and submit a claim for such no-action relief. We believe we meet the conditions set forth in the No-Action Letter and we intend to file our claim with the CFTC to perfect the use of the no-action relief from registration. However, if in the future we do not meet the conditions set forth in the No-Action Letter or the relief provided by the No-Action Letter becomes unavailable for any other reason, we may need to seek to obtain another exemption from registration or our Manager may be required to register as a “commodity pool operator” with the CFTC. If our Manager is required to register with the CFTC as a commodity pool operator, our Manager would become subject to obtain disclosure, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, which may increase our expenses.

We may change our investment strategy, investment guidelines and asset allocation without notice or stockholder consent, which may result in riskier investments. In addition, our charter provides that our board of directors may authorize us to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders.

Our board of directors has the authority to change our investment strategy or asset allocation at any time without notice to or consent from our stockholders. To the extent that our investment strategy changes in the

44

Table of Contents

future, we may make investments that are different from, and possibly riskier than, the investments described in this prospectus. A change in our investment or leverage strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate and real estate market fluctuations or require us to sell a portion of our existing investments, which could result in gains or losses and therefore increase our earnings volatility. Decisions to employ additional leverage in executing our investment strategies could increase the risk inherent in our asset acquisition strategy. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our allocating assets in a different manner than as described in this prospectus.

In addition, our charter provides that our board of directors may authorize us to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interests to qualify as a REIT. These changes could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market value of our common stock, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We operate in a highly competitive market.

Our profitability depends, in large part, on our ability to acquire targeted assets at favorable prices. We compete with a number of entities when acquiring our targeted assets, including other mortgage REITs, financial companies, public and private funds, commercial and investment banks and residential and commercial finance companies. We may also compete with the U.S. Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury to the extent they purchase assets in our targeted asset classes. Many of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater access to capital and other resources than we do. Furthermore, new companies with significant amounts of capital have recently been formed or have raised additional capital, and may continue to be formed and raise additional capital in the future, and these companies may have objectives that overlap with ours, which may create competition for assets we wish to acquire. Some competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that are not available to us, such as funding from the U.S. Government. 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 assets to acquire and establish more relationships than us. We also may have different operating constraints from those of our competitors including, among others, (i) tax-driven constraints such as those arising from our qualification as a REIT, (ii) restraints imposed on us by our attempt to comply with certain exclusions from the definition of an “investment company” or other exemptions under the Investment Company Act and (iii) restraints and additional costs arising from our status as a public company. Furthermore, competition for assets in our targeted asset classes 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.

Our ability to make distributions to our stockholders will depend on our operating results, our financial condition and other factors, and we may not be able to make regular cash distributions at a fixed rate or at all under certain circumstances.

We intend to make distributions to our stockholders in amounts such that we distribute all or substantially all of our taxable income in each year (subject to certain adjustments). This distribution policy will enable us to avoid being subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income that we distribute to our stockholders. However, our ability to make distributions will depend on our earnings, applicable law, our financial condition and such other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time. We may not make an initial distribution until a significant portion of the proceeds of this offering have been invested. We will declare and make distributions to our stockholders only to the extent approved by our board of directors.

The recent actions of the U.S. Government for the purpose of stabilizing the financial markets may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

The U.S. Government, through the U.S. Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, the FHA, the FDIC and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken or

45

Table of Contents

are considering taking various actions to address the financial crisis. For example, on July 21, 2010 President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on us and, more generally, the financial services and mortgage industries. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act places restrictions on residential mortgage loan originations and reforms the asset-backed securitization markets most notably by imposing credit requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes requirements on originators to make reasonable, good faith determinations regarding a consumer’s ability to repay a loan, subject to certain exceptions for qualified mortgages. Moreover, it is also possible that regulators or regulatory bodies, such as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a panel comprising top U.S. financial regulators, may scrutinize or seek to implement changes to regulation which could negatively impact mortgage REITs such as ourselves. Additionally, we cannot predict whether there will be additional proposed laws or reforms that would affect us, whether or when such changes may be adopted, how such changes may be interpreted and enforced or how such changes may affect us. However, the costs of complying with any additional laws or regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We are highly dependent on communications and information systems operated by third parties, and systems failures could significantly disrupt our business and negatively impact our operating results.

Our business is highly dependent on communications and information systems that allow us to monitor, value, buy, sell, finance and hedge our investments. These systems are operated by third parties and, as a result, we have limited ability to ensure continued operation. In the event of systems failure or interruption, we will have limited ability to affect the timing and success of systems restoration. Any failure or interruption of our systems could cause delays or other problems in our securities trading activities which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

The residential mortgage loans and other residential mortgage assets in which we may invest are subject to risk of default, among other risks.

The mortgage-related assets that we may acquire from time to time may be subject to defaults, foreclosure timeline extension, fraud, residential price depreciation and unfavorable modification of loan principal amount, interest rate and amortization of principal, which could result in losses to us. Residential mortgage loans are secured by single-family residential property and, when not guaranteed by an agency, are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. The payment of the principal and interest on the prime jumbo mortgage loans we may acquire are not guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property typically is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors, including a general economic downturn, acts of nature, terrorism, social unrest and civil disturbances, may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans. In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we bear a risk of loss of the 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. 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 a foreclosed mortgage loan. RMBS evidence interests in, or are secured by, pools of residential mortgage loans. Accordingly, the RMBS in which we will invest may be subject to all of the risks of the respective underlying mortgage loans.

The mortgage origination business is subject to special litigation and regulatory risks.

