In addition to the other information set forth in this Report, you should carefully consider the following factors, which could materially affect our business, financial condition or results of operations in future periods. The risks described below are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations in future periods.

Risks Related to Our Management and Relationship with Our Manager and Its Affiliates

We are dependent upon PCM and PLS and their resources and may not find suitable replacements if any of our service agreements with PCM or PLS are terminated.

In accordance with our management agreement, we are externally advised and managed by PCM, which makes all or substantially all of our investment, financing and risk management decisions, and has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and strategies. Under our loan servicing agreement with PLS, PLS provides primary servicing and special servicing for our portfolios of mortgage loans and MSRs, and under our mortgage banking and warehouse services agreement with PLS, PLS provides fulfillment and disposition-related services in connection with our correspondent production business. The costs of these services increase our operating costs and may adversely affect our net income, but we rely on PCM and PLS to provide these services under these agreements because we have no employees or in-house capability to handle the services independently.

No assurance can be given that the strategies of PCM, PLS or their affiliates under any of these agreements will be successful, that any of them will conduct complete and accurate due diligence or provide sound advice, or that any of them will act in our best interests with respect to the allocation of their resources to our business. The failure of any of them to do any of the above, conduct the business in accordance with applicable laws and regulations or hold all licenses or registrations necessary to conduct the business as currently operated would materially and adversely affect our ability to continue to execute our business plan.

In addition, the terms of these agreements extend until February 1, 2017 (subject to automatic renewals for 18-month terms), but any of the agreements may be terminated earlier under certain circumstances or otherwise non-renewed. If any agreement is terminated or non-renewed and a suitable replacement is not secured in a timely manner, it would materially and adversely affect our ability to continue to execute our business plan.

If our management agreement or loan servicing agreement is terminated or not renewed, we will have to obtain the services from another service provider. We may not be able to replace these services in a timely manner or on favorable terms, or at all. With respect to our mortgage banking and warehouse services agreement, the services provided by PLS are inherently unique and not widely available, if at all. This is particularly true because we are not a Ginnie Mae licensed issuer or servicer, yet we are able to acquire government mortgage loans from our correspondent sellers that we know will ultimately be purchased from us by PLS. While we generally have exclusive rights to these services from PLS during the term of our mortgage banking and warehouse services agreement, in the event of a termination we may not be able to replace these services in a timely manner or on favorable terms, or at all, and we ultimately would be required to compete against PLS for the correspondent business we currently enjoy.

PFSI, the parent company of PCM and PLS, is undergoing significant growth and its development and integration of new operations may not be effective.

PFSI’s growth since it commenced operations has caused significant demands on its operational, accounting and legal infrastructure, and increased expenses. The ability of PCM and PLS to provide us with the services we require to be successful depends, among other things, on the ability of PFSI, including PCM and PLS, to maintain an operating platform and management system sufficient to address its growth. This may require PFSI to incur significant additional expenses and to commit additional senior management and operational resources to support its growth. There can be no assurance that PFSI will be able to effectively develop its expanding operations or that PFSI will continue to grow successfully. PFSI’s failure to do so could adversely affect the ability of PCM and PLS to manage us and service our portfolios of assets, respectively, which could materially and adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial position, and results of operations and our ability to pay dividends.

The management fee structure could cause disincentive and/or create greater investment risk.

Pursuant to our management agreement, PCM is entitled to receive a base management fee that is based on our shareholders’ equity (as defined in our management agreement) at the end of each quarter. As a result, significant base management fees would be payable to PCM for a given quarter even if we experience a net loss during that quarter. PCM’s right to non-performance-based compensation may not provide sufficient incentive to PCM to devote its time and effort to source and maximize risk-adjusted returns on our investment portfolio, which could, in turn, materially and adversely affect the market price of our common shares and/or our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

11

Table of Contents

Conversely, PCM is also entitled to receive incentive compensation under our management agreement based on our performance in each quarter. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation based on our net income may lead PCM to place undue emphasis on higher yielding investments and the maximization of short-term income at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, maintenance of sufficient liquidity and/or management of market risk, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier and more speculative.

The servicing fee structure could create a conflict of interest.

For its services under our loan servicing agreement, PLS is entitled to servicing fees that we believe are competitive with those charged by primary servicers and specialty servicers and include fixed per-loan monthly amounts based on the delinquency, bankruptcy and/or foreclosure status of the serviced loan or the REO, as well as activity fees that generally are calculated as a percentage of unpaid principal balance or proceeds realized. PLS is also entitled to certain customary market-based fees and charges, including boarding and deboarding fees, assumption and modification fees and late charges. In addition, to the extent we participate in Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) (or other similar mortgage loan modification programs), PLS may be entitled to retain any incentive payments made to it in connection with our participation therein. Because certain of these fees are earned upon reaching a specific milestone, this fee structure may provide PLS with an incentive to foreclose more aggressively or liquidate assets for less than their fair value.

On our behalf, PLS also refinances performing and nonperforming loans and originates new loans to facilitate the disposition of real estate that we acquire through foreclosure. In order to provide PLS with an incentive to produce such loans, we have agreed to pay PLS origination fees and other compensation based on market-based pricing and terms that are consistent with the pricing and terms offered by PLS to unaffiliated third parties on a retail basis. This may provide PLS with an incentive to refinance a greater proportion of our loans than it otherwise would and/or to refinance loans on our behalf instead of arranging the refinancings with a third party lender, either of which might give rise to a potential or perceived conflict of interest.

Termination of our management agreement is difficult and costly.

It is difficult and costly to terminate, without cause, our management agreement. Our management agreement provides that it may be terminated by us without cause under limited circumstances and the payment to PCM of a significant termination fee. The cost to us of terminating our management agreement may adversely affect our desire or ability to terminate our management agreement with PCM without cause. PCM may also terminate our management agreement upon at least 60 days’ prior written notice if we default in the performance of any material term of our management agreement and the default continues for a period of 30 days after written notice to us, or where we terminate our loan servicing agreement, our mortgage banking and warehouse services agreement or certain other agreements with PCM or PLS without cause (at any time other than at the end of the current term or any automatic renewal term), whereupon in any case we would be required to pay to PCM a significant termination fee.

PCM and PLS both have limited liability and indemnity rights.

Our agreements with PCM and PLS provide that PCM and PLS will not assume any responsibility other than to provide the services specified in the applicable agreements. Our management agreement further provides that PCM will not be responsible for any action of our board of trustees in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. In addition, each of PCM and PLS and their respective affiliates, including each such entity’s managers, officers, trustees, directors, employees and members, will be held harmless from, and indemnified by us against, certain liabilities on customary terms. As a result, to the extent we are damaged through certain actions or inactions of PCM or PLS, our recourse is limited and we may not be able to recover our losses.

Existing or future entities or accounts managed by PCM may compete with us for, or may participate in, investments, any of which could result in conflicts of interest. BlackRock and HC Partners, PFSI’s strategic investors, could compete with us or transact business with us.

Although our agreements with PCM and PLS provide us with certain exclusivity and other rights and we and PCM have adopted an allocation policy to specifically address some of the conflicts relating to our investment opportunities, there is no assurance that these measures will be adequate to address all of the conflicts that may arise or will address such conflicts in a manner that is favorable to us. Certain of the funds that PCM currently advises have, and certain of the funds that PCM may in the future advise may have, investment objectives that overlap with ours, including funds which have different fee structures, and potential conflicts may arise with respect to decisions regarding how to allocate investment opportunities among those funds and us. We are also limited in our ability to acquire assets that are not qualifying real estate assets and/or real estate related assets, whereas the PennyMac funds and other entities or accounts that PCM manages now or may manage in the future are not, or may not be, as applicable, so limited. In addition, PCM and/or the PennyMac funds and the other entities or accounts managed by PCM now or in the future may participate in some of our investments, which may not be the result of arm’s length negotiations and may involve or later result in potential conflicts between our interests in the investments and those of PCM or such other entities.

12

Table of Contents

In addition, PFSI’s strategic investors, BlackRock and HC Partners, each own significant investments in PFSI. Affiliates of each of BlackRock and HC Partners currently manage investment vehicles and separate accounts that may compete directly or indirectly with us. BlackRock and HC Partners are under no obligation to provide us with any financial or operational assistance, or to present opportunities to us for matters in which they may become involved. We may enter into transactions with BlackRock or HC Partners or with market participants with which BlackRock or HC Partners has business relationships, and such transactions and/or relationships could influence the decisions made by PCM with respect to the purchase or sale of assets and the terms of such purchase or sale. Such activities could have an adverse effect on the value of the positions held by us, or may result in BlackRock and/or HC Partners having interests adverse to ours.

We may encounter conflicts of interest in our Manager’s efforts to appropriately allocate its time and services between its own activities, the management of the PennyMac funds and the management of us, and the loss of the services of our Manager’s management team could adversely affect us.

Pursuant to our management agreement, PCM is obligated to provide us with the services of its senior management team, and the members of that team are required to devote such time to us as is necessary and appropriate, commensurate with our level of activity. The members of PCM’s senior management team may have conflicts in allocating their time and services between the operations of PFSI and our activities, the PennyMac funds and other entities or accounts that they manage now or in the future.

The experience of PFSI’s senior managers is valuable to us. PFSI’s management team has significant experience in the mortgage loan production and servicing industry. The loss of the services of PFSI’s senior managers for any reason could adversely affect our business.

Our failure to deal appropriately with conflicts of interest could damage our reputation and adversely affect our business.

As we expand the scope of our businesses, we confront potential conflicts of interest relating to our investment activities that are managed by PCM. The SEC and certain other regulators have increased their scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest, and as we expand the scope of our business, we must continue to monitor and address any conflicts between our interests and those of PFSI. We have implemented procedures and controls to be followed when real or potential conflicts of interest arise, but it is possible that potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to the dissatisfaction of, or litigation by, our investors 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 or actual conflicts of interest. Regulatory scrutiny, litigation or reputational risk incurred in connection with conflicts of interest would adversely affect our business in a number of ways and may adversely affect our results of operations.

Negative publicity and media attention involving Countrywide Financial Corporation and certain of its former officers and other negative publicity could have an adverse impact on PFSI and us.

Certain of our and PFSI’s officers are former employees of Countrywide Financial Corporation, or Countrywide, which has been the subject of various investigations and lawsuits and ongoing negative publicity. In addition, negative publicity associated with other legal claims against us, whether or not such complaints are valid, could harm our reputation. We cannot provide you any assurance regarding whether any existing or future investigations, litigation or complaints will generate negative publicity or media attention for us or adversely impact us or PFSI’s or its affiliates’ ability to conduct their businesses.

Risks Related to Our Business

We operate in a highly regulated industry and the continually changing federal, state and local laws and regulations could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Due to the highly regulated nature of the mortgage industry, we are required to comply with a wide array of federal, state and local laws and regulations that regulate, among other things, the manner in which we conduct our loan production and servicing businesses and the fees that we may charge. These regulations directly impact our business and require constant compliance, monitoring and internal and external audits. Federal, state and local governments have proposed or enacted numerous new laws, regulations and rules related to mortgage loans. Laws, regulations, rules and judicial and administrative decisions relating to mortgage loans include those pertaining to real estate settlement procedures, equal credit opportunity, fair lending, fair credit reporting, truth in lending, fair debt collection practices, service members protections, compliance with net worth and financial statement delivery requirements, compliance with federal and state disclosure and licensing requirements, the establishment of maximum interest rates, finance charges and other charges, qualified mortgages, licensing of loan officers, loan officer compensation, secured transactions, property valuations, servicing transfers, payment processing, escrow, communications with consumers, loss mitigation, collection, foreclosure, bankruptcies, repossession and claims-handling procedures, and other trade practices and privacy regulations providing for the use and safeguarding of non-public personal financial information of borrowers. PLS and service providers it uses, including outside counsel retained to process foreclosures and bank ruptcies, must also comply with these legal requirements.

13

Table of Contents

In particular, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, or Dodd Frank Act, represents a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry in the United States and includes, among other things (i) the creation of a Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify emerging systemic risks posed by financial firms, activities and practices, and to improve cooperation among federal agencies, (ii) the creation of the CFPB authorized to promulgate and enforce consumer protection regulations relating to financial products and services, including residential mortgage lending and servicing, (iii) enhanced regulation of financial markets, including the derivatives and securitization markets, and (iv) amendments to the Truth in Lending Act, or TILA, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, aimed at improving consumer protections with respect to residential mortgage originations, including disclosures, originator compensation, minimum repayment standards, prepayment considerations, appraisals and servicing requirements.

Our failure or the failure of PLS to comply with these laws, regulations and rules may result in increased costs of doing business, reduced payments by borrowers, modification of the original terms of mortgage loans, permanent forgiveness of debt, delays in the foreclosure process, increased servicing advances, litigation, reputational damage, enforcement actions, and repurchase and indemnification obligations.

