RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

The financial crisis and general economic slowdown, which began in late 2007, harmed the operating performance of the hotel industry generally. If these or similar events occur again in the future, our operating and financial results may be harmed by declines in occupancy, average daily room rates and/or other operating revenues.

The performance of the lodging industry has traditionally been closely linked with the performance of the general economy and, specifically, growth in the U.S. gross domestic product. A majority of our hotels are classified as upscale and upper upscale. In an economic downturn, these types of hotels may be more susceptible to a decrease in revenue, as compared to hotels in other categories that have lower or higher room rates. This characteristic may result from the fact that upscale and upper upscale hotels generally target business and high-end leisure travelers. In periods of economic difficulties, business and leisure travelers may seek to reduce travel costs by limiting travel or seeking to reduce costs on their trips. Any economic recession will likely have an adverse effect on our business.

Failure of the lodging industry to exhibit sustained improvement or to improve as expected may adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan.

A substantial part of our business plan is based on our belief that the lodging markets in which we invest will experience improving economic fundamentals in the future. In particular, our business strategy is dependent on our expectation that key industry performance indicators, especially RevPAR, will continue to improve. There can be no assurance as to whether or to what extent, lodging industry fundamentals will continue to improve. In the event conditions in the industry do not sustain improvement or improve as we expect, or deteriorate, our ability to execute our business plan may be adversely affected.

We are subject to various risks related to our use of, and dependence on, debt.

As of December 31, 2012 , we had aggregated borrowings of approximately $2.3 billion outstanding, including $667.4 million of variable interest rate debt. The interest we pay on variable-rate debt increases as interest rates increase above any floor rates, which may decrease cash available for distribution to shareholders. We are also subject to the risk that we may not be able to meet our debt service obligations or refinance our debt as it becomes due. If we do not meet our debt service obligations, we risk the loss of some or all of our assets to foreclosure. Changes in economic conditions or our financial results or prospects could (i) result in higher interest rates on variable-rate debt, (ii) reduce the availability of debt financing generally or debt financing at favorable rates, (iii) reduce cash available for distribution to shareholders, (iv) increase the risk that we could be forced to liquidate assets or repay debt, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us, and (v) create other hazardous situations for us.

Some of our debt agreements contain financial and other covenants. If we violate covenants in any debt agreements, including as a result of impairments of our hotel or mezzanine loan assets, we could be required to repay all or a portion of our indebtedness before maturity at a time when we might be unable to arrange financing for such repayment on attractive terms, if at all. Violations of certain debt covenants may also prohibit us from borrowing unused amounts under our lines of credit, even if repayment of some or all the borrowings is not required. In any event, financial covenants under our current or future debt obligations could impair our planned business strategies by limiting our ability to borrow beyond certain amounts or for certain purposes. Our governing instruments do not contain any limitation on our ability to incur indebtedness.

We voluntarily elected to cease making payments on the mortgages securing four of our hotels during the recent economic downturn, and we may voluntarily elect to cease making payments on additional mortgages in the future, which could reduce the number of hotels we own as well as our revenues and could affect our ability to raise equity or debt financing in the future or violate covenants in our debt agreements.

During the past economic crisis, we undertook a series of actions to manage the sources and uses of our funds in an effort to navigate through challenging market conditions while still pursuing opportunities to create long-term shareholder value. In this effort, we attempted to proactively address value and cash flow deficits among certain of our mortgaged hotels, with a goal of enhancing shareholder value through loan amendments, or in certain instances, consensual transfers of hotel properties to the lenders in satisfaction of the related debt, some of which resulted in impairment charges. The loans secured by these hotels, subject to certain customary exceptions, were non-recourse to us. We may continue to proactively address value and cash flow deficits in a similar manner as necessary and appropriate.

We had approximately $2.3 billion of mortgage debt outstanding as of December 31, 2012 . We may face issues with these loans or with other loans or borrowings that we incur in the future, some of which issues may be beyond our control, including our ability to service payment obligations from the cash flow of the applicable hotel, or the inability to refinance existing debt at the applicable maturity date. In such event, we may elect to default on the applicable loan and, as a result, the lenders would have the right to exercise various remedies under the loan documents, which would include foreclosure on the applicable hotels. Any such defaults, whether voluntary or involuntary, could result in a default under our other debt agreements, could have an adverse effect on our ability to raise equity or debt capital, could increase the cost of such capital or could otherwise have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Joint venture investments could be adversely affected by our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on a co-venturer’s financial condition and disputes between us and our co-venturers.

We have in the past and may continue to co-invest with third parties through partnerships, joint ventures or other entities, acquiring controlling or non-controlling interests in, or sharing responsibility for, managing the affairs of a property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. In such event, we may not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. Investments in partnerships, joint ventures or other entities may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners or co-venturers might become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or co-venturers may have economic or other business interests or goals which are inconsistent with our business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives. Such investments may also have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale, budgets, or financing, because neither we nor the partner or co-venturer would have full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or co-venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers and/or trustees from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by, or disputes with, partners or co-venturers might result in subjecting properties owned by the partnership or joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or co-venturers.

Our business strategy depends on our continued growth. We may fail to integrate recent and additional investments into our operations or otherwise manage our planned growth, which may adversely affect our operating results.

Our business plan contemplates a period of growth in the next several years. We cannot assure you that we will be able to adapt our management, administrative, accounting, and operational systems, or hire and retain sufficient operational staff to successfully integrate and manage any future acquisitions of additional assets without operating disruptions or unanticipated costs. Acquisitions of any additional portfolios of properties or mortgages would generate additional operating expenses that we will be required to pay. As we acquire additional assets, we will be subject to the operational risks associated with owning those assets. Our failure to successfully integrate any future acquisitions into our portfolio could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to shareholders.