Because we intend to invest in Excess MSRs, our business strategy is dependent on our relationships and arrangements with mortgage origination companies. The laws and regulations of the various jurisdictions in

46

Table of Contents

which companies in the financial services industry conduct their mortgage lending business are complex, frequently changing and, in some cases, in direct conflict with each other. In particular, this business is subject to various laws, regulations and guidance that restrict non-prime loan origination or purchase activities. Some of these laws and regulations provide for assignee liability for warehouse lenders, whole loan buyers and securitization trusts. In addition, the downturn in the U.S. residential real estate market has resulted in increased regulatory scrutiny, and may result in increased complaints and claims, relating to non-prime mortgage origination practices, and further difficulties in the mortgage markets could result in increased exposure to liability, including possible civil and criminal liability, demands for indemnification or loan repurchases from purchasers of such loans (including securitization trusts), class action lawsuits or administrative enforcement actions. Furthermore, loans originated by a broker or other residential mortgage loan originator that is not properly licensed may be void or voidable. To the extent the mortgage origination companies we do business with face significant regulatory scrutiny or litigation risk, our investments in the Excess MSRs generated by these originators may be negatively impacted.

Residential whole mortgage loans are subject to increased risks.

We may acquire and manage pools of residential whole mortgage loans. Residential whole mortgage loans are subject to increased risks of loss. Unlike Agency RMBS, whole mortgage loans generally are not guaranteed by the U.S. Government or any GSE, though in some cases they may benefit from private mortgage insurance. Additionally, by directly acquiring whole mortgage loans, we do not receive the structural credit enhancements that benefit senior tranches of RMBS. A whole mortgage loan is directly exposed to losses resulting from default. Therefore, the value of the underlying property, the creditworthiness and financial position of the borrower and the priority and enforceability of the lien will significantly impact the value of such mortgage. In the event of a foreclosure, we may assume direct ownership of the underlying real estate. The liquidation proceeds upon sale of such real estate may not be sufficient to recover our cost basis in the loan, and any costs or delays involved in the foreclosure or liquidation process may increase losses.

Whole mortgage loans are also subject to “special hazard” risk (property damage caused by hazards, such as earthquakes or environmental hazards, not covered by standard property insurance policies), and to bankruptcy risk (reduction in a borrower’s mortgage debt by a bankruptcy court). In addition, claims may be assessed against us on account of our position as a mortgage holder or property owner, including assignee liability, responsibility for tax payments, environmental hazards and other liabilities. In some cases, these liabilities may be “recourse liabilities” or may otherwise lead to losses in excess of the purchase price of the related mortgage or property.

To the extent that due diligence is conducted on potential assets, such due diligence may not reveal all of the risks associated with such assets and may not reveal other weaknesses in such assets, which could lead to losses.

Before making an investment, our Manager intends to conduct (either directly or using third parties) certain due diligence. There can be no assurance that our Manager will conduct any specific level of due diligence, or that, among other things, our Manager’s due diligence processes will uncover all relevant facts or that any purchase will be successful, which could result in losses on these assets, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and SEC rules concerning internal controls will be time-consuming, difficult, and costly.

Under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and current SEC regulations, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting beginning with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ending December 31, 2014. We will soon begin the process of documenting and testing our internal control procedures in order to satisfy these requirements, which is likely to result in increased

47

Table of Contents

general and administrative expenses and may shift management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. While we expect to expend significant resources to complete this important project, we may not be able to achieve our objective on a timely basis. It will be time-consuming, difficult and costly for us to develop and implement the internal controls, processes and reporting procedures required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our Manager may need to hire additional personnel to maintain our books and records and prepare our financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and if our Manager is unable to comply with the requirements of the legislation we may not be able to assess our internal controls over financial reporting to be effective in compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The real estate assets and real estate-related assets (including mortgage loans and RMBS) we intend to or may invest in are subject to the risks associated with real property.

We expect to acquire assets that are secured by real estate and we may own real estate directly in the future, either through direct acquisitions or upon a default of mortgage loans. Real estate assets are subject to various risks, including;

The occurrence of any of the foregoing or similar events may reduce our return from an affected property or asset and, consequently, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Risks Related to our Relationship with our Manager and Freedom Mortgage

Our Manager has no experience operating a REIT and we cannot assure you that our Manager’s past experience will be sufficient to successfully manage our business as a REIT.

Our Manager has no experience operating a REIT. The REIT provisions of the Code are complex, and any failure to comply with those provisions in a timely manner could prevent us from qualifying as a REIT or force us to pay unexpected taxes and penalties. In such event, our net income would be reduced and we could incur a loss.

Our Manager has no prior experience operating a public company and therefore may have difficulty in successfully and profitably operating our business or complying with regulatory requirements, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which may hinder their ability to achieve our objectives.

Prior to this offering, our Manager has no experience operating a public company or complying with regulatory requirements, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our Manager’s inexperience may hinder our Manager’s ability to achieve our objectives and we cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully execute our business strategies as a public company, or comply with regulatory requirements applicable to public companies.

48

Table of Contents

We are dependent on our Manager and certain key personnel of Freedom Mortgage that are or will be provided to us through our Manager and may not find a suitable replacement if our Manager terminates the management agreement or such key personnel are no longer available to us.

We do not have any employees of our own. Our officers are employees of Freedom Mortgage. We have no separate facilities and are completely reliant on our Manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and execution of our business strategies and risk management practices. We also depend on our Manager’s access to the professionals and principals of Freedom Mortgage as well as information and deal flow generated by Freedom Mortgage. The employees of Freedom Mortgage identify, evaluate, negotiate, structure, close and monitor our portfolio. The departure of Messrs. Middleman, Lown or Levine or other senior officers of our Manager, or of a significant number of investment professionals or principals of Freedom Mortgage, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our objectives. We can offer no assurance that our Manager will remain our manager or that we will continue to have access to our Manager’s senior management. We are subject to the risk that our Manager will terminate the management agreement or that we may deem it necessary to terminate the management agreement or prevent certain individuals from performing services for us and that no suitable replacement will be found to manage us.

If our management agreement is terminated and no suitable replacement is found to manage us or we are unable to find a suitable replacement on a timely basis, we may not be able to execute our business plan. In addition, our Manager maintains a contractual as opposed to fiduciary relationship with us. No assurances can be given that our Manager will act in our best interests with respect to the allocation of personnel, services and resources to our business. The failure of any of the key personnel of our Manager to service our business with the requisite time and dedication could materially and adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan.