The failure of the mortgage lenders from whom loans were acquired through our correspondent production activities to otherwise comply with these laws, regulations and rules may also result in these adverse consequences. PLS has in place a due diligence program designed to assess areas of risk with respect to these acquired loans, including, without limitation, compliance with underwriting guidelines and applicable law. However, PLS may not detect every violation of law by these mortgage lenders. While we have contractual rights to seek indemnity or repurchase from these correspondent lenders, if any of these lenders is unable to fulfill its indemnity or repurchase obligations to us to a material extent, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

In addition, there continue to be changes in legislation, rulemaking and licensing in an effort to simplify the consumer mortgage experience, which requires technology changes and additional implementation costs for loan originators and servicers. We expect that legislative and regulatory changes will continue in the foreseeable future, which may increase our operating expenses

Any changes in laws or regulations applicable to our business could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We may be subject to liability for potential violations of various lending laws, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

Mortgage loan originators and servicers operate in a highly regulated industry and are required to comply with various federal, state and local laws and regulations, including anti-predatory lending laws and laws and regulations imposing certain restrictions and requirements on “high cost” loans. To the extent these originators or servicers fail to comply with applicable law and any of their loans become part of our assets, it could subject us, as an assignee or purchaser of the related mortgage loans, to monetary penalties or other losses and could result in the borrowers rescinding the affected mortgage loans. Further, if any of our loans are found to have been originated, acquired or serviced by us or a third party in violation of applicable law, we could be subject to lawsuits or governmental actions, or we could be fined or incur losses, any of which could adversely impact our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The risk management efforts of our Manager may not be effective.

We could incur substantial losses and our business operations could be disrupted if our Manager is unable to effectively identify, manage, monitor, and mitigate financial risks, such as credit risk, interest rate risk, prepayment risk, liquidity risk, and other market-related risks, as well as operational risks related to our business, assets, and liabilities. Our Manager’s risk management policies, procedures, and techniques may not be sufficient to identify all of the risks to which we are exposed, mitigate the risks we have identified, or identify additional risks to which we may become subject in the future. Expansion of our business activities may also result in our being exposed to risks to which we have not previously been exposed or may increase our exposure to certain types of risks, and our Manager may not effectively identify, manage, monitor, and mitigate these risks as our business activity changes or increases.

Initiating new business activities or significantly expanding existing business activities may expose us to new risks and will increase our cost of doing business.

Initiating new business activities or significantly expanding existing business activities are two ways to grow our business and respond to changing circumstances in our industry; however, they may expose us to new risks and regulatory compliance requirements. We cannot be certain that we will be able to manage these risks and compliance requirements effectively. Furthermore, our efforts may not succeed and any revenues we earn from any new or expanded business initiative may not be sufficient to offset the

14

Table of Contents

initial and ongoing costs of that initiative, which would result in a loss with respect to that initiative. For example, we are expanding our business activities to include the acquisition of small balance commercial real estate loans, which may expose us to new risks, may not succeed, and may not generate sufficient revenue to offset our related costs.

We may not be able to successfully operate our business or generate sufficient operating cash flows to make or sustain distributions to our shareholders.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient cash to pay our operating expenses and make distributions to our shareholders. The results of our operations and our ability to make or sustain distributions to our shareholders depends on many factors, including the availability of attractive risk-adjusted investment opportunities that satisfy our investment strategies and our success in identifying and consummating them on favorable terms, the level and expected movement of home prices, the level and volatility of interest rates, readily accessible short-term and long-term financing on favorable terms, and conditions in the financial markets, real estate market and the economy, as to which no assurance can be given.

We also face substantial competition in acquiring attractive investments, both in our investment activities and correspondent production activities. While we try to diversify our investments among various types of mortgages and mortgage-related assets, the competition for such assets may compress margins and reduce yields, making it difficult for us to make investments with attractive risk-adjusted returns. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully transition out of investments producing lower returns into investments that produce better returns, or that we will not seek investments with greater risk to obtain the same level of returns. Any or all of these factors could cause the value of our investments to decline substantially and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Difficult conditions in the mortgage, real estate and financial markets and the economy generally may adversely affect the performance and market value of our investments.

The success of our business strategies and our results of operations are materially affected by current conditions in the mortgage markets, the financial markets and the economy generally. Concerns over factors including inflation, deflation, unemployment, personal and business income taxes, healthcare, energy costs, geopolitical issues, the availability and cost of credit, the mortgage markets and the real estate markets have contributed to increased volatility and unclear expectations for the economy and markets going forward. The mortgage markets have been and continue to be affected by changes in the lending landscape, defaults, credit losses and significant liquidity concerns. A continuation or increase in the volatility and deterioration in the mortgage markets may adversely affect the performance and fair value of our investments, and a deterioration in home prices or the value of our investments could require us to take charges that may be material.

The actions of the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. Treasury may materially and adversely affect our business.

The U.S. government, the Federal Reserve Bank, the U.S. Treasury and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken and continue to take or modify various actions to address the recent financial crisis. There can be no assurances that such actions will have a beneficial impact on the financial markets. In addition to the foregoing, the U.S. Congress and/or various states and local legislatures may enact additional legislation or regulatory action designed to address the current economic climate or for other purposes that could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue to execute our business strategies.

To the extent the financial markets do not respond favorably to these initiatives or they do not function as intended, they may not have a positive impact on our business. We can provide no assurance that we will be eligible to use any government programs or, if eligible, that we will be able to utilize them successfully. Further, the incentives provided by such programs may increase competition for, and the pricing of, our targeted assets.

Mortgage loan modification and refinance programs, future legislative action, and other actions and changes may materially and adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, the assets in which we intend to invest.

From time to time, the U.S. government, through the FHA, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the U.S. Treasury, will establish loan modification and refinance programs designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential mortgage loan foreclosures. These programs, future U.S. federal, state and/or local legislative or regulatory actions that result in the modification of outstanding mortgage loans, as well as changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for modifications or refinancing mortgage loans with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, residential mortgage loans, residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”), real estate-related securities and various other asset classes in which we invest. In addition to the foregoing, the U.S. Congress and/or various states and local legislators may enact additional legislation or regulatory action designed to address the current economic climate or for other purposes that could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue to execute our business strategies.

15

Table of Contents

We are highly dependent on the Agencies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), as the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and any changes in these entities or their current roles could materially and adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial position and results of operations.

Our ability to generate revenues through mortgage loan sales depends to a significant degree on programs administered by the Agencies and others that facilitate the issuance of MBS in the secondary market. These Agencies play a critical role in the mortgage industry and we have significant business relationships with them. Presently, almost all of the newly originated conforming loans that we acquire from mortgage lenders through our correspondent production activities qualify under existing standards for inclusion in mortgage securities backed by the Agencies. We also derive other material financial benefits from these relationships, including the assumption of credit risk by these Agencies on loans included in such mortgage securities in exchange for our payment of guarantee fees, our retention of such credit risk through structured transactions that lower our guarantee fees, and the ability to avoid certain loan inventory finance costs through streamlined loan funding and sale procedures.

Our ability to generate revenues from newly originated loans that we acquire through our correspondent production activities is highly dependent on the fact that the Agencies have not historically acquired such loans directly from mortgage lenders, but have instead relied on banks and non-bank aggregators such as us to acquire, aggregate and securitize or otherwise sell such loans to investors in the secondary market. Certain of the Agencies have begun approving new and smaller lenders that traditionally may not have qualified for such approvals. To the extent that these lenders choose to sell directly to the Agencies rather than through loan aggregators like us, this reduces the number of loans available for purchase, and it could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations. Similarly, to the extent the Agencies increase the number of purchases and sales for their own accounts, our business and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

The conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the U.S. federal government, could adversely affect our business and prospects. Their roles could be significantly reduced or eliminated and the nature of the guarantees could be considerably limited relative to those issued in the past. Elimination of the traditional roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or any changes to the nature or extent of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or the fees, terms and guidelines that govern our selling and servicing relationships with them, such as continued increases in the guarantee fees we are required to pay, initiatives that increase the number of repurchase demands and/or the manner in which they are pursued, or possible limits on delivery volumes imposed upon us and other sellers/servicers, could also materially and adversely affect our business, including our ability to sell and securitize loans in our correspondent production activities, and the performance, liquidity and market value of our investments.

Although the U.S. Treasury has committed capital to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these actions may not be adequate for their needs. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adversely affected by events such as ratings downgrades, their inability to obtain any necessary government funding, their lack of success in resolving repurchase demands to their lenders, foreclosure problems and delays and problems with mortgage insurers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could suffer losses and could fail to honor their guarantees and other obligations. Any discontinuation of, or significant reduction in, the operation of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or any significant adverse change in their financial condition, the level of their activity in the primary or secondary mortgage markets or in their underwriting criteria could materially and adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial position, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Our or our Servicer’s inability to meet certain net worth and liquidity requirements imposed by the Agencies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

Effective December 31, 2015, each of the Agencies has implemented new minimum financial eligibility requirements for Agency mortgage sellers/servicers and MBS issuers, as applicable. These eligibility requirements align the minimum financial requirements for mortgage sellers/servicers and MBS issuers to do business with the Agencies. These minimum financial requirements include net worth, capital ratio and/or liquidity criteria in order to set a minimum level of capital needed to adequately absorb potential losses and a minimum amount of liquidity needed to service Agency mortgage loans and MBS and cover the associated financial obligations and risks.

In order to meet these minimum financial requirements, we and our Servicer are required to maintain cash and cash equivalents in amounts that may adversely affect our or its business, financial condition and results of operations, and this may impede our or our Servicer’s ability to grow our respective businesses and MSR portfolios. To the extent that such requirements are not met, the Agencies may suspend or terminate Agency approval or certain agreements with us or our Servicer, which could cause us or our Servicer to cross default under other financing arrangements and/or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

16

Table of Contents

The CFPB continues to be more active in its monitoring of the residential mortgage origination and servicing sectors. New rules and regulations, such as the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rules, and/or more stringent enforcement of existing rules and regulations by the CFPB could result in enforcement actions, fines, penalties and the inherent reputational risk that results from such actions.

The CFPB is charged, in part, with enforcing laws involving consumer financial products and services and is empowered with examination, enforcement and rulemaking authority. The CFPB has taken a very active role. For example, the CFPB sends examiners to banks and non-banks that service and/or originate mortgages to assess whether consumers’ interests are protected, and they have brought numerous enforcement actions against lenders and servicers and collected millions of dollars in penalties and compensation for consumers.

Final regulations regarding such “ability to repay” and other standards and practices were adopted by the CFPB and became effective in January 2014. Before originating a mortgage loan, a lender must determine, on the basis of certain information and according to specified criteria, that the prospective borrower has the ability to repay the loan. Lenders that issue loans meeting certain heightened underwriting requirements will be presumed to comply with the new rule with respect to these loans. In addition, our ability to enter into asset-backed securities transactions in the future may be impacted by the Dodd-Frank Act and other proposed reforms related thereto, the effect of which is currently uncertain as it relates to the asset-backed securities market.

The CFPB’s TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule, which is intended to improve the way consumers receive information about home loans both when they apply and when they are getting ready to close, became effective on October 3, 2015. TRID represents a comprehensive overhaul of not only the existing home loan disclosure rules, but the entire home loan origination process, and has required industry wide changes to the way in which home loan brokers, lenders, settlement agents and service providers must work with each other. The rule has required, and will continue to require, substantial expense and effort in order to comply. We relied on several third party vendors, in addition to our internal resources, to implement all of the home loan disclosure changes required by TRID prior to the October 3, 2015 deadline. There can be no assurances that we or PLS have properly implemented the requirements of the TRID rule.

In addition, the CFPB issued final rules that took effect on January 10, 2014 amending Regulation X, which implements RESPA, and Regulation Z, which implements TILA. These final rules implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act regarding mortgage loan servicing including periodic billing statements, certain notices and acknowledgements, prompt crediting of borrowers’ accounts for payments received, additional notice, review and timing requirements with respect to delinquent borrowers, prompt investigation of complaints by borrowers, and additional steps to be taken before purchasing insurance to protect the lender’s interest in the property. On December 15, 2014, the CFPB proposed amendments to the servicing rules involving lender-placed insurance notices, delinquency and early intervention, loss mitigation, periodic statement requirements, and successors-in-interest to borrowers. Comments to the proposed rules were due by March 16, 2015, and revised rules are anticipated some time in 2016.