We may be unable to identify additional investments that meet our investment criteria or to acquire the properties we have under contract.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to identify real estate investments that meet our investment criteria, that we will be successful in completing any investment we identify, or that any investment we complete will produce a return on our investment. Moreover, we have broad authority to invest in any real estate investments that we may identify in the future. We also cannot assure you that we will acquire properties we currently have under firm purchase contracts, if any, or that the acquisition terms we have negotiated will not change.

Conflicts of interest could result in our management acting other than in our shareholders’ best interest.

Conflicts of interest in general and specifically relating to Remington Lodging may lead to management decisions that are not in the shareholders’ best interest. The Chairman of our Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Monty J. Bennett, serves as the Chief Executive Officer of Remington Lodging and Mr. Archie Bennett, Jr., who is our Chairman Emeritus, serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Remington Lodging. Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett beneficially own 100% of Remington Lodging, which, as of December 31, 2012 , managed  44 of our 94 legacy properties, 21 of the 28 PIM Highland JV hotel properties and the WorldQuest condominium properties; and provides related services, including property management services and project management services.

Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett’s ownership interests in and management obligations to Remington Lodging present them with conflicts of interest in making management decisions related to the commercial arrangements between us and Remington Lodging, and Mr. Monty Bennett's management obligations to Remington Lodging reduces the time and effort he spends managing Ashford. Our Board of Directors has adopted a policy that requires all material approvals, actions or decisions to which we have the right to make under the management agreements with Remington Lodging be approved by a majority or, in certain circumstances, all of our independent directors. However, given the authority and/or operational latitude to Remington Lodging under the management agreements to which we are a party, Messrs. Archie Bennett and Monty J. Bennett, as officers of Remington Lodging, could take actions or make decisions that are not in the shareholders’ best interest or that are otherwise inconsistent with their obligations under the management agreement or our obligations under the applicable franchise agreements.

Holders of units in our operating partnership, including members of our management team, may suffer adverse tax consequences upon our sale of certain properties. Therefore, holders of units, either directly or indirectly, including Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett, Mr. David Brooks, our Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, Mr. David Kimichik, our Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Mark Nunneley, our Chief Accounting Officer and Mr. Martin L. Edelman (or his family members), one of our directors, may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of a particular property’s sale. These officers and directors of ours may influence us to sell, not sell, or refinance certain properties, even if such actions or inactions might be financially advantageous to our shareholders, or to enter into tax deferred exchanges with the proceeds of such sales when such a reinvestment might not otherwise be in our best interest.

In addition, we have agreed to indemnify for a period of time contributors of properties contributed to us in exchange for operating partnership units, including (indirectly) Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett, Brooks, Kimichik, Nunneley, and Edelman (or his family members), against the income tax they may incur if we dispose of the specified contributed properties. Because of this indemnification, our indemnified management team members may make decisions about selling any of these properties that are not in our shareholders’ best interest.

We are a party to a master hotel management agreement and an exclusivity agreement with Remington Lodging, which describes the terms of Remington Lodging’s services to our hotels, as well as any future hotels we may acquire that may or may not be managed by Remington Lodging. If we terminate the management agreement as to any of the remaining four hotels we acquired in connection with our initial public offering, which are all subject to the management agreement, because we elect to sell those hotels, we will be required to pay Remington Lodging a substantial termination fee. Remington Lodging may agree to waive the termination fee if a replacement hotel is substituted but is under no contractual obligation to do so. The exclusivity agreement requires us to engage Remington Lodging, unless our independent directors either (i) unanimously vote to hire a different manager or developer, or (ii) by a majority vote, elect not to engage Remington Lodging because they have determined that special circumstances exist or that, based on Remington Lodging’s prior performance, another manager or developer could perform the duties materially better. As the sole owners of Remington Lodging, which would receive any development, management, and management termination fees payable by us under the management agreement, Mr. Monty Bennett, and to a lesser extent, Mr. Archie Bennett, in his role as Chairman Emeritus, may influence our decisions to sell, acquire, or develop hotels when it is not in the best interests of our shareholders to do so.

Tax indemnification obligations that apply in the event that we sell certain properties could limit our operating flexibility.

We have acquired certain of our properties in exchange transactions in which we issued units in our operating partnership in exchange for hotel properties. In certain of these transactions, we agreed to ongoing indemnification obligations in the event we sell or transfer the related property and in some instances in the event we refinance the related property. Accordingly, we may be obligated to indemnify the contributors, including Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett whom have substantial ownership interests, against the tax consequences of the transaction.

In general, our tax indemnities will be equal to the amount of the federal, state, and local income tax liability the contributor or its specified assignee incurs with respect to the gain allocated to the contributor. The terms of the contribution agreements also

generally require us to gross up tax indemnity payments for the amount of income taxes due as a result of the tax indemnity and this additional payment.

While the tax indemnities generally do not contractually limit our ability to conduct our business in the way we desire, we are less likely to sell any of the contributed properties for which we have agreed to the tax indemnities described above in a taxable transaction during the applicable indemnity period. Instead, we would likely either hold the property for the entire indemnity period or seek to transfer the property in a tax-deferred like-kind exchange. In addition, a condemnation of one of our properties could trigger our tax indemnification obligations.

Hotel franchise requirements could adversely affect distributions to our shareholders.