The management fees payable to our Manager are payable regardless of the performance of our portfolio, which may reduce our Manager’s incentive to devote the time and effort to seeking profitable opportunities for our portfolio.

We pay our Manager management fees, which may be substantial, based on our stockholders’ equity (as defined in the management agreement) regardless of the performance of our portfolio. The management fee takes into account the net issuance proceeds of both common and preferred stock offerings, as well as issuances of equity securities by our operating partnership. Our Manager’s entitlement to non-performance-based compensation might reduce its incentive to devote the time and effort of its professionals and Freedom Mortgage’s professionals to seeking profitable opportunities for our portfolio, which could result in a lower performance of our portfolio and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our board of directors has approved very broad investment guidelines for our Manager and will not approve each decision made by our Manager to acquire, dispose of, or otherwise manage an asset.

Our Manager is authorized to follow very broad guidelines in pursuing our strategy. Our board of directors will periodically review our guidelines and our portfolio and asset-management decisions. However, it generally will not review all of our proposed acquisitions, dispositions and other management decisions. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our board of directors will rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, our Manager may arrange for us to use complex strategies or to enter into complex transactions that may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our board of directors. Our Manager has great latitude within the broad guidelines in determining the types of assets it may decide are proper for us to acquire and other decisions with respect to the management of those assets subject to our qualifying and maintaining our qualification as a REIT. Poor decisions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

49

Table of Contents

Our business strategy heavily relies on our strategic alliance with Freedom Mortgage, particularly with respect to our continuing investment in Excess MSRs, and to the extent the anticipated benefits of our strategic alliance do not materialize, our ability to successfully execute our strategy may be materially adversely affected.

Our business strategy is primarily dependent on our relationship with Freedom Mortgage. We intend to capitalize on this relationship to source opportunities to acquire Excess MSRs on a monthly flow basis from Freedom Mortgage as well as on a bulk basis with Freedom Mortgage. Although we will enter into a purchase agreement with Freedom Mortgage with respect to our investments in Excess MSRs and expect to enter into a strategic alliance agreement and a flow and bulk Excess MSR purchase agreement with respect to future investments, there is no guarantee that we will be successful in negotiating future purchase agreements with Freedom Mortgage for additional Excess MSRs related to mortgage loans that it originates on similar terms or at all. In addition, there is no guarantee that Freedom Mortgage will be successful in completing bulk purchases of MSRs on mortgage loans from third-party servicers. To the extent we are unable to enter into future arrangements with Freedom Mortgage or Freedom Mortgage is unsuccessful in consummating bulk purchases of MSRs, it would have a material adverse effect on our ability to effectively execute our business strategy and would materially and adversely impact our results of operations if we are unable to identify and enter into alternative business arrangements with other service providers.

Although we believe that our strategic alliance agreements generally align our and Freedom Mortgage’s economic interests with respect to Excess MSRs, Freedom Mortgage is a separate and distinct investment vehicle with its own business interests and will be under no obligation to maintain its current business strategy. In addition, to the extent we seek to leverage Freedom Mortgage’s relationships with third parties to generate future investment opportunities in assets other than Excess MSRs, such as prime jumbo loans, Freedom Mortgage will be under no obligation to co-invest with us or assist us in generating such opportunities.

There will be conflicts of interest in our relationships with our Manager and Freedom Mortgage, which could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our stockholders.

Our Manager is an affiliate of Freedom Mortgage. Both our Manager and Freedom Mortgage are wholly owned and controlled by Mr. Middleman. Prior to the completion of this offering, we had no independent directors and Mr. Middleman was our sole director.

We are dependent on our Manager for our day-to-day management, and we do not have any employees. Various potential and actual conflicts of interest may arise from the activities of Freedom Mortgage and its affiliates by virtue of the fact that our Manager is controlled by Freedom Mortgage. Our executive officers and the officers and employees of our Manager are also officers or employees of Freedom Mortgage and, with the exception of those officers that are dedicated to us, we compete with Freedom Mortgage for access to those individuals. The ability of our Manager’s officers and personnel, with the exception of those officers that are dedicated to us, to engage in other business activities, including the management of Freedom Mortgage, may reduce the time our Manager and certain of its officers and personnel spend managing us.

Our management agreement with our Manager, our strategic alliance agreements between us and Freedom Mortgage and the Excess MSR acquisition and recapture agreements and any other agreements that we may enter into with Freedom Mortgage in the future, whether pursuant to the strategic alliance agreements or otherwise, have been or will be negotiated between related parties and their respective terms, including the purchase price we will pay to Freedom Mortgage for our Excess MSRs, including our investments in Excess MSRs, and the fees and other amounts payable, may not be as favorable to us as if they were negotiated on an arm’s-length basis with unaffiliated third parties. Furthermore, we may choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights under such agreements because of our desire to maintain our ongoing relationships with Freedom Mortgage and our Manager. In the future, Freedom Mortgage may sponsor other vehicles that invest in Excess MSR or prime jumbo loans or other investments, and there may be situations where we compete with affiliates of Freedom Mortgage for opportunities to acquire Excess MSR or prime jumbo mortgage loans or other assets.

50

Table of Contents

Freedom Mortgage is a separate and distinct company with its own business interests and will be under no obligation to maintain its current business strategy. To the extent we seek to leverage Freedom Mortgage’s relationships with third parties to generate future investment opportunities, Freedom Mortgage will be under no obligation to co-invest with us in the future or assist us in generating such opportunities, other than pursuant to the terms of our strategic alliance agreements. Freedom Mortgage will be under no obligation, under the terms of the strategic alliance agreement or otherwise, to offer prime jumbo loans or other assets other than Excess MSRs and Freedom Mortgage may offer those assets to third parties without offering such assets to us.