On August 19, 2014, the CFPB issued guidance to mortgage servicers to address potential risks to customers that may arise in connection with transfers of servicing. According to the CFPB, if a servicer is determined to have engaged in any acts or practices that are unfair, deceptive, or abusive, or that otherwise violate federal consumer financial laws and regulations, the CFPB will take appropriate supervisory and enforcement actions to address violations and seek all appropriate corrective measures, including remediation of harm to consumers. In light of the significant amount of servicing transfers that we have undertaken and seek to undertake, we may receive additional scrutiny from the CFPB.

The CFPB is expected to issue new or amended rules addressing collection of consumer debts under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) in the latter half of 2016. As part of their review of these rules, they issued a bulletin on December 16, 2015 describing the risks associated with in-person collection of consumer debts under the FDCPA, including remediation of harm to consumers and civil money penalties. Again, we may be subject to additional scrutiny from the CFPB with respect to our debt collection activities.

The TRID rule, servicing rules and other regulations promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act or by the CFPB and actions by the CFPB could materially and adversely affect the manner in which we conduct our business, result in heightened federal and state regulation and oversight of our business activities, and in increased costs and potential litigation associated with our business activities. Our or PLS’ failure to comply with the laws, rules or regulations to which we are subject, whether actual or alleged, would expose us or PLS to fines, penalties or potential litigation liabilities, including costs, settlements and judgments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our or PLS’ business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We finance our investments with borrowings, which may materially and adversely affect our return on our investments and may reduce cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

We currently leverage and, to the extent available, we intend to continue to leverage our investments through borrowings, the level of which may vary based on the particular characteristics of our investment portfolio and on market conditions. We have leveraged certain of our investments through repurchase agreements. When we enter into repurchase agreements, we sell securities or

17

Table of Contents

mortgage loans to lenders (i.e., repurchase agreement counterparties) and receive cash from the lenders. The lenders are obligated to resell the same assets back to us at the end of the term of the transaction. Because the cash we receive from the lender when we initially sell the assets to the lender is less than the fair value of those assets (this difference is referred to as the haircut), if the lender defaults on its obligation to resell the same assets back to us we could incur a loss on the transaction equal to the amount of the haircut (assuming there was no change in the fair value of the assets). In addition, repurchase agreements generally allow the counterparties, to varying degrees, to determine a new fair value of the collateral to reflect current market conditions. If a counterparty lender determines that the fair value of the collateral has decreased, it may initiate a margin call and require us to either post additional collateral to cover such decrease or repay a portion of the outstanding borrowing. Should this occur, in order to obtain cash to satisfy a margin call, we may be required to liquidate assets at a disadvantageous time, which could cause us to incur further losses. In the event we are unable to satisfy a margin call, our counterparty may sell the collateral, which may result in significant losses to us.

Although our governing documents contain no limitation on the amount of debt we may incur, the lenders under our repurchase agreements require us and/or our subsidiaries to comply with various financial covenants, including those relating to tangible net worth, profitability and our ratio of total liabilities to tangible net worth. Our lenders also require us to maintain minimum amounts of cash or cash equivalents sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position. If we are unable to maintain these liquidity levels, we could be forced to sell additional investments at a loss and our financial condition could deteriorate rapidly.

As the servicer of the assets subject to our repurchase agreements, PLS is also subject to various financial covenants, including those relating to tangible net worth, liquidity, profitability and its ratio of total liabilities to tangible net worth. PLS’ failure to comply with any of these covenants would generally result in a servicer termination event or event of default under one or more of our repurchase agreements. Thus, in addition to relying upon PCM to manage our financial covenants, we rely upon PLS to manage its own financial covenants in order to ensure our compliance with our repurchase agreements and our continued access to liquidity and capital. A servicer termination event or event of default resulting from PLS’ breach of its financial or other covenants could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to shareholders.

Our repurchase agreements to finance nonperforming loans and other distressed mortgage assets are complex and difficult to manage. This is due in part to the nature of the underlying assets securing such financings, which do not produce consistent cash flows and which require specific activities to be performed at specific points in time in order to preserve value. Our inability to comply with the terms and conditions of these facilities could materially and adversely impact us.

In addition, the repurchase agreements contain events of default (subject to certain materiality thresholds and grace periods), including payment defaults, breaches of financial and other covenants and/or certain representations and warranties, cross-defaults, servicer termination events, guarantor defaults, bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings and other events of default customary for these types of facilities. The remedies for such events of default are also customary for these types of facilities and include the acceleration of the principal amount outstanding and the liquidation by the lender of the assets then subject to the respective facilities. If we default on one of our obligations under a repurchase agreement or breach our representations, warrants or covenants and are unable to cure, the lender may be able to terminate the transaction or its commitments, accelerate any amounts outstanding, require us to post additional collateral or repurchase the loans, and/or cease entering into any other repurchase transactions with us. Because our repurchase agreements typically contain cross-default provisions, a default that occurs under any one agreement could allow the lenders under our other agreements to also declare a default. Our other secured borrowings are subject to similar risks as those that apply to our repurchase agreements. Any significant losses we incur on our repurchase agreements and other secured borrowings could materially and adversely affect our earnings, financial condition and our cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

We may in the future utilize other sources of borrowings, including term loans, bank credit facilities and structured financing arrangements, among others. The amount of leverage we employ varies depending on the asset class being financed, our available capital, our ability to obtain and access financing arrangements with lenders and the lenders’ and rating agencies’ estimate of, among other things, the stability of our investment portfolio’s cash flow.

Our return on our investments and cash available for distribution to our shareholders may be reduced to the extent that changes in market conditions increase the cost of our financing relative to the income that can be derived from the investments acquired. Our debt service payments also reduce cash flow available for distribution to shareholders. In the event we are unable to meet our debt service obligations, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to foreclosure or sale to satisfy the obligations.

Until non-recourse long-term financing structures become available to us and we attempt to utilize them or do utilize them, we rely heavily on short-term repurchase and loan and security agreements with maturities that do not match the assets being financed and are thus exposed to risks which could result in losses to us.

We have used and, in the future, may use securitization and other non-recourse long-term financing for our investments. In such structures, our lenders typically have only a claim against the assets included in the securitizations rather than a general claim against us as an entity. Such long-term financing has been limited and, in certain instances, unavailable for certain of our investments. Prior to

18

Table of Contents

any such future financing, we would seek to finance our investments with relatively short-term facilities until a sufficient portfolio is accumulated or such financing becomes available. As a result, we would be subject to the risks that we would not be able to obtain suitable non-recourse long-term financing or otherwise acquire, during the period that any short-term facilities are available, sufficient eligible assets or securities to maximize the efficiency of a securitization.

We also bear the risk that we would not be able to obtain new short-term facilities or would not be able to renew any short-term facilities after they expire should we need more time to obtain long-term financing or seek and acquire sufficient eligible assets or securities for a future securitization. If we are unable to obtain and renew short-term facilities or to consummate securitizations to finance our investments on a long-term basis, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or unfavorable price. In addition, conditions in the capital markets may make the issuance of any securitization less attractive to us even when we do have sufficient eligible assets or securities. While we would intend to retain the unrated equity component of securitizations and, therefore, still have exposure to any investments included in such securitizations, our inability to enter into such securitizations may increase our overall exposure to risks associated with direct ownership of such investments, including the risk of default.

We may not be able to raise the debt or equity capital required to finance our assets and grow our businesses.

The growth of our businesses requires continued access to debt and equity capital that may or may not be available on favorable terms or at the desired times, or at all. In addition, we invest in certain assets, including distressed loans and REO, as well as MSRs and ESS, for which financing has historically been difficult to obtain. Our inability to continue to maintain debt financing for distressed loans and REO, or MSRs and ESS, could require us to seek equity capital that may be more costly or unavailable to us.

In addition, our ability to finance ESS relating to Ginnie Mae MSRs is currently dependent on pass through financing we obtain through our Servicer, which retains the MSRs associated with the ESS we acquire. After our initial acquisition of ESS, we then finance the acquired ESS with our Servicer under an underlying loan and security agreement, and our Servicer, in turn, re-pledges the ESS (along with the related MSRs it retains) to a third party lender under a master repurchase agreement. There can be no assurance that our Servicer will continue to make this pass through financing available to us or that the third party lender will continue to either permit our Servicer to provide such pass through financing to us or otherwise provide financing to our Servicer for MSRs and ESS.

This financing arrangement also subjects us to the credit risk of PLS. To the extent PLS does not apply our payments of principal and interest under the loan and security agreement to the allocable portion of its borrowings under the master repurchase agreement, or to the extent PLS otherwise defaults under the master repurchase agreement, our ESS would be at a risk of total loss. In addition, we provide a guarantee to the third party lender for the amount of borrowings under the master repurchase agreement that are allocable to the pass through financing of our ESS. In the event we are unable to satisfy our obligations under the guaranty following a default by PLS, this could cause us to default under other financing arrangements and/or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

We cannot assure you that we will have access to any debt or equity capital on favorable terms or at the desired times, or at all. Our inability to raise such capital or obtain financing on favorable terms could materially adversely impact our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to shareholders.

In addition, we have been authorized to repurchase up to $200 million of our common shares pursuant to a share repurchase program approved by our board of trustees. Increased activity in our share repurchase program will have the effect of reducing our common shares outstanding, market value and shareholders’ equity, any or all of which could adversely affect the assessment by our lenders, credit providers or other counterparties regarding our net worth and, therefore, negatively impact our ability to raise new capital.

Future issuances of debt securities, which would rank senior to our common shares, and future issuances of equity securities, which would dilute the holdings of our existing shareholders and may be senior to our common shares, may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common shares.

In order to grow our business, we may rely on additional equity issuances, which may rank senior and/or be dilutive to our shareholders, or on less efficient forms of debt financing that rank senior to our shareholders and require a larger portion of our cash flow from operations, thereby reducing funds available for our operations, future business opportunities, cash distributions to our shareholders and other purposes. In 2013, our wholly-owned subsidiary, PMC, issued $250 million of Exchangeable Notes that are exchangeable under certain circumstances for our common shares.

Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and other loans and preferred shares would receive a distribution of our available assets before holders of our common shares and holders of the Exchangeable Notes could receive a distribution of PMC’s available assets before holders of our common shares. Subject to applicable law, our board of trustees has the authority, without further shareholder approval, to issue additional debt, common shares and preferred shares on the terms and for the consideration it deems appropriate. We have issued, and/or intend to issue, additional common shares and securities convertible into, or exchangeable or exercisable for, common shares under our equity incentive plan. We have also filed a shelf registration statement, from which we have issued and may in the future issue additional common shares, including, without limitation, through our “at-the-market” equity program.

19

Table of Contents

We also may issue from time to time additional common shares in connection with property, portfolio or business acquisitions and may grant demand or piggyback registration rights in connection with such issuances. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict the effect, if any, of future issuances of our common shares, preferred shares or other equity-based securities or the prospect of such issuances on the market price of our common shares. Issuances of a substantial amount of such securities, or the perception that such issuances might occur, could depress the market price of our common shares. Our preferred shares, if issued, would likely have a preference on distribution payments, including liquidating distributions, which could limit our ability to make distributions, including liquidating distributions, to holders of our common shares.

Thus, holders of our common shares bear the risk that our future issuances of debt or equity securities or other borrowings will reduce the market price of our common shares and dilute their ownership in us.

Interest rate fluctuations could significantly decrease our results of operations and cash flows and the market value of our investments.

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 to our operations. Our primary interest rate exposures relate to the yield on our investments, their market value and the financing cost of our debt, as well as any interest rate swaps or other derivatives that we utilize for hedging purposes. Changes in interest rates affect our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income we earn on our interest earning investments and the interest expense we incur in financing these investments. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding interest income may result in operating losses for us. An increase in prevailing interest rates could adversely affect the volume of newly originated mortgages available for purchase in our correspondent production activities. Changes in the level of interest rates also may affect our ability to make investments, the value of our investments (including our pipeline of mortgage loan commitments) and any related hedging instruments, the value of newly originated loans acquired through our correspondent production segment, and our ability to realize gains from the disposition of assets. Changes in interest rates may also affect borrower default rates and may impact our ability to refinance or modify loans and/or to sell REO. In addition, with respect to the MSRs and ESS we own, decreasing interest rates may cause a large number of borrowers to refinance, which may result in the loss of any such mortgage servicing business and associated write-downs of such MSRs and ESS. Any such scenario could materially and adversely affect us.

Hedging against interest rate exposure may materially and adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.

We pursue hedging strategies to reduce our exposure to changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity varies in scope based on the level of interest rates, the type of investments held, and changing market conditions. However, while we enter into such transactions seeking to reduce interest rate risk, unanticipated changes in interest rates may result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. Interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things, it may not fully eliminate interest rate risk, it could expose us to counterparty and default risk that may result in greater losses or the loss of unrealized profits, and it will create additional expense, while any income it generates to offset losses may be limited by federal tax provisions applicable to REITs. Thus hedging activity, while intended to limit losses, may materially and adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.