We must comply with operating standards, terms, and conditions imposed by the franchisors of the hotel brands under which our hotels operate. Franchisors periodically inspect their licensed hotels to confirm adherence to their operating standards. The failure of a hotel to maintain standards could result in the loss or cancellation of a franchise license. With respect to operational standards, we rely on our property managers to conform to such standards. Franchisors may also require us to make certain capital improvements to maintain the hotel in accordance with system standards, the cost of which can be substantial. It is possible that a franchisor could condition the continuation of a franchise based on the completion of capital improvements that our management or Board of Directors determines is too expensive or otherwise not economically feasible in light of general economic conditions or the operating results or prospects of the affected hotel. In that event, our management or Board of Directors may elect to allow the franchise to lapse or be terminated, which could result in a termination charge as well as a change in brand franchising or operation of the hotel as an independent hotel.

In addition, when the term of a franchise expires, the franchisor has no obligation to issue a new franchise. The loss of a franchise could have a material adverse effect on the operations and/or the underlying value of the affected hotel because of the loss of associated name recognition, marketing support, and centralized reservation systems provided by the franchisor. The loss of a franchise could also have a material adverse effect on cash available for distribution to shareholders.

Our investments are concentrated in particular segments of a single industry.

Nearly all of our business is hotel related. Our current long-term investment strategy is to acquire or develop upscale to upper-upscale hotels, acquire first mortgages on hotel properties, invest in other mortgage-related instruments such as mezzanine loans to hotel owners and operators, and participate in hotel sale-leaseback transactions. Adverse conditions in the hotel industry will have a material adverse effect on our operating and investment revenues and cash available for distribution to our shareholders.

We rely on third party property managers, including Remington Lodging, to operate our hotels and for a significant majority of our cash flow.

For us to continue to qualify as a REIT, third parties must operate our hotels. A REIT may lease its hotels to taxable REIT subsidiaries in which the REIT can own up to a 100% interest. A taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS, pays corporate-level income tax and may retain any after-tax income. A REIT must satisfy certain conditions to use the TRS structure. One of those conditions is that the TRS must hire, to manage the hotels, an “eligible independent contractor” (“EIC”) that is actively engaged in the trade or business of managing hotels for parties other than the REIT. An EIC cannot (i) own more than 35% of the REIT, (ii) be owned more than 35% by persons owning more than 35% of the REIT, or (iii) provide any income to the REIT (i.e., the EIC cannot pay fees to the REIT, and the REIT cannot own any debt or equity securities of the EIC).

Accordingly, while we may lease hotels to a TRS that we own, the TRS must engage a third-party operator to manage the hotels. Thus, our ability to direct and control how our hotels are operated is less than if we were able to manage our hotels directly. We have entered into management agreements with Remington Lodging, which is owned 100% by Messrs. Archie and Monty J. Bennett, to manage  44 of our 94  legacy hotel properties, 21 of the 28 PIM Highland JV hotel properties, and the WorldQuest condominium properties as of December 31, 2012 . We have hired unaffiliated third–party property managers to manage our remaining properties. We do not supervise any of the property managers or their respective personnel on a day-to-day basis, and we cannot assure you that the property managers will manage our properties in a manner that is consistent with their respective obligations under the applicable management agreement or our obligations under our hotel franchise agreements. We also cannot assure you that our property managers will not be negligent in their performance, will not engage in criminal or fraudulent activity, or will not otherwise default on their respective management obligations to us. If any of the foregoing occurs, our relationships with the franchisors may be damaged, we may be in breach of the franchise agreement, and we could incur liabilities resulting from loss or injury to our property or to persons at our properties. Any of these circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as our ability to pay dividends to shareholders.

Our management agreements could adversely affect the sale or financing of hotel properties and, as a result, our operating results and ability to make distributions to our shareholders could suffer.

We have entered into management contracts, and acquired properties subject to management contracts, that do not allow us to replace hotel managers on relatively short notice or with limited cost or that contain other restrictive covenants, and we may enter into such contracts or acquire properties subject to such contracts in the future.  As an example of such restrictive covenants, the terms of some management agreements may restrict our ability to sell a property unless the purchaser is not a competitor of the manager, assumes the related management agreement and meets other specified conditions.  Also, the terms of a long-term management agreement encumbering our properties may reduce the value of the property.  When we enter into or acquire properties subject to any such management agreements, we may be precluded from taking actions that would otherwise be in  our best interest or could cause us to incur substantial expense, which could adversely affect our operating results and our ability to make distributions to shareholders.

If we cannot obtain additional financing, our growth will be limited.

We are required to distribute to our shareholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains, each year to continue to qualify as a REIT. As a result, our retained earnings available to fund acquisitions, development, or other capital expenditures are nominal. As such, we rely upon the availability of additional debt or equity capital to fund these activities. Our long-term ability to grow through acquisitions or development of hotel-related assets will be limited if we cannot obtain additional financing. Market conditions may make it difficult to obtain financing, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain additional debt or equity financing or that we will be able to obtain it on favorable terms. We may elect to pay dividends on our common stock in cash or a combination of cash and shares of securities as permitted under federal income tax laws governing REIT distribution requirements. In certain circumstances, if we are unable to obtain replacement refinancing or loan modifications, we could be forced to raise equity capital at inappropriate times, make unplanned asset sales or face foreclosure on our hotel properties.

We may be unable to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and to pay dividends to our shareholders. Currently, our credit facility limits us from paying dividends if we are in default under the credit facility, including by reason of failing to meet certain covenants.