In addition, there may be conflicts of interest inherent in our relationship with our Manager and its affiliates to the extent Freedom Mortgage or our Manager invests in or creates new vehicles to invest in Excess MSRs or other assets in which we may invest or whose investment objectives overlap with our investment objectives. Certain investments appropriate for us may also be appropriate for one or more of these other investment vehicles. Members of our board of directors and employees of our Manager who are our officers may serve as officers and/or directors of these other entities. In addition, in the future our Manager or its affiliates may have investments in and/or earn fees from such other investment vehicles that are higher than their economic interests in us and which may therefore create an incentive to allocate investments to such other investment vehicles.

Our management agreement with our Manager generally does not limit or restrict our Manager or its affiliates from engaging in any business or managing other pooled investment vehicles that invest in investments that meet our investment objectives, except that under our management agreement neither our Manager nor any entity controlled by or under common control with our Manager is permitted to raise or sponsor any new pooled investment vehicle whose investment policies, guidelines or plans target as its primary investment category investments in Excess MSRs.

The ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities, including their employment at Freedom Mortgage, subject to the terms of our management agreement with our Manager, may reduce the amount of time our Manager, its officers or other employees spend managing us. In addition, we may engage (subject to our investment guidelines) in material transactions with Freedom Mortgage or our Manager, including, but not limited to, certain financing arrangements, co-investments in Excess MSRs and purchases of prime jumbo mortgage loans and other assets, that present an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. It is possible that actual, potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to investor dissatisfaction, litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. Appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult, and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with one or more potential, actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Regulatory scrutiny of, or litigation in connection with, conflicts of interest could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, which could materially adversely affect our business in a number of ways, including causing an inability to raise additional funds, a reluctance of counterparties to do business with us, a decrease in the prices of our common and preferred securities and a resulting increased risk of litigation and regulatory enforcement actions.

The management agreement that we have entered into 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 and may be costly and difficult to terminate.

The management agreement that we have entered into 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. Various potential and actual conflicts of interest may arise from the activities of Freedom Mortgage and its affiliates by virtue of the fact that our Manager is controlled by Freedom Mortgage.

Termination of our management agreement without cause is subject to several conditions which may make such a termination difficult and a significant termination fee could be payable by us. That fee will increase the effective cost to us of terminating the management agreement, thereby adversely affecting our ability to terminate our Manager without cause.

51

Table of Contents

Pursuant to the management agreement, our Manager will 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 the Manager’s advice or recommendations. Our Manager will maintain a contractual as opposed to a fiduciary relationship with us. Under the terms of the management agreement, our Manager, Freedom Mortgage, and their affiliates and each of their officers, directors, trustees, members, stockholders, partners, managers, Investment Committee members, employees, agents, successors and assigns, will not liable to us for acts or omissions performed in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement, except because of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, fraud or reckless disregard of their duties under the management agreement. In addition, we will indemnify our Manager, Freedom Mortgage, and their affiliates and each of their officers, directors, trustees, members, stockholders, partners, managers, Investment Committee members, employees, agents, successors and assigns, 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, fraud or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the management agreement.

Our Manager’s failure to identify and acquire assets that meet our asset criteria or perform its responsibilities under the management agreement could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our ability to achieve our objectives depends on our Manager’s ability to identify and acquire assets that meet our asset criteria. Accomplishing our objectives is largely a function of our Manager’s structuring of our investment process, our access to financing on acceptable terms and general market conditions. Our stockholders will not have input into our investment decisions. All of these factors increase the uncertainty, and thus the risk, of investing in our common stock. In order to implement certain strategies, our Manager may need to hire, train, supervise and manage new employees successfully. Any failure to manage our future growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

If our Manager ceases to be our Manager pursuant to the management agreement, our lenders and our derivative counterparties may cease doing business with us.

If our Manager ceases to be our Manager, or if one or more of our Managers’ key personnel cease to provide services for us, it could constitute an event of default or early termination event under many of our financing and hedging agreements, upon which our counterparties would have the right to terminate their agreements with us. If our Manager ceases to be our Manager for any reason, including upon the non-renewal of our management agreement and we are unable to obtain financing or enter into or maintain derivative transactions, our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders may be materially adversely affected.

Our focus is different from that of Freedom Mortgage and its affiliates.

Freedom Mortgage and its affiliates pursue a business strategy which is related to but differentiated from our strategy. Freedom Mortgage’s business strategy focuses primarily on the origination and servicing of mortgage loans. The historical returns of Freedom Mortgage and its affiliates are not indicative of our Manager’s or Freedom Mortgage’s performance using our strategy and we can provide no assurance that our Manager or Freedom Mortgage will replicate the historical performance of Freedom Mortgage’s investment professionals in their previous endeavors.

Risks Related to Our Organizational Structure

Maintenance of our exclusion from regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act imposes significant limitations on our operations.

We intend to conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries is required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. We will conduct our business primarily through our

52

Table of Contents

wholly-owned subsidiaries. The securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” under Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, together with other investment securities we may own, cannot exceed 40% of the value of all our assets (excluding U.S. Government securities and cash) on an unconsolidated basis. This requirement limits the types of businesses in which we may engage and the assets we may hold. Certain of our subsidiaries may rely on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) under the Investment Company Act. Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act is designed for entities “primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” This exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of the entity’s assets on an unconsolidated basis consist of qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of the entity’s assets consist of qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets. These requirements limit the assets those subsidiaries can own and the timing of sales and purchases of those assets.