We utilize derivative instruments, which could subject us to risk of loss.

We utilize derivative instruments for hedging purposes, which may include swaps, options and futures. However, the prices of derivative instruments, including futures and options, are highly volatile, as are payments made pursuant to swap agreements. As a result, the cost of utilizing derivatives may reduce our income that would otherwise be available for distribution to shareholders or for other purposes, and the derivative instruments that we utilize may fail to effectively hedge our positions. We are also subject to credit risk with regard to the counterparties involved in the derivative transactions.

The use of derivative instruments is also subject to an increasing number of laws and regulations, including the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations. These laws and regulations are extremely complex, compliance with them is costly and time consuming, and our failure to comply with any of these laws and regulations could subject us to lawsuits or government actions and damage our reputation, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Competition for mortgage assets may limit the availability of desirable investments and result in reduced risk-adjusted returns.

Our profitability depends, in part, on our ability to continue to acquire our targeted investments at favorable prices. As described in greater detail elsewhere in this Report, we compete in our investment activities with other mortgage REITs, specialty finance companies, private funds, thrifts, banks, mortgage bankers, insurance companies, mutual funds, institutional investors, investment

20

Table of Contents

banking firms, depository institutions, governmental bodies and other entities, many of which focus on acquiring mortgage assets. Many of our competitors also have competitive advantages over us, including size, financial strength, access to capital, cost of funds, federal pre-emption and higher risk tolerance. Competition may result in fewer investments, higher prices, acceptance of greater risk, lower yields and a narrower spread of yields over our financing costs.

We may change our investment strategies and policies without shareholder consent, and this may materially and adversely affect the market value of our common shares and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

PCM is authorized by our board of trustees to follow very broad investment policies and, therefore, it has great latitude in determining the types of assets that are proper investments for us, as well as the individual investment decisions. In the future, PCM may make investments with lower rates of return than those anticipated under current market conditions and/or may make investments with greater risks to achieve those anticipated returns. Our board of trustees will periodically review our investment policies and our investment portfolio but will not review or approve each proposed investment by PCM unless it falls outside our investment policies or constitutes a related party transaction.

In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, our board of trustees will rely primarily on information provided to it by PCM. Furthermore, PCM may use complex strategies, and transactions entered into by PCM may be costly, difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our board of trustees. We also may change our investment strategies and policies and targeted asset classes at any time without the consent of our shareholders, and this could result in our making investments that are different in type from, and possibly riskier than our current investments or the investments currently contemplated. Changes in our investment strategies and policies and targeted asset classes may expose us to new risks or increase our exposure to interest rate risk, counterparty risk, default risk and real estate market fluctuations, and this could materially and adversely affect the market value of our common shares and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We are not an approved Ginnie Mae issuer and servicer, and an increase in the percentage or amount of government loans we acquire could be detrimental to us.

We are not approved as a Ginnie Mae issuer and servicer. As a result, we are unable to produce or acquire Ginnie Mae MSRs and we earn significantly less income in connection with our acquisition of government loans as opposed to conventional loans. Further, market demand for government loans over conventional loans may increase or PLS may offer pricing to our approved correspondent sellers for government loans that is more competitive in the market than pricing for conventional loans, the result of which may be our acquisition of a greater proportion or amount of government loans. Any significant increase in the percentage or amount of government loans we acquire could adversely impact our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations, and our ability to make distributions to shareholders.

Our correspondent production activities could subject us to increased risk of loss.

In our correspondent production activities, we acquire newly originated loans, including jumbo loans, from mortgage lenders and sell or securitize those loans to or through the Agencies or other third party investors. We also sell the resulting securities into the MBS markets. However, there can be no assurance that PLS will continue to be successful in operating this business on our behalf or that we will continue to be able to capitalize on these opportunities on favorable terms or at all. In particular, we have committed, and expect to continue to commit, capital and other resources to this operation; however, PLS may not be able to continue to source sufficient asset acquisition opportunities to justify the expenditure of such capital and other resources. In the event that PLS is unable to continue to source sufficient opportunities for this operation, there can be no assurance that we would be able to acquire such assets on favorable terms or at all, or that such assets, if acquired, would be profitable to us. In addition, we may be unable to finance the acquisition of these assets and/or may be unable to sell the resulting MBS in the secondary mortgage market on favorable terms or at all. We are also subject to the risk that the value of the acquired loans may decrease prior to their disposition. The occurrence of any one or more of these risks could adversely impact our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We and/or PLS are required to have various Agency approvals and state licenses in order to conduct our business and there is no assurance we and/or PLS will be able to obtain or maintain those Agency approvals or state licenses.

Because we and PLS are not federally chartered depository institutions, neither we nor PLS benefits from exemptions to state mortgage lending, loan servicing or debt collection licensing and regulatory requirements. Accordingly, we and PLS are required to be licensed to conduct business in certain jurisdictions. PLS is licensed, or is taking steps to become licensed, in those jurisdictions, and for those activities, where it believes it is cost effective and appropriate to become licensed. Through our wholly owned subsidiaries, we are licensed or are taking steps to become licensed, in those jurisdictions, and for those activities, where we believe it is cost effective and appropriate to become licensed.

21

Table of Contents

Our failure or the failure by PLS to obtain any necessary licenses, comply with applicable licensing laws or satisfy the various requirements to maintain them over time could restrict our direct business activities, result in litigation or civil and other monetary penalties, or cause us to default under certain of our lending arrangements, any of which could materially and adversely impact our business.

We and PLS are also required to hold the Agency approvals in order to sell mortgage loans to the Agencies and service such mortgage loans on their behalf. Our failure, or the failure of PLS, to satisfy the various requirements necessary to maintain such Agency approvals over time would also restrict our direct business activities and could adversely impact our business.

In addition, we and PLS are subject to periodic examinations by federal and state regulators, which can result in increases in our administrative costs, and we or PLS may be required to pay substantial penalties imposed by these regulators due to compliance errors, or we or PLS may lose our licenses. Negative publicity or fines and penalties incurred in one jurisdiction may cause investigations or other actions by regulators in other jurisdictions.

A disruption in the MBS market could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In our correspondent production activities, we deliver newly originated Agency-eligible mortgage loans that we acquire to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to be pooled into Agency MBS securities or transfer government loans that we acquire to PLS, which pools them into Ginnie Mae MBS securities. Disruptions in the general MBS market have occurred in the past. Any significant disruption or period of illiquidity in the general MBS market would directly affect our liquidity because no existing alternative secondary market would likely be able to accommodate on a timely basis the volume of loans that we typically acquire and sell in any given period. Accordingly, if the MBS market experiences a period of illiquidity, we might be prevented from selling the loans that we acquire into the secondary market in a timely manner or at favorable prices, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The industry in which we operate is highly competitive, and is likely to become more competitive, and our inability to compete successfully or decreased margins resulting from increased competition could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We operate in a highly competitive industry that could become even more competitive as a result of economic, legislative, regulatory and technological changes. Competition in acquiring newly originated mortgage loans comes from large commercial banks and savings institutions and other independent mortgage lenders and servicers. Many of these institutions have significantly greater resources and access to capital than we do, which may give them the benefit of a lower cost of funds. Additionally, our existing and potential competitors may decide to modify their business models to compete more directly with our correspondent production business. For example, non-bank loan servicers may try to leverage their servicing operations to develop or expand a correspondent production business. Since the withdrawal of a number of large participants from these markets following the financial crisis in 2008, there have been relatively few large non-bank participants. As more non-bank entities enter these markets, our correspondent production activities may generate lower margins in order to effectively compete.

Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure has resulted, and will continue to result, in increased compliance costs and pose challenges for our management team.

Changing federal and state laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Dodd-Frank Act and the rules, regulations and agencies promulgated thereunder, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and SEC regulations, have created uncertainty for public companies and significantly increased the compliance requirements, costs and risks associated with accessing the U.S. public markets. Our management and PCM’s team has and will continue to devote significant time and financial resources to comply with both existing and evolving standards for public companies; however, this will continue to lead to increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue generating activities to compliance activities.

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. 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 financial condition and results of operations.

22

Table of Contents

Technology failures could damage our business operations and increase our costs, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The financial services industry as a whole is characterized by rapidly changing technologies, and system disruptions and failures caused by fire, power loss, telecommunications failures, unauthorized intrusion, computer viruses and disabling devices, natural disasters and other similar events may interrupt or delay the ability of PCM or PLS to provide services to our customers on our behalf. Security breaches, acts of vandalism and developments in computer capabilities could result in a compromise or breach of the technology used to protect our customers’ personal information and transaction data. Despite efforts by PCM or PLS to ensure the integrity of their systems, it is possible that they may not be able to anticipate or implement effective preventive measures against all security breaches, especially because the methods of attack change frequently or are not recognized until launched, and because security attacks can originate from a wide variety of sources, including third parties such as persons involved with organized crime or associated with external service providers. Those parties may also attempt to fraudulently induce employees, customers or other users of these systems to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to our data or that of our customers or clients. These risks may increase in the future along with the industry’s increase in its reliance on the Internet and use of web-based product offerings.

A successful penetration or circumvention of the security of our systems or a defect in the integrity of PCM’s or PLS’ systems or cybersecurity could cause serious negative consequences for our business, including significant disruption of our operations, misappropriation of our confidential information or that of our customers, or damage to PCM’s or PLS’ computers or operating systems and to those of our customers and counterparties. Any of the foregoing events could result in violations of applicable privacy and other laws, financial loss to us, to PCM or PLS, or to our customers, loss of confidence in us, customer dissatisfaction, significant litigation exposure and harm to our reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents may adversely affect our business by causing a disruption to our operations, a compromise or corruption of our confidential information, and/or damage to our business relationships, all of which could negatively impact our financial results.

A cyber incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information resources. These incidents may be an intentional attack or an unintentional event and could involve gaining unauthorized access to our information systems for purposes of misappropriating assets, stealing confidential information, corrupting data or causing operational disruption. The result of these incidents may include disrupted operations, misstated or unreliable financial data, liability for stolen assets or information, increased cybersecurity protection and insurance costs, litigation and damage to our investor relationships. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed by information systems, both internal and those provided to us by third-party service providers. While we have implemented policies and procedures designed to help mitigate cybersecurity risks and cyber intrusions, there can be no assurance that any such cyber intrusions will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. The occurrence of any cyber intrusions or failures, interruptions and security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The success and growth of our correspondent production activities will depend upon PLS’ ability to adapt to and implement technological changes.

Our correspondent production activities are currently dependent upon the ability of PLS to effectively interface with our mortgage lenders and other third parties and to efficiently process loan fundings and closings. The correspondent production process is becoming more dependent upon technological advancement. Maintaining and improving new technology and becoming proficient with it may also require significant capital expenditures by PLS. As these requirements increase in the future, PLS will have to fully develop these technological capabilities to remain competitive and its failure to do so could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Our entry into the warehouse lending business could subject us to increased risk of loss.

We may enter into the warehouse lending business through one or more of our subsidiaries. In connection with such activity, we will generally finance a mortgage loan originated by a correspondent lender under a master repurchase agreement, pursuant to which we will purchase the loan at a discount to its unpaid principal balance. Upon its sale of the loan to us or a third party, the correspondent lender would then repurchase the loan from us in an amount equal to our purchase price plus accrued interest through the date of repurchase.

The ability of the correspondent lender to repurchase a loan from us may be contingent on its ability to sell such loan in an amount sufficient to pay us the full repurchase price. There can be no assurance that the correspondent lender will be able to sell the loan for an amount sufficient to repay its borrowings from us, or at all. As a result, we are subject to the credit risk of our

23

Table of Contents

correspondent lenders. If the correspondent lender is unable to sell the loan and unable to repay its borrowings from us, there can be no assurance that any value we are able to realize through a sale or liquidation of the underlying loan will be sufficient to avoid a loss of all or a portion of the amount of the borrowing. Such losses could harm our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We could be harmed by misconduct or fraud that is difficult to detect.