As a REIT, we are required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income each year, excluding net capital gains, to our shareholders. Our ability to make distributions may be adversely affected by the risk factors described herein. We cannot assure you that we will be able to make distributions in the future. In the event of future downturns in our operating results and financial performance, unanticipated capital improvements to our hotels or declines in the value of our mortgage portfolio, we may be unable to declare or pay distributions to our shareholders to the extent required to maintain our REIT qualification. The timing and amount of such distributions will be in the sole discretion of our Board of Directors, which will consider, among other factors, our financial performance and debt service obligations. We may elect to pay dividends on our common stock in cash or a combination of cash and shares of securities as permitted under federal income tax laws governing REIT distribution requirements. Currently, our credit facility limits us from paying dividends if we are in default under the credit facility, including by reason of failing to meet certain covenants.

Many of our existing mortgage debt agreements contain “cash trap” provisions that could limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Certain of our loan agreements contain cash trap provisions that may get triggered if the performance of our hotels decline. When these provisions are triggered, substantially all of the profit generated by our hotels is deposited directly into lockbox accounts and then swept into cash management accounts for the benefit of our various lenders. Cash is distributed to us only after certain items are paid, including deposits into ground leasing and maintenance reserves and the payment of debt service, insurance, taxes, operating expenses, and extraordinary capital expenditures and ground leasing expenses. This could affect our liquidity and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We compete with other hotels for guests. We also face competition for acquisitions and sales of lodging properties and of desirable debt investments.

The hotel business is competitive. Our hotels compete on the basis of location, room rates, quality, service levels, amenities, reputation, and reservation systems, among many other factors. New hotels may be constructed and these additions to supply create new competitors, in some cases without corresponding increases in demand for hotel rooms. The result in some cases may be lower revenue, which would result in lower cash available to meet debt service obligations, operating expenses, and requisite distributions to shareholders.

We compete for hotel acquisitions with entities that have similar investment objectives as we do. This competition could limit the number of suitable investment opportunities offered to us. It may also increase the bargaining power of property owners seeking to sell to us, making it more difficult for us to acquire new properties on attractive terms or on the terms contemplated in our business plan.

We also compete for mortgage asset investments with numerous public and private real estate investment vehicles, such as mortgage banks, pension funds, other REITs, institutional investors, and individuals. Mortgages and other investments are often obtained through a competitive bidding process. In addition, competitors may seek to establish relationships with the financial institutions and other firms from which we intend to purchase such assets. Competition may result in higher prices for mortgage assets, lower yields, and a narrower spread of yields over our borrowing costs.

Some of our competitors are larger than us, may have access to greater capital, marketing, and other resources, may have personnel with more experience than our officers, may be able to accept higher levels of debt or otherwise may tolerate more risk than us, may have better relations with hotel franchisors, sellers, or lenders, and may have other advantages over us in conducting certain business and providing certain services.

We compete to sell hotel properties. Availability of capital, the number of hotels available for sale and market conditions, all affect prices. We may not be able to sell hotel assets at our targeted price.

Future terrorist attacks similar in nature to the events of September 11, 2001 and other global issues may negatively affect the performance of our properties, the hotel industry in general, and our future results of operations and financial condition.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and their effects substantially reduced business and leisure travel throughout the United States and hotel industry revenue per available room, or RevPAR, generally during the period following September 11, 2001. We cannot predict the extent to which additional terrorist attacks, acts of war, or global issues may occur in the future or how such events would directly or indirectly impact the hotel industry or our operating results.

Future terrorist attacks, acts of war, or global issues could have further material adverse effects on the hotel industry at large and our operations in particular.

We face risks related to changes in the global and political economic environment, including capital and credit markets.

Our business may be impacted by global economic conditions, which recently have been volatile. Political crises in individual countries or regions, including sovereign risk related to a deterioration in the credit worthiness or a default by local governments, has contributed to this volatility. If the global economy experiences continued volatility or significant disruptions, such disruptions or volatility could hurt the U.S. economy and our business could be negatively impacted by reduced demand for business and leisure travel related to a slow-down in the general economy, by disruptions resulting from tighter credit markets, and by liquidity issues resulting from an inability to access credit markets to obtain cash to support operations. Our objective is to maintain access to capital and credit markets.

We are increasingly dependent on information technology, and potential disruption, cyberattacks, security problems, and expanding social media vehicles present new risks.

We and our hotel managers increasingly rely on information technology networks and systems, including the Internet, to process, transmit and store electronic information, and to manage or support a variety of business processes, including financial transactions and records, personal identifying information, reservations, billing and operating data. We and our hotel managers purchase some of our information technology from vendors, on whom our systems depend, and we rely on commercially available systems, software, tools and monitoring to provide security for processing, transmission and storage of confidential operator and other customer information, such as individually identifiable information, including information relating to financial accounts. Any significant breakdown, invasion, destruction, or interruption of these systems could negatively impact our operations. In addition, there is a risk of business interruption and reputational damage from leakage of confidential information.

The inappropriate use of certain media vehicles could cause brand damage or information leakage. Negative posts or comments about the Company on any social networking web site could damage our reputation. In addition, the disclosure of non-public Company sensitive information through external media channels, whether by employees or others, could lead to information loss. Identifying new points of entry as social media continues to expand presents new challenges. Any business interruptions or damage to our reputation could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operation, and the market price of our equity securities.

Any failure to maintain the security of the information that we or our property managers hold relating to our guests, employees and vendors, whether as a result of cybersecurity attacks or otherwise, could damage our reputation with guests, employees and vendors, could cause us to incur substantial additional costs and could cause us to become subject to litigation, and could adversely affect our operating results.