To classify the assets held by our subsidiaries as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, we will rely on no-action letters and other guidance published by the SEC staff regarding those kinds of assets, as well as upon our analyses (in consultation with outside counsel) of guidance published with respect to other types of assets. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of companies similar to ours, or the guidance from the SEC or its staff regarding the treatment of assets as qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. In fact, in August 2011, the SEC published a concept release in which it asked for comments on this exclusion from regulation. To the extent that the SEC staff provides more specific guidance regarding any of the matters bearing upon our exemption from the need to register under the Investment Company Act, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. Any additional guidance from the SEC staff could further inhibit our ability to pursue the strategies that we have chosen. Furthermore, although we intend to monitor the assets of our subsidiaries regularly, there can be no assurance that our subsidiaries will be able to maintain their exclusion from registration. Any of the foregoing could require us to adjust our strategy, which could limit our ability to make certain investments or require us to sell assets in a manner, at a price or at a time that we otherwise would not have chosen. This could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model and our ability to make distributions.

The ownership limits in our charter may discourage a takeover or business combination that may have benefited our stockholders.

To assist us in qualifying as a REIT, among other purposes, our charter generally limits the beneficial or constructive ownership of our stock by any person, other than Mr. Middleman, to no more than 9.0% in value or the number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our stock. This and other restrictions on ownership and transfer of our shares of stock contained in our charter may discourage a change of control of us and may deter individuals or entities from making tender offers for our common stock on terms that might be financially attractive to you or which may cause a change in our management. In addition to deterring potential transactions that may be favorable to our stockholders, these provisions may also decrease your ability to sell our common stock.

Our stockholders’ ability to control our operations is severely limited.

Our board of directors approves our major strategies, including our strategies regarding investments, financing, growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise these and other strategies without a vote of our stockholders.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit a change in our control.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or the MGCL, may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or impeding a change of control under

53

Table of Contents

circumstances that otherwise could provide our stockholders with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of our common stock, including:

We will elect to opt-out of these provisions of the MGCL, in the case of the business combination provisions, by resolution of our board of directors exempting any business combination between us and any other person (provided that such business combination is first approved by our board of directors, including a majority of our directors who are not affiliates or associates of such person), and in the case of the control share provisions, pursuant to a provision in our bylaws. However, our board of directors may by resolution elect to repeal the foregoing opt-out from the business combination provisions of the MGCL, and we may, by amendment to our bylaws, opt in to the control share provisions of the MGCL in the future.

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

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

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

Our charter limits the liability of our present and former directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law. Under current Maryland law, our present and former directors and officers will not have any liability to us or our stockholders for money damages other than liability resulting from:

54

Table of Contents

In addition, our charter authorizes us to indemnify our present and former directors and officers for actions taken by them in those and other capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law and our bylaws require us to indemnify our present and former directors and officers, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of his or her service to us as a director or officer in these and other capacities. In addition, we may be obligated to pay or reimburse the expenses incurred by our present and former directors and officers without requiring a preliminary determination of their ultimate entitlement to indemnification. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our present and former directors and officers than might otherwise exist absent the current provisions in our charter and bylaws or that might exist with other companies, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interests.

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, subject to the rights of holders of one or more classes or series of preferred stock to elect or remove one or more directors, a director may be removed only for “cause” (as defined in our charter), and then only by the affirmative vote of at least 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, for the full term of the directorship in which the vacancy occurred (other than vacancies among any directors elected by the holder or holders of any class or series of preferred stock, if such right exists). These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in our control that is in the best interests of our stockholders.

Our charter generally does not permit ownership in excess of 9.0% of any class or series of our stock, and attempts to acquire our stock in excess of the stock ownership limits will be ineffective unless an exemption is granted by our board of directors.

Our charter generally prohibits beneficial or constructive ownership by any person of more than 9.0% in value or by number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our stock and contains certain other limitations on the ownership and transfer of our stock. In addition, our charter provides that Mr. Middleman, our Chairman and the founder of Freedom Mortgage, may beneficially or constructively own up to 13.5% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our stock. Our board of directors, in its sole and absolute discretion, may grant an exemption to certain of these prohibitions, subject to certain conditions and receipt by our board of certain representations, covenants and undertakings. Our board of directors may from time to time increase this ownership limit for one or more persons and may increase or decrease such limit for all other persons. Any decrease in the ownership limit generally applicable to all stockholders will not be effective for any person whose percentage ownership of our stock is in excess of such decreased ownership limit until such time as such person’s percentage ownership of our stock equals or falls below such decreased ownership limit, but any further acquisition of our stock in excess of such decreased ownership limit will be in violation of the decreased ownership limit. Our board of directors may not increase the decreased ownership limit (whether for one person or all stockholders) if such increase would allow five or fewer individuals (including certain entities) to beneficially own more than 49.9% in value of our outstanding stock.

Our charter’s constructive ownership rules are complex and may cause the outstanding shares of our stock owned by a group of related individuals or entities to be deemed to be constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of less than these percentages of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our stock by an individual or entity could cause that individual or entity to own constructively in excess of these percentages of the outstanding shares of such class or series of our stock and thus violate the ownership limit or other restrictions on ownership and transfer of our stock. Any attempt to own or transfer our common stock or preferred stock (if and when issued) following completion of this offering in excess of the ownership limit without the consent of our board of directors or in a manner that would cause us to be “closely held” under

55

Table of Contents

Section 856(h) of the Code (without regard to whether the stock is held during the last half of a taxable year) or would otherwise cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT will result in the stock being automatically transferred to a trustee for a charitable trust or, if the transfer to the charitable trust is not automatically effective to prevent a violation of the share ownership limits or the restrictions on ownership and transfer of our stock, any such transfer of our shares will be void ab initio. Further, any transfer of our stock that would result in our shares being beneficially owned by fewer than 100 persons will be void ab initio.

Conflicts of interest could arise in the future as a result of our structure.