We are exposed to risks relating to misconduct by employees of PennyMac and its subsidiaries, contractors we use, or other third parties with whom we have relationships. For example, such employees could execute unauthorized transactions, use our assets improperly or without authorization, perform improper activities, use confidential information for improper purposes, or misrecord or otherwise try to hide improper activities from us. This type of misconduct could also relate to our assets managed by PCM. This type of misconduct can be difficult to detect and if not prevented or detected could result in claims or enforcement actions against us or losses. Accordingly, misconduct by the employees of PennyMac and its subsidiaries, contractors, or others could subject us to losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Our controls may not be effective in detecting this type of activity.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately determine our financial results or prevent fraud.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud. We may in the future discover areas of our internal controls that need improvement. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires us to evaluate and report on our internal controls over financial reporting and have our independent auditors annually attest to our evaluation, as well as issue their own opinion on our internal control over financial reporting. While we have undertaken substantial work to comply with Section 404, we cannot be certain that we will be successful in maintaining adequate control over our financial reporting and financial processes. Furthermore, as we continue to grow our business, our internal controls will become more complex, and we will require significantly more resources to ensure our internal controls remain effective. If we or our independent auditors discover a material weakness, the disclosure of that fact, even if quickly remedied, could result in a breach under one of our lending arrangements and/or reduce the market value of our common shares. Additionally, the existence of any material weakness could result in a default under certain of our lending agreements and, along with the existence of a significant deficiency, would require management to devote significant time and incur significant expense to remediate any such material weakness or significant deficiency, and management may not be able to remediate any such material weakness or significant deficiency in a timely manner, or at all.

Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war may materially and adversely affect the real estate industry generally and our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war may cause disruptions in the U.S. financial markets, including the real estate capital markets, and negatively impact the U.S. economy in general. Any future terrorist attacks, the anticipation of any such attacks, the consequences of any military or other response by the United States and its allies, and other armed conflicts could cause consumer confidence and spending to decrease or result in increased volatility in the United States and worldwide financial markets and economy. The economic impact of these events could also materially and adversely affect the collectability of some of our loans and the credit quality of our loans and investments and the properties underlying our interests. We may suffer losses as a result of the adverse impact of any future attacks and these losses may adversely impact our performance and may cause the market value of our common shares to decline or be more volatile. We cannot predict the severity of the effect that potential future armed conflicts and terrorist attacks would have on us. Losses resulting from these types of events may not be fully insurable.

Risks Related to Our Investments

A significant portion of our investments is and will continue to be in the form of whole loan mortgages, which are subject to increased risks.

A significant portion of our investments is and will continue to be in the form of whole loan mortgages, which are directly exposed to losses resulting from default and foreclosure. 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 investment in the loan, resulting in a loss to us. In addition, the foreclosure process may be lengthy and expensive, and any delays or costs involved in the effectuation of a foreclosure of the loan or a liquidation of the underlying property may further reduce the proceeds and thus increase the loss.

24

Table of Contents

The mortgage loans in which we invest and the mortgage loans underlying the MBS in which we invest subject us to delinquency, foreclosure and loss, as well as the risks associated with residential real estate and residential real estate-related investments, any of which could result in losses to us.

We invest in performing and nonperforming residential mortgage loans and, through our correspondent production business, newly originated prime credit quality residential mortgage loans. Residential mortgage loans are typically secured by single-family residential property and are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss. These risks are greater for nonperforming loans. In addition, we invest in RMBS that are not guaranteed by federally chartered entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or, in the case of Ginnie Mae, the U.S. government. The ability of borrowers to repay residential mortgage loans that we own, or underlying RMBS that we own, is dependent upon the income or assets of these borrowers.

Our investments in mortgage loans and MBS also subject us to the risks of residential real estate and residential real estate-related investments, including, among others: (i) declines in the value of residential real estate; (ii) risks related to general and local economic conditions; (iii) lack of available mortgage funding for borrowers to refinance or sell their homes; (iv) overbuilding; (v) the general deterioration of the borrower’s ability to keep a rehabilitated nonperforming mortgage loan current; (vi) increases in property taxes and operating expenses; (vii) changes in zoning laws; (viii) costs resulting from the clean-up of, and liability to third parties for damages resulting from, environmental problems, such as indoor mold; (ix) casualty or condemnation losses; (x) uninsured damages from floods, earthquakes or other natural disasters; (xi) limitations on and variations in rents; (xii) fluctuations in interest rates; (xiii) fraud by borrowers, originators and/or sellers of mortgage loans; (xiv) undetected deficiencies and/or inaccuracies in underlying mortgage loan documentation and calculations; and (xv) failure of the borrower to adequately maintain the property, particularly during times of financial difficulty. To the extent that assets underlying our investments are concentrated geographically, by property type or in certain other respects, we may be subject to certain of the foregoing risks to a greater extent. Additionally, we may be required to foreclose on a mortgage loan and such actions would subject us to greater concentration of the risks of the residential real estate markets and risks related to the ownership and management of real property.

We also invest in commercial mortgage loans and expect to invest in CMBS. Commercial mortgage loans are secured by multifamily or commercial property and are also subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss that are greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of such property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. Net operating income of an income producing property can be affected by a variety of factors, and if the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. In the event of any default under a mortgage loan held directly by us, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral and the price we paid for the loan plus any accrued and unpaid interest on the mortgage loan and any unreimbursed advances, 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.

A significant portion of the residential mortgage loans that we acquire are or may become nonperforming loans, which increases our risk of loss of our investment.

We acquire distressed residential mortgage loans and mortgage-related assets where the borrower has failed to make timely payments of principal and/or interest. We also acquire performing loans that subsequently become nonperforming. Under current market conditions, it is likely that a portion of these loans will have current loan-to-value ratios in excess of 100%, meaning the amount owed on the loan exceeds the value of the underlying real estate. Further, the borrowers on such loans may be in economic distress and/or may have become unemployed, bankrupt or otherwise unable or unwilling to make payments when due. If PLS as our primary and special servicer is not able to adequately address or mitigate the issues concerning these loans, we may incur significant losses. There are no limits on the percentage of nonperforming assets we may hold. Any loss we incur may be significant and may reduce distributions to our shareholders and materially and adversely affect the market value of our common shares.

Our retention of credit risk underlying mortgage loans we sell to Fannie Mae is inherently uncertain and exposes us to significant risk of loss.

In conjunction with our correspondent business, we have entered into credit risk transfer agreements (“CRT Agreements”) with Fannie Mae, whereby we sell pools of mortgage loans into Fannie Mae-guaranteed securitizations while retaining a portion of the credit risk underlying such mortgage loans by issuing a credit guarantee to Fannie Mae in exchange for a portion of the guarantee fee it normally charges. Our retention of credit risk subjects us to risks associated with delinquency and foreclosure similar to the risks associated with owning the underlying mortgage loans as described above, and exposes us to risk of loss greater than the risks associated with selling the mortgage loans to Fannie Mae without the retention of such credit risk. Any loss we incur may be significant and may reduce distributions to our shareholders and materially and adversely affect the market value of our common shares.

25

Table of Contents

CRT Agreements also represent a type of investment that is new to the market and, as such, inherently uncertain. There can be no assurance that this investment type will continue to be offered by Fannie Mae or supported by the FHFA or that it will produce the desired returns. Further, our projected returns are highly dependent on certain internal models, and it is uncertain whether such models are sufficiently accurate to support our projected returns and/or avoid potentially significant losses.

In addition, although our CRT Agreements have been structured to produce qualifying assets for the purposes of satisfying our REIT qualification requirements, the REIT eligibility of the assets subject to the CRT Agreements is uncertain. If the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) were to take a position adverse to our interpretation, the consequences of such action could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Our acquisition of mortgage servicing rights exposes us to significant risks.

MSRs arise from contractual agreements between us and the investors (or their agents) in mortgage securities and mortgage loans. We generally acquire MSRs in connection with our sale of mortgage loans to the Agencies where we assume the obligation to service such loans on their behalf. We may also purchase MSRs from third-party sellers. Any MSRs we acquire are initially recorded at fair value on our balance sheet. The determination of the fair value of MSRs requires our management to make numerous estimates and assumptions. Such estimates and assumptions include, without limitation, estimates of future cash flows associated with MSRs based upon assumptions involving interest rates as well as the prepayment rates, delinquencies and foreclosure rates of the underlying serviced mortgage loans. The ultimate realization of the value of MSRs may be materially different than the values of such MSRs as may be reflected in our consolidated balance sheet 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, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, there may be material uncertainty about the fair value of any MSRs we acquire.

Changes in interest rates are a key driver of the performance of MSRs. Historically, the value of MSRs has increased when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect those changes in interest rates have on prepayment estimates. We may pursue various hedging strategies to seek to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in fair value resulting from 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 fair value of MSRs, our balance sheet, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be more susceptible to volatility due to changes in the fair value of, or cash flows from, MSRs as interest rates change.

Prepayment speeds significantly affect MSRs. Prepayment speed is the measurement of how quickly borrowers pay down the unpaid principal balance of their loans or how quickly loans are otherwise brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. We base the price we pay for MSRs and the rate of amortization of those assets on, among other things, our projection of the cash flows from the related pool of mortgage loans. Our expectation of prepayment speeds is a significant assumption underlying those cash flow projections. If prepayment speed expectations increase significantly, the fair value of the MSRs could decline and we may 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 MSRs, and we could ultimately receive substantially less than what we paid for such assets. Moreover, delinquency rates have a significant impact on the valuation of any MSRs. An increase in delinquencies generally results in lower revenue because typically we only collect servicing fees from Agencies or mortgage owners for performing loans. Our expectation of delinquencies is also a significant assumption underlying our cash flow projections. If delinquencies are significantly greater than we expect, the estimated fair value of the MSRs could be diminished. When the estimated fair value of MSRs is reduced, we could suffer a loss, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

Furthermore, MSRs and the related servicing activities 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 our business. Our failure to comply, or the failure of the servicer to comply, with the laws, rules or regulations to which we or they are subject by virtue of ownership of MSRs, whether actual or alleged, could expose us to fines, penalties or potential litigation liabilities, including costs, settlements and judgments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Our acquisition of excess servicing spread exposes us to significant risks.

We also acquire from PLS, from time to time, the right to receive certain ESS arising from MSRs owned or acquired by PLS. The ESS represents the difference between PLS’ contractual servicing fee with the applicable Agency and a base servicing fee that PLS retains as compensation for servicing or subservicing the related mortgage loans pursuant to the applicable servicing contract.

26

Table of Contents

Because the ESS is a component of the related MSR, the risks of owning the ESS are substantially similar to the risks of owning an MSR. We also record our ESS assets at fair value, which is based on many of the same estimates and assumptions used to value our MSR assets, thereby creating the same potential for material differences between the recorded fair value of the ESS and the actual value that is ultimately realized. Also, the performance of our ESS assets are impacted by the same drivers as our MSR assets, namely interest rates, prepayment speeds and delinquency rates. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the estimates and assumptions and the potential for significant change in the impact of the drivers, there may be material uncertainty about the fair value of any ESS we acquire, and this could ultimately have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Further, as a condition to our purchase of the ESS, we were required to subordinate our interests to those of the applicable Agency. To the extent PLS fails to maintain its Agency approvals, such failure could result in PLS’ loss of the applicable MSR in its entirety, thereby extinguishing our interest in the related ESS. With respect to our ESS relating to PLS’ Ginnie Mae MSRs, our interest is also subordinated to the rights of CSFB First Boston Mortgage Capital LLC (“CSFB”) under a repurchase agreement with PLS, pursuant to which CSFB has a blanket lien on all of PLS’ Ginnie Mae MSRs (including the ESS we acquired), and under a security and subordination agreement with us, pursuant to which we acknowledge CSFB’s blanket lien. The security and subordination agreement permits CSFB to liquidate the ESS along with the related MSRs to the extent there exists an event of default under the repurchase agreement, and it contains certain trigger events, including breaches of representations, warranties or covenants and defaults under other of our credit facilities, that would require PLS to either (i) repay in full the outstanding loan amount under its repurchase agreement or (ii) repurchase the ESS from us at fair value. To the extent PLS is unable to repay the loan under its repurchase agreement or repurchase the ESS, an event of default would exist under the repurchase agreement, thereby entitling CSFB to liquidate the ESS and the related MSRs. In the event our ESS is liquidated as a result of certain actions or inactions of PLS, we generally would be entitled to seek indemnity under the applicable spread acquisition agreement; however, this would be an unsecured claim and, as a result, our loss of the ESS to an Agency or CSFB under any of these scenarios could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We cannot independently protect our MSR or ESS assets from borrower refinancing and are dependent upon PLS to do so for our benefit.