As do most companies, we (and our various property managers) receive certain confidential or personal information about our employees, guests, and vendors in the ordinary course of our business, and we often depend upon the secure transmission of this information over public networks. Our network and storage applications, and those of our property managers, may be subject to unauthorized access by hackers or others (through cyberattacks, which are rapidly evolving and becoming increasingly sophisticated, or by other means) or may be breached due to operator error, malfeasance or other system disruptions. In some cases, it is difficult to anticipate or immediately detect such incidents and the damage caused thereby. These data breaches and any unauthorized access or disclosure of our information could expose sensitive business information or the confidential or personal information of our guests, employees or vendors that we hold.

Such an occurrence could adversely affect our reputation with our employees, guests, and vendors, as well as our operations, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and could result in litigation against us or the imposition of penalties. Moreover, a security breach could require that we expend significant additional resources to remediate any damage incurred and to upgrade further the security measures that we employ to guard such important information against cyberattacks and other attempts to access such information and could result in a disruption of our operations.

These factors could adversely affect our hotel revenues and expenses, as well as the hotels underlying our mortgage and mezzanine loans, which in turn would adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We may have to make significant capital expenditures to maintain our lodging properties.

Our hotels have an ongoing need for renovations and other capital improvements, including replacements of furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Franchisors of our hotels may also require periodic capital improvements as a condition of maintaining franchise licenses. Generally, we are responsible for the cost of these capital improvements, which gives rise to the following risks:

If we have insufficient cash flow from operations to fund needed capital expenditures, then we will need to borrow or access equity to fund future capital improvements.

The hotel business is seasonal, which affects our results of operations from quarter to quarter.

The hotel industry is seasonal in nature. This seasonality can cause quarterly fluctuations in our revenues, EBITDA, profitability and shareholder dividend payments.

Many real estate costs are fixed, even if revenue from our hotels decreases.

Many costs, such as real estate taxes, insurance premiums and maintenance costs, generally are not reduced even when a hotel is not fully occupied, room rates decrease or other circumstances cause a reduction in revenues. In addition, newly acquired or renovated hotels may not produce the revenues we anticipate immediately, or at all, and the hotel's operating cash flow may be insufficient to pay the operating expenses and debt service associated with these new hotels. If we are unable to offset real estate costs with sufficient revenues across our portfolio, our financial performance and liquidity could be materially and adversely affected.

The increasing use of Internet travel intermediaries by consumers may adversely affect our profitability.

Some of our hotel rooms are booked through Internet travel intermediaries, including, but not limited to, Travelocity.com, Expedia.com and Priceline.com. As Internet bookings increase, these intermediaries may be able to obtain higher commissions, reduced room rates or other significant contract concessions from our management companies. Moreover, some of these Internet travel intermediaries are attempting to offer hotel rooms as a commodity, by increasing the importance of price and general indicators of quality (such as “three-star downtown hotel”) at the expense of brand identification. These agencies hope that consumers will eventually develop brand loyalties to their reservations system rather than to the brands under which our properties are franchised. Although most of the business for our hotels is expected to be derived from traditional channels, if the amount of sales made through Internet intermediaries increases significantly, room revenues may flatten or decrease and our profitability may be adversely affected.

Our hotel investments may be subject to risks relating to potential terrorist activity.

During 2012, approximately 17.8% of our total hotel revenue was generated from 11 hotels located in the Washington D.C. and Baltimore areas, areas considered vulnerable to terrorist attack. Our financial and operating performance may be adversely affected by potential terrorist activity. Terrorist activity in the future may cause our results to differ materially from anticipated results. Hotels we own in other market locations may be subject to this risk as well.

Our development activities may be more costly than we have anticipated.

As part of our long-term growth strategy, we may develop or renovate hotels. Hotel development involves substantial risks, including that:

 

We are subject to risks associated with the employment of hotel personnel, particularly with hotels that employ unionized labor.

Our third-party managers are responsible for hiring and maintaining the labor force at each of our hotels. Although we do not directly employ or manage employees at our hotels, we still are subject to many of the costs and risks generally associated with the hotel labor force, particularly those hotels with unionized labor. From time to time, hotel operations may be disrupted as a result of strikes, lockouts, public demonstrations or other negative actions and publicity. We also may incur increased legal costs and indirect labor costs as a result of contract disputes or other events. The resolution of labor disputes or re-negotiated labor contracts could lead to increased labor costs, either by increases in wages or benefits or by changes in work rules that raise hotel operating costs. We do not have the ability to affect the outcome of these negotiations.

RISKS RELATED TO DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS AND INVESTMENTS IN SECURITIES AND OTHER

We have engaged in and may continue to engage in derivative transactions, which can limit our gains and expose us to losses.

We have entered into and may continue to enter into hedging transactions to (i) attempt to take advantage of changes in prevailing interest rates, (ii) protect our portfolio of mortgage assets from interest rate fluctuations, (iii) protect us from the effects of interest rate fluctuations on floating-rate debt, (iv) protect us from the risk of fluctuations in the financial and capital markets, or (v) preserve net cash in the event of a major downturn in the economy. Our hedging transactions may include entering into interest rate swap agreements, interest rate cap or floor agreements or flooridor and corridor agreements, credit default swaps and purchasing or selling futures contracts, purchasing or selling put and call options on securities or securities underlying futures contracts, or entering into forward rate agreements. Hedging activities may not have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations or financial condition. Volatile fluctuations in market conditions could cause these instruments to become ineffective. Any gains or losses associated with these instruments are reported in our earnings each period. No hedging activity can completely insulate us from the risks inherent in our business.

Credit default hedging could fail to protect us or adversely affect us because if a swap counterparty cannot perform under the terms of our credit default swap, we may not receive payments due under such agreement and, thus, we may lose any potential benefit associated with such credit default swap. Additionally, we may also risk the loss of any collateral we have pledged to secure our obligations under such credit default swaps if the counterparty becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy.