Conflicts of interest could arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and our operating partnership or any partner thereof, on the other. Our directors and officers have duties to our company under applicable Maryland law in connection with their oversight of the management of our company. At the same time, we will have fiduciary duties, as a general partner, to our operating partnership and to any limited partners under Delaware law in connection with the management of our operating partnership. Our duties as a general partner to our operating partnership and any of its partners may come into conflict with the duties of our directors and officers. In the event of a conflict between the interests of our stockholders and the interests of the limited partners of our operating partnership, we will endeavor in good faith to resolve the conflict in a manner not adverse to either our stockholders or the limited partners; provided, that for so long as we own a controlling interest in our operating partnership, any such conflict that we, in our sole and absolute discretion, determine cannot be resolved in a manner not adverse to either our stockholders or the limited partners of our operating partnership will be resolved in favor of our stockholders. For so long as we own a controlling interest in our operating partnership, the partnership agreement of our operating partnership requires us to resolve such conflicts in favor of our stockholders.

Risks Related to This Offering

There is currently no public market for our common stock, a trading market for our common stock may never develop following this offering and our common share price may be volatile and could decline substantially following this offering.

Our common stock will be a newly issued security for which there is no established trading market. Our common stock has been approved for listing on the NYSE, subject to official notice of issuance, but there can be no assurance that an active trading market for our common stock will develop. Accordingly, no assurance can be given as to the ability of our stockholders to sell their common stock or the price that our stockholders may obtain for their common stock.

If an active market does not develop or is not maintained, the market price of our common stock may decline and you may not be able to sell your shares. Even if an active trading market develops for our common stock subsequent to this offering, the market price of our common stock may be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations. Our financial performance, government regulatory action, tax laws, interest rates and market conditions in general could have a significant impact on the future market price of our common stock. Some of the factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in our share price include:

56

Table of Contents

For as long as we are an emerging growth company, we will not be required to comply with certain reporting requirements, including those relating to accounting standards and disclosure about our executive compensation, that apply to other public companies.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, as modified by the JOBS Act. As such, we are eligible to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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 of stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We have not made a decision whether to take advantage of any or all of these exemptions. If we do take advantage of any of these exemptions, we do not know if some investors will find our common stock less attractive as a result. The result may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

We could remain an “emerging growth company” for up to five years or until the earliest of (a) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues exceed $1 billion, (b) the date that we become a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or, Exchange Act, which would occur if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or (c) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the preceding three-year period.

In addition, pursuant to Section 107 of the JOBS Act, as an “emerging growth company,” we are permitted to take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards, which would allow us to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of the benefits of this extended transition period. This election is irrevocable. As a result of our election to utilize the extended transition period, our financial statements may not be comparable to those of other public companies that comply with such new or revised accounting standards. Please refer to “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” for further discussion of our election to utilize the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards.

Future sales of our common stock or other securities convertible into our common stock could cause the market value of our common stock to decline and could result in dilution of your shares.

Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock could cause the market price of our common stock to decrease significantly. We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of our common stock, or the availability of shares of our common stock for future sales, on the value of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market values for our common stock. In connection with this offering, we, our Manager and Freedom Mortgage and our directors and officers will enter into lock-up agreements that prevent us, subject to certain exceptions, from offering additional shares of our common stock for up to 180 days after the date of this prospectus, as described in “Underwriting.” In addition, Mr. Middleman, our Chairman, has indicated that he will enter into a lock-up agreement with the underwriters, covering a period of 12 months after the completion of this

57

Table of Contents

offering, with respect to shares of our common stock he will own as of the closing of this offering and the concurrent private placement and any shares he or any of his controlled affiliates, including Freedom Mortgage or our Manager, may acquire during the lock-up period. These lock-up provisions, at any time and without notice, may be released. If the restrictions under the lock-up agreements are waived, our common stock may become available for resale into the market, subject to applicable law, which could reduce the market price for our common stock.

Future offerings of debt securities, which would rank senior to our common stock upon our bankruptcy liquidation, and future offerings of equity securities which would dilute the common stock holdings of our existing stockholders and may be senior to our common stock for the purposes of dividend and liquidating distributions, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making offerings of debt securities or additional offerings of equity securities. Upon bankruptcy or liquidation, holders of our debt securities and shares of our preferred stock and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders shares of our common stock. Our preferred stocks, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments or both that could limit our ability to pay a dividend or other distribution to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue 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 bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their shareholdings in our company.

An increase in market interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock and our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common stock is our dividend rate as a percentage of our stock price, relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher dividend rate on our common stock or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market price of our common stock. For instance, if interest rates rise without an increase in our dividend rate, the market price of our common stock could decrease because potential investors may require a higher dividend yield on our common stock as market rates on interest-bearing instruments such as bonds rise. In addition, to the extent we have variable rate debt, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on our variable rate debt, thereby adversely affecting our cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay distributions to our stockholders.

We may pay distributions from offering proceeds, borrowings or the sale of assets to the extent that distributions exceed earnings or cash flow from our investment activities.

We may pay distributions from offering proceeds, borrowings or the sale of assets to the extent that distributions exceed earnings or cash flow from our investment activities. Such distributions would reduce the amount of cash we have available for investing and other purposes and could be dilutive to our financial results. In addition, funding our distributions from our net proceeds may constitute a return of capital to our investors, which would have the effect of reducing each stockholder’s basis in its common stock.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Risks

Your investment has various U.S. federal income tax risks.

Although the provisions of the Code relevant to your investment are generally described in “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations,” we strongly urge you to consult your own tax advisor concerning the effects of federal, state and local income tax law on an investment in our common stock and on your individual tax situation.