While PLS has agreed pursuant to the terms of an MSR recapture agreement to transfer to us a portion of the MSRs relating to mortgage loans it refinances, we are not independently capable of protecting our MSR asset from borrower refinancing through targeted solicitations to, and origination of, refinance loans for borrowers in our servicing portfolio. Accordingly, unlike traditional mortgage originators and many servicers, we must rely upon PLS to refinance mortgage loans in our servicing portfolio that would otherwise be targeted by third-party lenders. Historically, PLS has had limited success soliciting loans in our servicing portfolio, and there can be no assurance that PLS will either have or allocate the time and resources required to effectively and efficiently protect our MSR assets. Its failure to do so, or the termination of our MSR recapture agreement, could result in accelerated runoff of our MSR assets, decreasing its value and adversely impacting our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Similarly, while PLS has agreed pursuant to the terms of our spread acquisition agreements to transfer to us a portion of the ESS relating to mortgage loans it refinances, we are not independently capable of protecting our ESS asset from borrower refinancing through targeted solicitations to, and origination of, refinance loans for borrowers in our portfolio of ESS. Accordingly, we must also rely upon PLS to refinance these mortgage loans that would otherwise be targeted by third-party lenders. There can be no assurance that PLS will either have or allocate the time and resources required to effectively and efficiently solicit these mortgage loans. Its failure to do so, or the termination of our spread acquisition agreements, could result in accelerated runoff of our ESS assets, decreasing their value and adversely impacting our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

27

Table of Contents

Investments in subordinated loans and subordinated MBS could subject us to increased risk of losses.

We invest in subordinated loans and may invest in subordinated MBS. In the event a borrower defaults on a subordinated loan and lacks sufficient assets to satisfy such loan, we may lose all or a significant part of our investment. In the event a borrower becomes subject to bankruptcy proceedings, we will not have any recourse to the assets, if any, of the borrower that are not pledged to secure our loan, and the unpledged assets of the borrower may not be sufficient to satisfy our loan. If a borrower defaults on our subordinated loan or on its senior debt ( i.e. , a first-lien loan, in the case of a residential mortgage loan, or a contractually or structurally senior loan, in the case of a commercial mortgage loan), or in the event of a borrower bankruptcy, our subordinated loan will be satisfied only after all senior debt is paid in full. As a result, we may not recover all or even a significant part of our investment, which could result in losses. In the case of commercial mortgage loans where senior debt exists, the presence of intercreditor arrangements may also limit our ability to amend our loan documents, assign our loan, accept prepayments, exercise our remedies and control decisions made in bankruptcy proceedings relating to borrowers.

In general, losses on an asset securing a mortgage loan included in a securitization will be borne first by the equity holder of the property, then by a cash reserve fund or letter of credit provided by the borrower, if any, and then by the “first loss” subordinated security holder and then by the “second loss” subordinated security holder. In the event of default and the exhaustion of any equity support, reserve fund, letter of credit and any classes of securities junior to those in which we invest, we may not recover all or even a significant part of our investment, which could result in losses.

In addition, if the underlying mortgage portfolio has been serviced ineffectively by the loan servicer or overvalued by the originator, or if the values of the assets subsequently decline and, as a result, less collateral is available to satisfy interest and principal payments due on the related MBS, the securities in which we invest may suffer significant losses. The prices of these types of lower credit quality investments are generally more sensitive to adverse actual or perceived economic downturns or individual issuer developments than more highly rated investments. An economic downturn or a projection of an economic downturn, for example, could cause a decline in the price of lower credit quality investments because the ability of obligors to make principal and interest payments or to refinance may be impaired.

Our investments in loans to and debt securities of real estate companies will be subject to the specific risks relating to the particular borrower or issuer of the securities and to the general risks of investing in real estate-related loans and securities, which could result in significant losses.

We may invest in loans to and debt securities of real estate companies, including REITs. These investments involve special risks relating to the particular borrower or issuer of the securities, including the financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, business and prospects of the borrower or issuer. Investments in REIT debt securities may also be subject to risks relating to transfer restrictions, substantial market price volatility resulting from changes to prevailing interest rates, and, in the case of subordinated investments, the seniority of claims of banks and other senior lenders to the issuer. In addition, real estate companies often invest, and REITs generally are required to invest substantially, in real estate or real estate-related assets and are subject to some or all of the risks inherent with real estate and real estate-related investments referred to in this Report. These risks may adversely affect the value of our debt securities of real estate companies and the ability of the issuers thereof to make principal and interest payments in a timely manner, or at all, which could result in significant losses for us.

Our investments in commercial mortgage loans and other commercial real estate-related loans are dependent upon the success of the multifamily and commercial real estate sectors and may be affected by conditions that could materially adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We acquire mortgage loans secured by multifamily and commercial real estate properties. The profitability of these investments will be closely tied to the overall success of the multifamily and commercial real estate market. Various changes in real estate conditions may impact the multifamily and commercial real estate sectors. Any negative trends in such real estate conditions may reduce the availability of attractive acquisition opportunities and, as a result, adversely affect our results of operations. These conditions include:

28

Table of Contents

Moreover, other factors may adversely affect the multifamily and commercial real estate sectors, including changes in government regulations and other laws, rules and regulations governing real estate, zoning or taxes, changes in the economy and interest rate levels, the potential liability under environmental and other laws, increases in delinquency and foreclosure rates, and other unforeseen events. Any or all of these factors could negatively impact the multifamily sector and, as a result, reduce the availability of attractive acquisition opportunities. Any such reduction could materially and adversely affect us.

The failure of PLS or any other servicer to effectively service our portfolio of mortgage loans would materially and adversely affect us.

Pursuant to our loan servicing agreement, PLS provides us with primary and special servicing. PLS’ loan servicing activities include collecting principal, interest and escrow account payments, if any, with respect to mortgage loans, as well as managing loss mitigation, which may include, among other things, collection activities, loan workouts, modifications, foreclosures, short sales and sales of REO. The ability of PLS or any other servicer or subservicer to effectively service our portfolio of mortgage loans is critical to our success, particularly given our strategy of maximizing the value of the distressed mortgage loans that we acquire through proprietary loan modification programs, special servicing and other initiatives focused on keeping borrowers in their homes; or in the case of nonperforming loans, effecting property resolutions in a timely, orderly and economically efficient manner. The failure of PLS or any other servicer or subservicer to effectively service our portfolio of mortgage loans would adversely impact our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The increasing number of proposed U.S. federal, state and local laws may affect certain mortgage-related assets in which we intend to invest and could increase our cost of doing business.

Legislation has been enacted and proposed which, among other provisions, could hinder the ability of a servicer to foreclose promptly on defaulted mortgage loans or would permit limited assignee liability for certain violations in the mortgage loan origination process, which could result in us being held responsible for such violations. We cannot predict whether or in what form the U.S. Congress or the various state and local legislatures may enact legislation affecting our business. We will evaluate the potential impact of any initiatives which, if enacted, could materially and adversely affect our practices and results of operations. We are unable to predict whether U.S. federal, state or local authorities will enact laws, rules or regulations that will require changes in our practices in the future, and any such changes could materially and adversely affect our cost of doing business and profitability.

Our inability to promptly foreclose upon defaulted mortgage loans could increase our cost of doing business and/or diminish our expected return on investments.

Our ability to promptly foreclose upon defaulted mortgage loans and liquidate the underlying real property plays a critical role in our valuation of the assets in which we invest and our expected return on those investments. There are a variety of factors that may inhibit our ability, through PLS, to foreclose upon a mortgage loan and liquidate the real property within the time frames we model as part of our valuation process. These factors include, without limitation: extended foreclosure timelines in states that require judicial foreclosure, including states where we hold high concentrations of mortgage loans; significant collateral documentation deficiencies; federal, state or local laws that are borrower friendly, including legislative action or initiatives designed to provide homeowners with assistance in avoiding residential mortgage loan foreclosures and that serve to delay the foreclosure process; HAMP and similar programs that require specific procedures to be followed to explore the refinancing of a mortgage loan prior to the commencement of a foreclosure proceeding; and declines in real estate values and sustained high levels of unemployment that increase the number of foreclosures and place additional pressure on the already overburdened judicial and administrative systems.

In addition, certain issues, including “robo-signing,” have been identified throughout the mortgage industry that relate to affidavits used in connection with the mortgage loan foreclosure process. A substantial portion of our investments are nonperforming mortgage loans, many of which are already subject to foreclosure proceedings at the time of purchase. While we have obtained assurances from PLS about its own practices relative to foreclosure proceedings and its proper use of affidavits, there can be no assurance that similar practices have been followed in connection with mortgage loans that are already subject to foreclosure proceedings at the time of purchase. To the extent we determine that any of these loans are impacted by these issues, we may be required to re-commence the foreclosure proceedings relating to such loans, thereby resulting in additional delay that could have the effect of increasing our cost of doing business and/or diminishing our expected return on our investments. The uncertainty surrounding these issues could also result in legal, regulatory or industry changes to the foreclosure process as a whole, any or all of which could lengthen the foreclosure process and negatively impact our business.

A decline in the value of the real estate underlying our mortgage loans or that we acquire, whether through foreclosure or otherwise, may result in reduced risk-adjusted returns or losses, and our ownership of real estate may subject us to risks and losses not adequately covered by insurance.

The value of the real estate that we own or that underlies mortgage loans that we own is subject to market conditions. Changes in the real estate market may adversely affect the value of the collateral and thereby lower the value to be derived from its liquidation. In addition, adverse changes in the real estate market increase the probability of default, as the incentive of the borrower to retain and protect equity in the property declines.

29

Table of Contents

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

We have also implemented an REO rental program, whereby we are the lessor of real estate, generally REO acquired upon foreclosure of defaulted loans, to the extent we determine that renting the property would produce a better return on investment than liquidation. There can be no assurance that this investment strategy will prove to be either profitable or more successful than liquidation. Further, our ongoing investment in the real estate will be subject to the market risk described above, as well as other risks associated with the rental business, including, without limitation, extended periods of vacancy, unfavorable landlord-tenant laws, and contractual disputes with our property managers. Any or all of these risks could subject us to loss, materially and adversely affect the value of our real estate investments and reduce or eliminate the returns we might have otherwise realized upon liquidation of the real estate.

Many of our investments are unrated or, where any credit ratings are assigned to our investments, they will be subject to ongoing evaluations and revisions and we cannot assure you that those ratings will not be downgraded.

Many of our current investments are not, and many of our future investments will not be, rated by any rating agency. Therefore, PCM’s assessment of the value and pricing of our investments may be difficult and the accuracy of such assessment is inherently uncertain. However, certain of our investments may be rated. If rating agencies assign a lower-than expected rating or reduce or withdraw, or indicate that they may reduce or withdraw, their ratings of our investments in the future, the value of these investments could significantly decline, which would materially and adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio and could result in losses upon disposition or the failure of borrowers to satisfy their debt service obligations to us.

We may be materially and adversely affected by risks affecting borrowers or the asset or property types in which our investments may be concentrated at any given time, as well as from unfavorable changes in the related geographic regions.

Our assets are not subject to any geographic, diversification or concentration limitations except that we will be concentrated in mortgage-related investments. Accordingly, our investment portfolio may be concentrated by geography, asset, property type and/or borrower, increasing the risk of loss to us if the particular concentration in our portfolio is subject to greater risks or is undergoing adverse developments. In addition, adverse conditions in the areas where the properties securing or otherwise underlying our investments are located (including business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, changing demographics and other factors) and local real estate conditions (such as oversupply or reduced demand) may have an adverse effect on the value of our investments. A material decline in the demand for real estate in these areas may materially and adversely affect us. Concentration or a lack of diversification can increase the correlation of non-performance and foreclosure risks among our investments.

A prolonged economic slowdown, recession or declining real estate values could materially and adversely affect us.

The risks associated with our investments are more acute during periods of economic slowdown or recession, especially if these periods are accompanied by high unemployment and declining real estate values. A weakening economy, high unemployment and declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that borrowers will default on their debt service obligations to us and that we will incur losses on our investments with them in the event of a default on a particular investment because the value of any collateral we foreclose upon may be insufficient to cover the full amount of such investment or may require a significant amount of time to realize. These factors may also increase the likelihood of re-default rates even after we have completed loan modifications. Any period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect the net interest income generated from our portfolio and our ability to make and finance future investments, which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

Many of our investments are illiquid and we may not be able to adjust our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions.

Our investments in distressed mortgage loans, MSRs, ESS, commercial mortgage loans, securities and mortgage loans held in a consolidated variable interest entity may be illiquid. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain or validate third-party pricing on the investments we purchase. Illiquid investments typically experience greater price volatility, as a ready market does not exist, and can be more difficult to value. The illiquidity of our investments may make it difficult for us to sell such investments 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 recorded value.

30

Table of Contents

Fair values of many of our investments are estimates and their ultimately reduced values may materially and adversely affect periodic reported results and credit availability, which may reduce earnings and, in turn, cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

The fair values of some of our investments are not readily determinable. We measure the fair value of these investments monthly, but the fair value at which our assets are recorded may differ from their realizable value. Ultimate realization of the value of an asset depends to a great extent on economic and other conditions that change during the time period over which the investment is held and are beyond the control of PCM, us or our board of trustees. Further, fair value is only an estimate based on good faith judgment of the price at which an investment can be sold since market prices of investments can only be determined by negotiation between a willing buyer and seller. In certain cases, PCM’s estimation of the fair value of our investments includes inputs provided by third-party dealers and pricing services, and valuations of certain securities or other assets in which we invest are often difficult to obtain and are subject to judgments that may vary among market participants. Changes in the estimated fair values of those assets are directly charged or credited to earnings for the period. If we were to liquidate a particular asset, the realized value may be more than or less than the amount at which such asset was recorded. Accordingly, in either event, the value of our common shares could be materially and adversely affected by our determinations regarding the fair value of our investments, and such valuations may fluctuate over short periods of time.