Moreover, interest rate hedging could fail to protect us or adversely affect us because, among other things:

Hedging involves both risks and costs, including transaction costs, which may reduce our overall returns on our investments. These costs increase as the period covered by the hedging relationship increases and during periods of rising and volatile interest rates. These costs will also limit the amount of cash available for distributions to shareholders. We generally intend to hedge to the extent management determines it is in our best interest given the cost of such hedging transactions as compared to the potential economic returns or protections offered. The REIT qualification rules may limit our ability to enter into hedging transactions by requiring us to limit our income and assets from hedges. If we are unable to hedge effectively because of the REIT rules, we will face greater interest rate exposure than may be commercially prudent.

The assets associated with certain of our derivative transactions do not constitute qualified REIT assets and the related income will not constitute qualified REIT income. Significant fluctuations in the value of such assets or the related income could jeopardize our REIT status or result in additional tax liabilities.

We have entered into certain derivative transactions to protect against interest rate risks and credit default risks not specifically associated with debt incurred to acquire qualified REIT assets. The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code limit our income and assets in each year from such derivative transactions. Failure to comply with the asset or income limitation within the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue could result in penalty taxes or loss of our REIT status. If we elect to contribute the non-qualifying derivatives into a taxable REIT subsidiary to preserve our REIT status, such an action would result in any income from such transactions being subject to federal income taxation.

Our prior investment performance is not indicative of future results.

The performance of our prior investments is not necessarily indicative of the results that can be expected for the investments to be made by our newly-formed investment subsidiary. On any given investment, total loss of the investment is possible. Although our management team has experience and has had success in making investments in real estate-related lodging debt and hotel assets, the past performance of these investments is not necessarily indicative of the results of our future investments.

Our investment portfolio will contain investments concentrated in a single industry and will not be fully diversified.

Our investment subsidiary was formed for the purpose of acquiring public securities and other investments of lodging-related entities. As such, our investment portfolio will contain investments concentrated in a single industry and may not be fully diversified by asset class, geographic region or other criteria, which will expose us to significant loss due to concentration risk. Investors have no assurance that the degree of diversification in our investment portfolio will increase at any time in the future.

The values of our investments are affected by the credit and financial markets and, as such, may fluctuate.

The U.S. credit and financial markets have recently experienced severe dislocations and liquidity disruptions. The values of our investments are likely to be sensitive to the volatility of the credit and financial markets, and, to the extent that turmoil in the credit and financial markets continues or intensifies, such volatility has the potential to materially affect the value of our investment portfolio.

We are subject to the risk of default or insolvency by the hospitality entities underlying our investments.

The leveraged capital structure of the hospitality entities underlying our investments will increase their exposure to adverse economic factors (such as rising interest rates, competitive pressures, downturns in the economy or deterioration in the condition of the real estate company) and to the risk of unforeseen events. If an underlying entity cannot generate adequate cash flow to meet such entity’s debt obligations (which may include leveraged obligations in excess of its aggregate assets), it may default on its loan agreements or be forced into bankruptcy. As a result, we may suffer a partial or total loss of the capital we have invested in the securities and other investments of such entity.

The enactment of derivatives legislation and regulation could have an adverse effect on our ability to use derivative instruments to reduce the negative effect of interest rate fluctuations and other risks associated with our business.

On July 21, 2010 new comprehensive financial reform legislation, known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), was enacted that establishes federal oversight and regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market and entities, such as us, that participate in that market. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”), the SEC and other regulators to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the new legislation. In its rulemaking under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has issued final regulations to set position limits for certain futures and option contracts in certain markets and for swaps that are their economic equivalents. Certain bona fide hedging transactions would be exempt from these position limits. The position limits rule was vacated by the United States District Court (the “District Court”) for the District of Columbia in September of 2012, although the CFTC has stated that it will appeal the District Court's decision. The CFTC also has finalized other regulations, including critical rulemakings on the definition of “swap”, “security-based swap”, “swap dealer” and “major swap participant”. The Dodd-Frank Act and CFTC rules will require us in

connection with certain derivatives activities to comply with clearing and trade-execution requirements (or take steps to qualify for an exemption to such requirements, if available). In addition, new regulations may require us to comply with margin requirements, although these regulations are not finalized and their application to us is uncertain at this time. Other regulations also remain to be finalized, and the CFTC recently has delayed the compliance dates for various regulations already finalized. As a result, it is not possible at this time to predict with certainty the full effects of the Dodd-Frank Act and CFTC rules on us and the timing of such effects. The Dodd-Frank Act may also require the counterparties to our derivative instruments to spin off some of their derivatives activities to separate entities, which may not be as creditworthy as the current counterparties. The Dodd-Frank Act and regulations could significantly increase the cost of derivative contracts (including from swap recordkeeping and reporting requirements and through requirements to post collateral which could adversely affect our available liquidity), materially alter the terms of derivative contracts, reduce the availability of derivatives to protect against risks we encounter, reduce our ability to monetize or restructure our existing derivative contracts, and increase our exposure to less creditworthy counterparties. If we reduce our use of derivatives as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations, our results of operations may become more volatile and our cash flows may be less predictable, which could adversely affect our ability to plan for and fund capital expenditures. Any of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

RISKS RELATED TO INVESTMENTS IN MORTGAGES AND MEZZANINE LOANS

Debt investments that are not United States government insured involve risk of loss.