58

Table of Contents

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would subject us to U.S. federal, state and local income taxes, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock and would substantially reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We believe that, commencing with our short taxable year ending December 31, 2013, we will be organized in conformity with the requirements for qualification as a REIT under the Code and we intend to operate in a manner that will enable us to meet the requirements for taxation as a REIT commencing with our short taxable year ending December 31, 2013. However, we cannot assure you that we will qualify and remain qualified as a REIT. In connection with this offering, we will receive an opinion from Hunton & Williams LLP that, commencing with our short taxable year ending December 31, 2013, we will be organized in conformity with the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the U.S. federal income tax laws and our proposed method of operations will enable us to satisfy the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT under the U.S. federal income tax laws for our short taxable year ending December 31, 2013 and subsequent taxable years. Investors should be aware that Hunton & Williams LLP’s opinion will be based upon customary assumptions, will be conditioned upon certain representations made by us as to factual matters, including representations regarding the nature of our assets and the conduct of our business, will not be binding upon the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, or any court and will speak as of the date issued. In addition, Hunton & Williams LLP’s opinion will be based on existing U.S. federal income tax law governing qualification as a REIT, which is subject to change either prospectively or retroactively. Moreover, our qualification and taxation as a REIT depend upon our ability to meet on a continuing basis, through actual annual operating results, certain qualification tests set forth in the federal income tax laws. Hunton & Williams LLP will not review our compliance with those tests on a continuing basis. Accordingly, given the complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, including the potential tax treatment of the investments we make, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, no assurance can be given that our actual results of operations for any particular taxable year will satisfy such requirements.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any calendar year, and do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay U.S. federal income tax (and any applicable state and local taxes), including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates, and dividends paid to our stockholders would not be deductible by us in computing our taxable income (although such dividends received by certain stockholders taxed at individual rates generally would be subject to a preferential rate of taxation). Further, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we might need to borrow money or sell assets in order to pay any resulting tax. Our payment of income tax would decrease the amount of our income available for distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we fail to qualify or maintain our qualification as a REIT, we no longer would be required under U.S. federal tax laws to distribute substantially all of our REIT taxable income to our stockholders. Unless our failure to qualify as a REIT was subject to relief under federal tax laws, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego or liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT, we must continually satisfy various tests regarding the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our common stock. In order to meet these tests, we may be required to forego investments we might otherwise make. We may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, and may be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us in order to satisfy the source of income or asset diversification requirements for qualifying as a REIT. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.

In particular, we must ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our total assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including Excess MSRs and RMBS. 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

59

Table of Contents

more than 5% of the value of our total assets (other than government securities, TRS 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. Generally, 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 failing to qualify as a REIT and becoming subject to U.S. federal income tax (and any applicable state and local taxes) on all of our income. As a result, we may be required to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments or contribute such investments to a TRS. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

Failure to make required distributions would subject us to tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders each calendar year at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (including certain items of non-cash income), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. To the extent that we satisfy the 90% distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed income. In addition, we will incur a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than the sum of:

We intend to distribute our taxable income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the 90% distribution requirement and to avoid both corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. However, there is no requirement that TRSs distribute their after tax net income to their parent REIT or its stockholders.

Our taxable income may substantially exceed our net income as determined based on GAAP, because, for example, realized capital losses will be deducted in determining our GAAP net income, but may not be deductible in computing our taxable income. In addition, we may invest in assets that generate taxable income in excess of economic income or in advance of the corresponding cash flow from the assets. As a result of the foregoing, we may generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year. To the extent that we generate such non-cash taxable income in a taxable year, we may incur corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax on that income if we do not distribute such income to stockholders in that year. In that event, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt, sell assets, make taxable distributions of our shares or debt securities or liquidate non-cash assets at rates or at times that we regard as unfavorable to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year.

Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flows.

Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets, including taxes on any undistributed income, tax on income from some activities conducted as a result of a foreclosure, and state or local income, property and transfer taxes. In addition, any TRSs we form will be subject to regular corporate federal, state and local taxes. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distributions to stockholders.

We may lose our REIT qualification or be subject to a penalty tax if the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, successfully challenges our characterization of our investments in Excess MSRs.

We intend to invest in Excess MSRs. The IRS has issued a private letter ruling to another REIT holding that Excess MSRs are qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test and produce qualifying income for

60

Table of Contents

purposes of the 75% gross income test. Any income that is qualifying income for the 75% gross income test is also qualifying income for the 95% gross income test. A private letter ruling may be relied upon only by the taxpayer to whom it is issued, and the IRS may revoke a private letter ruling. Based on that private letter ruling and other IRS guidance regarding excess mortgage servicing fees, we generally intend to treat our investments in Excess MSRs as qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test and as producing qualifying income for purposes of the 95% and 75% gross income tests. However, we do not intend to seek our own private letter ruling. Thus, it is possible that the IRS could successfully take the position that Excess MSRs are not qualifying assets or do not produce qualifying income, presumably by recharacterizing Excess MSRs as an interest in servicing compensation, in which case we may fail one or more of the income and asset requirements for REIT qualification. If we failed one of those tests, we would either be required to pay a penalty tax, which could be material, to maintain REIT status or we would fail to qualify as a REIT.

The failure of RMBS subject to a repurchase agreement to qualify as real estate assets would adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

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

Our ability to engage in TBA transactions could be limited by the requirements necessary to qualify as a REIT, and we could fail to qualify as a REIT as a result of these investments.

We intend to purchase or sell TBAs for purposes of managing interest rate risk associated with our liabilities under repurchase agreements. We generally intend to treat such TBA purchases and sales as hedging transactions that hedge indebtedness incurred to acquire or carry real estate assets, or “qualifying liability hedges” for REIT purposes. We may, from time to time, opportunistically engage in TBA transactions because we find them attractive on their own. The law is unclear regarding whether income and gains from TBAs that are not qualifying liability hedges are qualifying income for the 75% gross income test and whether TBAs are qualifying assets for the 75% asset test.

To the extent that we engage in TBA transactions that are not qualifying liability hedges for REIT purposes, unless we receive a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS or we are advised by counsel that income and gains from such TBAs should be treated as qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, we will limit our income and gains from dispositions of such TBAs and any non-qualifying income to no more than 25% of our gross income for each calendar year. Further, unless we receive a favorable private letter ruling from the IRS or we are advised by counsel that TBAs should be treated as qualifying assets for purposes of the 75% asset test, we will limit our investment in such TBAs and any non-qualifying assets to no more than 25% of our total assets at the end of any calendar quarter and will limit the TBAs held by us that are issued by any one issuer to no more than 5% of our total assets at the end of any calendar quarter. Accordingly, our ability to purchase and sell Agency RMBS through TBAs and to hold or dispose of TBAs, through dollar roll transactions or otherwise, could be limited.