PCM utilizes analytical models and data in connection with the valuation of our investments, and any incorrect, misleading or incomplete information used in connection therewith would subject us to potential risks.

Given the illiquidity and complexity of our investments and strategies, PCM must rely heavily on models and data, including analytical models (both proprietary models developed by PCM and those supplied by third parties) and information and data supplied by third parties. Models and data are used to value investments or potential investments and also in connection with hedging our investments. In the event models and data prove to be incorrect, misleading or incomplete, any decisions made in reliance thereon expose us to potential risks. For example, by relying on incorrect models and data, especially valuation models, PCM may be induced to buy certain investments at prices that are too high, to sell certain other investments at prices that are too low or to miss favorable opportunities altogether. Similarly, any hedging based on faulty models and data may prove to be unsuccessful.

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

Under various U.S. federal, state and local laws, an owner or operator of real property may become liable for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released on its property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator was responsible for, or aware of, the release of such hazardous substances. The presence of hazardous substances may also adversely affect an owner’s ability to sell real estate, borrow using real estate as collateral or make debt payments to us. In addition, if we take title to a property, the presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect our ability to sell the property, and we may become liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for various fines, damages or remediation costs. Any of these liabilities or events may materially and adversely affect the value of the relevant asset and/or our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information about borrowers and counterparties and any misrepresented information could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In connection with our correspondent production activities, we may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of borrowers and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information. We also may rely on representations of borrowers and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. If any of this information is intentionally or negligently misrepresented and such misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, the value of the loan may be significantly lower than expected. Our controls and processes may not have detected or may not detect all misrepresented information in our loan acquisitions or from our business clients. Any such misrepresented information could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We are subject to counterparty risk and may be unable to seek indemnity or require our counterparties to repurchase mortgage loans if they breach representations and warranties, which could cause us to suffer losses.

When we purchase nonperforming assets or newly originated loans through our correspondent production activities, our counterparty typically makes customary representations and warranties to us about such assets or loans. Our residential mortgage loan purchase agreements may entitle us to seek indemnity or demand repurchase or substitution of the loans in the event our counterparty breaches a representation or warranty given to us. However, there can be no assurance that our mortgage loan purchase agreements will contain appropriate representations and warranties, that we will be able to enforce our contractual right to demand repurchase or

31

Table of Contents

substitution, or that our counterparty will remain solvent or otherwise be able to honor its obligations under our mortgage loan purchase agreements. Further, a significant portion of our nonperforming assets was purchased from or through a small number of sellers who generally also provide us with financing, creating a concentration of risk and a potential conflict of interest with key sources of financing. Our inability to obtain indemnity or require repurchase of a significant number of loans could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans or indemnify investors if we breach representations and warranties, which could materially and adversely affect our earnings.

When we sell loans, we are required to make customary representations and warranties about such loans to the loan purchaser. As part of our correspondent production activities, PLS re-underwrites a percentage of the loans that we acquire, and we rely upon PLS to ensure quality underwriting by our correspondent sellers, accurate third-party appraisals, and strict compliance with the representations and warranties that we require from our correspondent sellers and that are required from us by our investors. Our residential mortgage loan sale agreements may require us to repurchase or substitute loans or indemnify the purchaser against future losses in the event we breach a representation or warranty given to the loan purchaser. In addition, we may be required to repurchase loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default on a mortgage loan. Likewise, we may be required to repurchase or substitute loans if we breach a representation or warranty in connection with our securitizations. The remedies available to the Agencies and other purchasers of mortgage loans may be broader than those available to us against the originator or correspondent lender, and if a purchaser enforces its remedies against us, we may not be able to enforce the remedies we have against the sellers. The repurchased loans typically can only be financed at a steep discount to their repurchase price, if at all. They are also typically sold at a discount to the unpaid principal balance, which in some cases can be significant. Significant repurchase activity could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We believe that, as a result of the current market environment, many purchasers of mortgage loans, including the Agencies, are particularly aware of the conditions under which loan sellers must indemnify them against losses related to purchased loans, or repurchase those loans, and would benefit from enforcing any repurchase remedies they may have.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Certain provisions of Maryland law, our staggered board of trustees and certain provisions in our declaration of trust could each inhibit a change in our control.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law (the “MGCL”) applicable to a Maryland real estate investment trust may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change in our control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common shares with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then prevailing market price of such common shares.

In addition, our board of trustees is divided into three classes of trustees. Trustees of each class will be elected for three-year terms upon the expiration of their current terms, and each year one class of trustees will be elected by our shareholders. The staggered terms of our trustees may reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt at a change in control, even though a tender offer or change in control might be in the best interests of our shareholders.

Further, our declaration of trust authorizes us to issue additional authorized but unissued common shares and preferred shares. Our board of trustees may, without shareholder approval, increase the aggregate number of our authorized common shares or the number of shares of any class or series that we have authority to issue and classify or reclassify any unissued common shares or preferred shares and may set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board may establish a class or series of common shares or preferred shares or take other actions that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our common shares or otherwise be in the best interests of our shareholders.

Our bylaws include an exclusive forum provision that could limit our shareholders’ ability to obtain a judicial forum viewed by the shareholders as more favorable for disputes with us or our trustees or officers.

Our bylaws provide that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, or, if that Court does not have jurisdiction, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, is the exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty; any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to any provision of the Maryland REIT Law; or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This exclusive forum provision may limit a shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our trustees or officers, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our trustees and officers. Alternatively, if a

32

Table of Contents

court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Compliance with our Investment Company Act exclusion imposes limits on our operations.

We intend to conduct our operations so that we are not required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. However, our qualification for exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act will limit our ability to make certain investments, as discussed below.

Failure to maintain our exclusion from registration under the Investment Company Act could materially and adversely affect us.

Because we are organized as a holding company that conducts business primarily through our Operating Partnership and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, our status under the Investment Company Act is dependent upon the status of our Operating Partnership which, as a holding company, in turn, will have its status determined by the status of its subsidiaries. If our Operating Partnership or one or more of its subsidiaries fail to maintain their exceptions or exclusions from the Investment Company Act and we do not have available to us another basis on which we may avoid registration, we may have to register under the Investment Company Act. This could subject us to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters. It could also cause the breach of covenants we or our subsidiaries have made under certain of our financing arrangements, which could result in an event of default, acceleration of debt and/or termination.

In August 2011, the SEC solicited public comment through a concept release on a wide range of issues relating to the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exemption from the Investment Company Act, including the nature of the assets that qualify for purposes of the exemption and whether mortgage-related REITs should be regulated in a manner similar to investment companies. There can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the Investment Company Act status of REITs, including guidance and interpretations from the Division of Investment Management of the SEC regarding the exceptions and exclusions therefrom, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If the SEC takes action that could result in our or our subsidiaries’ failure to maintain an exception or exclusion from the Investment Company Act, we could, among other things, be required to (a) restructure our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so or (c) register as an investment company (which, among other things, would require us to comply with the leverage constraints applicable to investment companies), any of which could negatively affect the value of our common shares, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders, which could, in turn, materially and adversely affect our business and the market price of our common shares.

Further, a loss of our Investment Company Act exception or exclusion would allow PCM to terminate our management agreement with us, and our loan servicing agreement with PLS is subject to early termination in the event our management agreement is terminated for any reason. If either of these agreements is terminated, we will have to obtain the services on our own, and we may not be able to replace these services in a timely manner or on favorable terms, or at all. This would have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue to execute our business strategy.

Rapid changes in the values of our investments may make it more difficult for us to maintain our REIT qualification or exclusion from the Investment Company Act.

If the market value or income potential of our residential mortgage loans and other real estate-related assets declines as a result of increased interest rates, prepayment rates or other factors, we may need to increase certain real estate investments and income and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets in order to maintain our REIT qualification or exclusion from the Investment Company Act. If the decline in real estate asset values and/or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish, particularly given the illiquid nature of our investments. We may have to make investment decisions, including the liquidation of investments at a disadvantageous time or on unfavorable terms, that we otherwise would not make absent our REIT and Investment Company Act considerations.

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

Our declaration of trust limits the liability of our present and former trustees and officers to us and our shareholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law. Under current Maryland law, our present and former trustees and officers will not have any liability to us or our shareholders for money damages other than liability resulting from either (a) actual receipt of an improper benefit or profit in money, property or services or (b) active and deliberate dishonesty by the trustee or officer that was established by a final judgment and is material to the cause of action.

33

Table of Contents

Our declaration of trust authorizes us to indemnify our present and former trustees and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Our bylaws require us to indemnify each present and former trustee or officer, 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. In addition, we may be obligated to pay or reimburse the expenses incurred by our present and former trustees and officers without requiring a preliminary determination of their ultimate entitlement to indemnification. As a result, we and our shareholders may have more limited rights against our present and former trustees and officers than might otherwise exist absent the current provisions in our declaration of trust and bylaws or that might exist with other companies, which could limit shareholder recourse in the event of actions not in the best interest of our shareholders.

Our declaration of trust contains provisions that make removal of our trustees difficult, which could make it difficult for our shareholders to effect changes to our management.

Our declaration of trust provides that, subject to the rights of holders of any series of preferred shares, a trustee may be removed only for “cause” (as defined in our declaration of trust), and then only by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of trustees. Vacancies generally may be filled only by a majority of the remaining trustees in office, even if less than a quorum, for the full term of the class of trustees in which the vacancy occurred. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing trustees and may prevent a change in our control that is in the best interests of our shareholders.

Risks Related to Taxation

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would result in higher taxes and reduced cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

We are organized and operate in a manner so as to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our qualification as a REIT depends on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, shareholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. If we were to lose our REIT status in any taxable year, corporate-level income taxes, including alternative minimum taxes, would apply to all of our taxable income at federal and state tax rates, and distributions to our shareholders would not be deductible by us in computing our taxable income. Any such corporate tax liability could be substantial and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our shareholders, which in turn would have an adverse impact on the value of our common shares. Unless we were entitled to relief under certain Internal Revenue Code provisions, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we ceased to qualify as a REIT.

Even if we qualify as a REIT, we face tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow, and a significant portion of our income may be earned through TRSs that are subject to U.S. federal income taxation.

Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain U.S. 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, such as mortgage recording taxes. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

We also engage in business activities that are required to be conducted in a TRS. In order to meet the REIT qualification requirements, or to avert the imposition of a 100% tax that applies to certain gains derived by a REIT from dealer property or inventory, we hold a significant portion of our assets through, and derive a significant portion of our taxable income and gains in, a TRS, subject to the limitation that securities in TRSs may not represent more than 25% (20% for years beginning after December 31, 2017) of our assets in order for us to remain qualified as a REIT. All taxable income and gains derived from the assets held from time to time in our TRS are subject to regular corporate income taxation.

The percentage of our assets represented by a TRS and the amount of our income that we can receive in the form of TRS dividends are subject to statutory limitations that could jeopardize our REIT status.

Currently, no more than 25% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs (at the end of each quarter). For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, no more than 20% of the value of a REIT’s assets may consist of stock or securities of one or more TRSs. We expect to continue to have one or more TRSs when this change to the TRS rule becomes effective, and may potentially have to modify our activities or the capital structure of those TRSs in order to comply with the new limitation and maintain our qualification as a REIT. While we intend to manage our affairs so as to satisfy this requirement, there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so in all market circumstances and even if we are able to do so, compliance with this rule may reduce our flexibility in operating our business. Although a TRS is subject to U.S. federal, state and local income tax on its taxable income, we may from time to time need to make distributions of such after-tax income in order to keep the value of our TRS below 25% (or 20% for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017) of our total assets. However, for purposes of one of the tests we must satisfy to qualify as a REIT, at least 75% of our gross income must in each taxable year generally be from real estate assets. While we monitor our compliance with both this income test and the limitation on the percentage of our assets

34

Table of Contents

represented by TRS securities, the two may at times be in conflict with one another. That is, it is possible that we may wish to distribute a dividend from a TRS in order to reduce the value of our TRS below 25% (20% for years beginning after December 31, 2017) of the required percentage of our assets, but be unable to do so without violating the requirement that 75% of our gross income in the taxable year be derived from real estate assets. There can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with both of these tests in all market conditions.

Dividends payable by REITs do not generally qualify for the reduced tax rates applicable to certain corporate dividends.