As part of our business strategy, we may originate or acquire lodging-related uninsured and mortgage assets, including mezzanine loans. While holding these interests, we are subject to risks of borrower defaults, bankruptcies, fraud and related losses, and special hazard losses that are not covered by standard hazard insurance. Also, costs of financing the mortgage loans could exceed returns on the mortgage loans. In the event of any default under mortgage loans held by us, we will bear the risk of loss of principal and non-payment of interest and fees to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the mortgage collateral and the principal amount of the mortgage loan. We suffered significant impairment charges with respect to our investments in mortgage loans in 2009 and 2010. We may incur similar losses in the future for the remaining mezzanine loan of $3.2 million at December 31, 2012 . The value and the price of our securities may be adversely affected.

We may invest in non-recourse loans, which will limit our recovery to the value of the mortgaged property.

Our mortgage and mezzanine loan assets have typically been non-recourse. With respect to non-recourse mortgage loan assets, in the event of a borrower default, the specific mortgaged property and other assets, if any, pledged to secure the relevant mortgage loan, may be less than the amount owed under the mortgage loan. As to those mortgage loan assets that provide for recourse against the borrower and its assets generally, we cannot assure you that the recourse will provide a recovery in respect of a defaulted mortgage loan greater than the liquidation value of the mortgaged property securing that mortgage loan.

Investment yields affect our decision whether to originate or purchase investments and the price offered for such investments.

In making any investment, we consider the expected yield of the investment and the factors that may influence the yield actually obtained on such investment. These considerations affect our decision whether to originate or purchase an investment and the price offered for that investment. No assurances can be given that we can make an accurate assessment of the yield to be produced by an investment. Many factors beyond our control are likely to influence the yield on the investments, including, but not limited to, competitive conditions in the local real estate market, local and general economic conditions, and the quality of management of the underlying property. Our inability to accurately assess investment yields may result in our purchasing assets that do not perform as well as expected, which may adversely affect the price of our securities.

Volatility of values of mortgaged properties may adversely affect our mortgage loans.

Lodging property values and net operating income derived from lodging properties are subject to volatility and may be affected adversely by a number of factors, including the risk factors described herein relating to general economic conditions, operating lodging properties, and owning real estate investments. In the event its net operating income decreases, a borrower may have difficulty paying our mortgage loan, which could result in losses to us. In addition, decreases in property values reduce the value of the collateral and the potential proceeds available to a borrower to repay our mortgage loans, which could also cause us to suffer losses.

Mezzanine loans involve greater risks of loss than senior loans secured by income-producing properties.

We may continue to make and acquire mezzanine loans. These types of loans are considered to involve a higher degree of risk than long-term senior mortgage lending secured by income-producing real property due to a variety of factors, including the loan being entirely unsecured or, if secured, becoming unsecured as a result of foreclosure by the senior lender. We may not recover some or all of our investment in these loans. In addition, mezzanine loans may have higher loan-to-value ratios than conventional mortgage loans resulting in less equity in the property and increasing the risk of loss of principal.

RISKS RELATED TO THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

Mortgage debt obligations expose us to increased risk of property losses, which could harm our financial condition, cash flow, and ability to satisfy our other debt obligations and pay dividends.

Incurring mortgage debt increases our risk of property losses because defaults on indebtedness secured by properties may result in foreclosure actions initiated by lenders and ultimately our loss of the property securing any loans for which we are in default. For tax purposes, a foreclosure of any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on the foreclosure but would not receive any cash proceeds. As a result, we may be required to identify and utilize other sources of cash for distributions to our shareholders of that income.

In addition, our default under any one of our mortgage debt obligations may result in a default on our other indebtedness. If this occurs, our financial condition, cash flow, and ability to satisfy our other debt obligations or ability to pay dividends may be impaired.

Illiquidity of real estate investments could significantly impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our properties and harm our financial condition.

Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to promptly sell one or more properties or mortgage loans in our portfolio in response to changing economic, financial, and investment conditions is limited.

The real estate market is affected by many factors that are beyond our control, including:

We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any property or loan for the price or on the terms set by us, or whether any price or other terms offered by a prospective purchaser would be acceptable to us. We also cannot predict the length of time needed to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a property or loan. Because we intend to offer more flexible terms on our mortgage loans than some providers of commercial mortgage loans, we may have more difficulty selling or participating our loans to secondary purchasers than would these more traditional lenders.

We may be required to expend funds to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold. We cannot assure you that we will have funds available to correct those defects or to make those improvements. In acquiring a property, we may agree to lock-out provisions that materially restrict us from selling that property for a period of time or impose other restrictions, such as a limitation on the amount of debt that can be placed or repaid on that property. These factors and any others that would impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our properties could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as our ability to pay dividends to shareholders.

The costs of compliance with or liabilities under environmental laws may harm our operating results.

Our properties and properties underlying our loan assets may be subject to environmental liabilities. An owner of real property, or a lender with respect to a property that exercises control over the property, can face liability for environmental contamination created by the presence or discharge of hazardous substances on the property. We may face liability regardless of:

There may be environmental problems associated with our properties or properties underlying our loan assets of which we are unaware. Some of our properties or the properties underlying our loan assets use, or may have used in the past, underground tanks for the storage of petroleum-based or waste products that could create a potential for release of hazardous substances. If environmental contamination exists on a property, we could become subject to strict, joint and several liabilities for the contamination if we own the property or if we foreclose on the property or otherwise have control over the property.

The presence of hazardous substances on a property we own or have made a loan with respect to may adversely affect our ability to sell or foreclose on the property, and we may incur substantial remediation costs. The discovery of environmental liabilities attached to our properties or properties underlying our loan assets could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and ability to pay dividends to shareholders.