Moreover, even if we are advised by counsel that such TBAs should be treated as qualifying assets or that income and gains from such TBAs should be treated as qualifying income, it is possible that the IRS could successfully take the position that such assets are not qualifying assets and such income is not qualifying income. In that event, we could be subject to a penalty tax or we could fail to qualify as a REIT if (i) the value of our TBAs, together with our other non-qualifying assets for the 75% asset test, exceeded 25% of our total assets at the end of any calendar quarter, (ii) the value of our TBAs issued by any one issuer exceeded 5% of our total

61

Table of Contents

assets at the end of any calendar quarter, or (iii) our income and gains from our TBAs that are not qualifying liability hedges, together with our non-qualifying income for the 75% gross income test, exceeded 25% of our gross income for any taxable year.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.

The REIT provisions of the Code substantially limit our ability to hedge. Our aggregate gross income from non-qualifying hedges, fees, and certain other non-qualifying sources cannot exceed 5% of our annual gross income. As a result, we might have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS. Any hedging income earned by a TRS would be subject to federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities or expose us to greater risks associated with interest rate changes or other changes than we would otherwise want to bear.

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 primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or securitize mortgage loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the mortgage loans for U.S. federal income tax purposes (such as a securitization using a real estate mortgage investment conduit, or REMIC, structure). Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of mortgage loans at the REIT level, and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though such sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us. We may also choose to conduct such transactions through a TRS to avoid the imposition of a prohibited transaction tax.

Our ownership of and relationship with any TRSs that we form will be limited and a failure to comply with the limits would jeopardize our REIT status and may result in the application of a 100% excise tax.

A REIT may own up to 100% of the stock of one or more TRSs. A TRS may earn income that would not be qualifying income if earned directly by the parent REIT. Both the subsidiary and the REIT must jointly elect to treat the subsidiary as a TRS. A corporation (other than a REIT) 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 value of a REIT’s total assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. A domestic TRS will pay federal, state and local income tax at regular corporate rates on any income that it earns. 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 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. Any domestic TRS that we may form will pay federal, state and local income tax on its taxable income, and its after-tax net income will be available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed to us unless necessary to maintain our REIT qualification.

Our ownership limitation may restrict change of control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their common stock.

In order for us to qualify as a REIT for each taxable year after 2013, no more than 50% in value of our outstanding shares of stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals during the last half of any calendar year. “Individuals” for this purpose include natural persons, private foundations, some employee benefit plans and trusts, and some charitable trusts. In order to help us qualify as a REIT, among other purposes, our charter generally prohibits any person, other than Mr. Middleman, from beneficially or constructively owning more than 9.0% in value or in number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our stock.

62

Table of Contents

The ownership limitation and other restrictions could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of shares of our common stock might receive a premium for their common stock over the then-prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

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

The maximum tax rate applicable to “qualified dividend income” payable to U.S. stockholders that are taxed at individual rates is 20%. Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates on qualified dividend income. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate qualified dividends could cause investors who are taxed at individual rates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends treated as qualified dividend income, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our common stock.

We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could reduce the market price of our common stock.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be amended. We cannot predict when or if any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective and any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively. We and our stockholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation.

Certain financing activities may subject us to U.S. federal income tax and could have negative tax consequences for our stockholders.

We may enter into securitization transactions and other financing transactions that could result in our, or a portion of our assets, being treated as a taxable mortgage pool for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we enter into such a transaction in the future we will be taxable at the highest corporate income tax rate on a portion of the income arising from a taxable mortgage pool, referred to as “excess inclusion income,” that is allocable to the percentage of our shares held in record name by disqualified organizations (generally tax-exempt entities that are exempt from the tax on unrelated business taxable income, such as state pension plans and charitable remainder trusts and government entities). In that case, under our charter, we could reduce distributions to such stockholders by the amount of tax paid by us that is attributable to such stockholder’s ownership.

If we were to realize excess inclusion income, IRS guidance indicates that the excess inclusion income would be allocated among our stockholders in proportion to our dividends paid. Excess inclusion income cannot be offset by losses of our stockholders. If the stockholder is a tax-exempt entity and not a disqualified organization, then this income would be fully taxable as unrelated business taxable income under Section 512 of the Code. If the stockholder is a foreign person, it would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at the maximum tax rate and withholding will be required on this income without reduction or exemption pursuant to any otherwise applicable income tax treaty.

Our recognition of “phantom” income may reduce a stockholder’s after-tax return on an investment in our common stock.

We may recognize taxable income in excess of our economic income, known as phantom income, in the first years that we hold certain investments, and experience an offsetting excess of economic income over our taxable income in later years. As a result, stockholders at times may be required to pay U.S. federal income tax on distributions that economically represent a return of capital rather than a dividend. These distributions would be offset in later years by distributions representing economic income that would be treated as returns of capital

63

Table of Contents

for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Taking into account the time value of money, this acceleration of U.S. federal income tax liabilities may reduce a stockholder’s after-tax return on his or her investment to an amount less than the after-tax return on an investment with an identical before-tax rate of return that did not generate phantom income.

Liquidation of our assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification.

To qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding our assets and our sources of income. If we are compelled to liquidate our assets to repay obligations to our lenders or for other reasons, we may be unable to comply with these requirements, thereby jeopardizing our qualification as a REIT, or we may be subject to a 100% tax on any resultant gain if we sell assets that are treated as inventory or property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business.

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, the value of such securities, and also to what extent those securities constitute qualified real estate assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests and produce income that qualifies under the 75% gross income test. The inaccuracy of any such opinions, advice or statements may adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT and result in significant corporate-level tax.

64

Table of Contents