The Internal Revenue Code provides for a 20% maximum federal income tax rate for dividends paid by corporations to eligible domestic shareholders that are individuals, trusts or estates. Dividends paid by REITs, however, are generally not eligible for the reduced rates. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could materially and adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common shares.

We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and no assurance can be given that we will be able to make distributions to our shareholders in the future at current levels or at all.

We are generally required to distribute to our shareholders at least 90% of our taxable income each year for us to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, which requirement we currently intend to satisfy. To the extent we satisfy the 90% distribution requirement but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level, and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders may be materially and adversely affected by the risk factors discussed in this Report and any subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Although we have made, and anticipate continuing to make, quarterly distributions to our shareholders, our board of trustees has the sole discretion to determine the timing, form and amount of any future distributions to our shareholders, and such determination will depend upon, among other factors, our historical and projected results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and liquidity, maintenance of our REIT qualification and other tax considerations, capital expenditure and other expense obligations, debt covenants, contractual prohibitions or other limitations and applicable law and such other matters as our board of trustees may deem relevant from time to time. Among the factors that could impair our ability to continue to make distributions to our shareholders are:

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

The REIT distribution requirements could materially and adversely affect our ability to execute our business strategies.

We intend to continue to make distributions to our shareholders to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and to avoid paying corporate income tax on undistributed income. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets, borrow funds on a short-term or long-term basis, or issue equity to meet the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. We may find it difficult or impossible to meet distribution requirements in certain circumstances. Due to the nature of the assets in which we invest and may invest and to our accounting elections for such assets, we may be required to recognize taxable income from those assets in advance of our receipt of cash flow on or proceeds from disposition of such assets. As a result, to the extent such income is not realized within a TRS, the requirement to distribute a substantial portion of our net taxable income could cause us to: (i) sell assets in adverse market conditions, (ii) borrow on unfavorable terms, (iii) distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt or (iv) make a taxable distribution of our shares as part of a distribution in which shareholders may elect to receive shares or (subject to a limit measured as a percentage of the total distribution) cash, in order to comply with REIT requirements.

35

Table of Contents

We may be required to report taxable income early in our holding period for certain investments in excess of the economic income we ultimately realize from them.

We acquire and/or expect to acquire in the secondary market debt instruments that we may significantly modify for less than their face amount, MBS issued with original issue discount, or debt instruments or MBS that are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments. In each case, we may be required to report income regardless of whether corresponding cash payments are received or are ultimately collectible. If we eventually collect less than we had previously reported as income, there may be a bad debt deduction available to us at that time or we may record a capital loss in a disposition of such asset, but our ability to benefit from that bad debt deduction would depend on our having taxable income or capital gains, respectively, in that later taxable year. This possible “income early, losses later” phenomenon could materially and adversely affect us and our shareholders if it were persistent and in significant amounts.

The share ownership limits applicable to us that are imposed by the Internal Revenue Code for REITs and our declaration of trust may restrict our business combination opportunities.

In order for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code, not more than 50% in value of our outstanding shares may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code to include certain entities) at any time during the last half of each taxable year following our first year. Our declaration of trust, with certain exceptions, authorizes our board of trustees to take the actions that are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Under our declaration of trust, no person may own more than 9.8% by vote or value, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding common shares or more than 9.8% by vote or value, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding shares of beneficial interest. Our board may grant an exemption to the share ownership limits in its sole discretion, subject to certain conditions and the receipt of certain representations and undertakings. These share ownership limits are based upon direct or indirect ownership by “individuals,” which term includes certain entities.

Ownership limitations are common in the organizational documents of REITs and are intended, among other purposes, to provide added assurance of compliance with the tax law requirements and to minimize administrative burdens. However, our share ownership limits might also delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our common shares or otherwise be in the best interests of our shareholders.

Complying with the REIT requirements can be difficult and may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities or liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our shareholders and the ownership of our shares. We may be required to make distributions to our shareholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make certain attractive investments or require us to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments. If we are compelled to liquidate our investments, we may be unable to comply with these requirements, ultimately 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 dealer property or inventory. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our shareholders.

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

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may limit our ability to hedge our assets and operations. Under current law, any income that we generate from transactions intended to hedge our interest rate or currency risks associated with our related liabilities will be excluded from gross income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests in certain instances. Generally, income derived from other types of hedging transactions will not be treated as qualifying income for purposes of the REIT gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may have to limit our use of hedging techniques that might otherwise be advantageous, which could result in greater risks associated with interest rate or other changes than we would otherwise be subject to.

If our Operating Partnership failed to qualify as a disregarded entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we could fail to qualify as a REIT and suffer other adverse consequences.

We believe that our Operating Partnership is organized and operated in a manner so as to be treated as a disregarded entity, and not an association or publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a disregarded entity, it is not subject to U.S. federal income tax on its income. Instead, its income is included in the calculation of our income. No assurance can be provided, however, that the IRS will not challenge its status as a partnership or disregarded entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in treating our Operating Partnership as an association or publicly-traded partnership taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we could fail to meet the gross income tests and certain of the asset tests applicable to REITs and, accordingly, could cease to qualify as a REIT. Also, the failure of our Operating Partnership to qualify as a partnership or a disregarded entity would cause it to become subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax, which would reduce significantly the amount of its cash available for debt service and for distribution.

36

Table of Contents

The tax on prohibited transactions limits 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 loans in a manner that was treated as a sale of the loans for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, in order to avoid the prohibited transactions tax, we may choose to engage in certain sales of loans through a TRS and not at the REIT level, and may limit the structures we utilize for our securitization transactions, even though the sales or structures might otherwise be beneficial to us. We may hold a substantial amount of assets in one or more TRSs that are subject to corporate income tax on its earnings, which may reduce the cash flow generated by us and our subsidiaries in the aggregate, and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

The taxable mortgage pool (“TMP”) rules may increase the taxes that we or our shareholders may incur, and may limit the manner in which we effect future securitizations.

Certain of our securitizations may likely be considered to result in the creation of TMPs for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A TMP is always classified as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, as long as a REIT owns 100% of a TMP, such classification generally does not result in the imposition of corporate income tax, because the TMP is a “qualified REIT subsidiary.” Prior to September 1, 2012, the requirement that a TMP be wholly-owned by a REIT to be a qualified REIT subsidiary means that we would be precluded from holding equity interests in such a TMP through our Operating Partnership if the TMP were a U.S. entity that would be subject to taxation as a domestic corporation, unless our Operating Partnership itself formed another subsidiary REIT to own the TMP. Effective August 31, 2012, the general partner of the Operating Partnership and the REIT jointly elected to revoke the general partner’s TRS election. As a result, the general partner is no longer an entity that is regarded for income tax purposes and all of the interests in the Operating Partnership are treated as being owned by the REIT. The Operating Partnership continues to be treated as a disregarded entity for income tax purposes and any assets that it owns are treated as if they are directly owned by the REIT.

In the case of such wholly-REIT owned TMPs, certain categories of our shareholders, such as foreign shareholders otherwise eligible for treaty benefits, shareholders with net operating losses, and tax exempt shareholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income received from us that is attributable to the TMP or “excess inclusion income.” In addition, to the extent that our shares are owned in record name by tax exempt “disqualified organizations,” such as certain government-related entities that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we may incur a corporate level tax on our allocable portion of excess inclusion income from such a wholly-REIT owned TMP. In that case and to the extent feasible, we may reduce the amount of our distributions to any disqualified organization whose share ownership gave rise to the tax, or we may bear such tax as a general corporate expense. To the extent that our shares owned by disqualified organizations are held in record name by a broker/dealer or other nominee, the broker/dealer or other nominee would be liable for the corporate level tax on the portion of our excess inclusion income allocable to the shares held by the broker/dealer or other nominee on behalf of disqualified organizations. While we intend to attempt to minimize the portion of our distributions that is subject to these rules, the law is unclear concerning computation of excess inclusion income, and its amount could be significant.

In the case of any TMP that would be taxable as a domestic corporation if it were not wholly-REIT owned, we would be precluded from selling equity interests in these securitizations to outside investors, or selling any debt securities issued in connection with these securitizations that might be considered to be equity interests for tax purposes. This marketing limitation may prevent us from selling more junior or non-investment grade debt securities in such securitizations and maximizing our proceeds realized in those offerings.

New legislation or administrative or judicial action, in each instance potentially with retroactive effect, could make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT.

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of REITs may be modified, possibly with retroactive effect, by legislative, judicial or administrative action at any time, which could affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in our common shares. The U.S. federal tax rules that affect REITs constantly are under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury, which results in statutory changes as well as frequent revisions to Treasury Regulations and interpretations. Revisions in U.S. federal tax laws and interpretations thereof could cause us to change our investments and commitments, which could also affect the tax considerations of an investment in our common shares.

37

Table of Contents

We also may enter into certain transactions where the REIT eligibility of the assets subject to such transactions is uncertain. In circumstances where the application of these rules and regulations affecting our investments is not clear, we may have to interpret them and their application to us. If the IRS were to take a position adverse to our interpretation, the consequences of such action could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

An IRS administrative pronouncement with respect to investments by REITs in distressed debt secured by both real and personal property, if interpreted adversely to us, could cause us to pay penalty taxes or potentially to lose our REIT status.

Most of the mortgage loans that we acquire are acquired by us at a discount from their outstanding principal amount, because our pricing is generally based on the value of the underlying real estate that secures those mortgage loans.

Treasury Regulation Section 1.856-5(c) (the “interest apportionment regulation”) provides rules for determining what portion of the interest income from mortgage loans that are secured by both real and personal property is treated as “interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property or on interests in real property.” Under the interest apportionment regulation, if a mortgage covers both real property and other property, a REIT is required to apportion its annual interest income to the real property security based on a fraction, the numerator of which is the value of the real property securing the loan, determined when the REIT commits to acquire the loan, and the denominator of which is the highest “principal amount” of the loan during the year. The IRS issued a revenue procedure, Revenue Procedure 2011-16, that contains an example regarding the application of the interest apportionment regulation. The example interprets the “principal amount” of the loan to be the face amount of the loan, despite the Internal Revenue Code requiring taxpayers to treat any market discount, that is the difference between the purchase price of the loan and its face amount, for all purposes (other than certain withholding and information reporting purposes) as interest rather than principal.

The interest apportionment regulation applies only if the debt in question is secured both by real property and personal property. We believe that all of the mortgage loans that we acquire are secured only by real property and no other property value is taken into account in our underwriting and pricing. Accordingly, we believe that the interest apportionment regulation does not apply to our portfolio.

Nevertheless, if the IRS were to assert successfully that our mortgage loans were secured by property other than real estate, that the interest apportionment regulation applied for purposes of our REIT testing, and that the position taken in Revenue Procedure 2011-16 should be applied to our portfolio, then depending upon the value of the real property securing our loans and their face amount, and the sources of our gross income generally, we might not be able to meet the 75% REIT gross income test, and possibly the asset tests applicable to REITs. If we did not meet this test, we could potentially either lose our REIT status or be required to pay a tax penalty to the IRS.

With respect to the 75% REIT asset test, Revenue Procedure 2011-16 provides a safe harbor under which the IRS will not challenge a REIT’s treatment of a loan as being a real estate asset in an amount equal to the lesser of (1) the fair market value of the real property securing the loan determined as of the date the REIT committed to acquire the loan or (2) the fair market value of the loan on the date of the relevant quarterly REIT asset testing date. This safe harbor, if it applied to us, would help us comply with the REIT asset tests following the acquisition of distressed debt if the value of the real property securing the loan were to subsequently decline. However, if the value of the real property securing the loan were to increase, the safe harbor rule of Revenue Procedure 2011-16, read literally, could have the peculiar effect of causing the corresponding increase in the value of the loan to not be treated as a real estate asset. We do not believe, however, that this was the intended result in situations in which the value of a loan has increased because the value of the real property securing the loan has increased, or that this safe harbor rule applies to debt that is secured solely by real property. However, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015, Internal Revenue Code Section 856(c)(9) was added and clarifies Revenue Procedure 2011-16. Subparagraph (B) of Section 856(c)(9) allows a REIT to treat personal property that is secured by a mortgage on both real property and personal property as a real estate asset, and the interest income as derived from a mortgage secured by real property, if the fair value of the personal property does not exceed fifteen percent 15% of the total fair value of all property secured by the mortgage. Nevertheless, if the IRS took the position that the safe harbor rule applied in these scenarios, then we might not be able to meet the various quarterly REIT asset tests if the value of the real estate securing our loans increased, and thus the value of our loans increased by a corresponding amount. If we did not meet one or more of these tests, then we could potentially either lose our REIT status or be required to pay a tax penalty to the IRS.

38

Table of Contents