We generally have environmental insurance policies on each of our owned properties, and we intend to obtain environmental insurance for any other properties that we may acquire. However, if environmental liabilities are discovered during the underwriting of the insurance policies for any property that we may acquire in the future, we may be unable to obtain insurance coverage for the liabilities at commercially reasonable rates or at all, and we may experience losses. In addition, we generally do not require our borrowers to obtain environmental insurance on the properties they own that secure their loans from us.

Numerous treaties, laws and regulations have been enacted to regulate or limit carbon emissions. Changes in the regulations and legislation relating to climate change, and complying with such laws and regulations, may require us to make significant investments in our hotels and could result in increased energy costs at our properties which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our properties and the properties underlying our mortgage loans may contain or develop harmful mold, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects and costs of remediating the problem.

When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold at any of our properties or the properties underlying our loan assets could require us or our borrowers to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property. In addition, the presence of significant mold could expose us or our borrowers to liability from guests, employees, and others if property damage or health concerns arise.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire, safety, and other regulations may require us or our borrowers to make unintended expenditures that adversely impact our operating results.

All of our properties and properties underlying our mortgage loans are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA. The ADA requires that “public accommodations” such as hotels be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with the ADA requirements could require removal of access barriers and non-compliance could result in imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants, or both. We or our borrowers may be required to expend funds to comply with the provisions of the ADA at our hotels or hotels underlying our loan assets, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make distributions to shareholders. In addition, we and our borrowers are required to operate our properties in compliance with fire and safety regulations, building codes, and other land use regulations as they may be adopted by governmental agencies and bodies and become applicable to our properties. We and our borrowers may be required to make substantial capital expenditures to comply with those requirements, and these expenditures

could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition as well as our ability to pay dividends to shareholders.

We may experience uninsured or underinsured losses.

We have property and casualty insurance with respect to our properties and other insurance, in each case, with loss limits and coverage thresholds deemed reasonable by our management (and with the intent to satisfy the requirements of lenders and franchisors). In doing so, we have made decisions with respect to what deductibles, policy limits, and terms are reasonable based on management’s experience, our risk profile, the loss history of our property managers and our properties, the nature of our properties and our businesses, our loss prevention efforts, and the cost of insurance.

Various types of catastrophic losses may not be insurable or may not be economically insurable. In the event of a substantial loss, our insurance coverage may not cover the full current market value or replacement cost of our lost investment. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations, and other factors might cause insurance proceeds to be insufficient to fully replace or renovate a hotel after it has been damaged or destroyed. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that (i) the insurance coverage thresholds that we have obtained will fully protect us against insurable losses (i.e., losses may exceed coverage limits); (ii) we will not incur large deductibles that will adversely affect our earnings; (iii) we will not incur losses from risks that are not insurable or that are not economically insurable; or (iv) current coverage thresholds will continue to be

available at reasonable rates. In the future, we may choose not to maintain terrorism insurance on any of our properties. As a result, one or more large uninsured or underinsured losses could have a material adverse effect on us.

Each of our current lenders requires us to maintain certain insurance coverage thresholds, and we anticipate that future lenders will have similar requirements. We believe that we have complied with the insurance maintenance requirements under the current governing loan documents and we intend to comply with any such requirements in any future loan documents. However, a lender may disagree, in which case the lender could obtain additional coverage thresholds and seek payment from us, or declare us in default under the loan documents. In the former case, we could spend more for insurance than we otherwise deem reasonable or necessary or, in the latter case, subject us to a foreclosure on hotels collateralizing one or more loans. In addition, a material casualty to one or more hotels collateralizing loans may result in (i) the insurance company applying to the outstanding loan balance insurance proceeds that otherwise would be available to repair the damage caused by the casualty, which would require us to fund the repairs through other sources, or (ii) the lender foreclosing on the hotels if there is a material loss that is not insured.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR STATUS AS A REIT

If we do not qualify as a REIT, we will be subject to tax as a regular corporation and could face substantial tax liability.

We conduct operations so as to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code. However, qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions for which only a limited number of judicial or administrative interpretations exist. Even a technical or inadvertent mistake could jeopardize our REIT status. Furthermore, new tax legislation, administrative guidance, or court decisions, in each instance potentially with retroactive effect, could make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any tax year, then:

 

If we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will not be required to make distributions to shareholders to maintain our tax status. As a result of all of these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, and make distributions to our shareholders and could adversely affect the value of our securities.

Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state, and local taxes on our income and assets. For example:

In the event that leases between us and our taxable REIT subsidiaries are held not to be on an arm’s-length basis, we or our taxable REIT subsidiaries could be subject to taxes, and adjustments to the rents could cause us to fail to meet certain REIT income tests. In determining amounts payable by our taxable REIT subsidiaries under our leases, we engage a third party to prepare transfer pricing studies to ascertain whether the lease terms we establish are on an arm’s-length basis. The transfer pricing studies that we have received concluded that the lease terms have been consistent with arm’s-length terms as required by applicable Treasury Regulations. However, in September 2010, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") completed an audit of one of our taxable REIT subsidiaries that leases two of our hotel properties for the tax year ended December 31, 2007. The IRS issued a notice of proposed adjustment that reduced the amount of rent we charged the taxable REIT subsidiary ("TRS"). We own a 75% interest in the hotel properties and the TRS at issue. In connection with the TRS audit, the IRS selected our REIT for audit for the same tax year. In October 2011, the IRS issued an income tax adjustment to the REIT as an alternative to the TRS proposed adjustment. The REIT adjustment is based on the REIT 100% federal excise tax on our share of the amount by which the rent was held to be greater than the arm's length rate. We strongly disagree with the IRS' position. We filed written protests with the IRS and requested an IRS Appeals Office review of the TRS and REIT cases simultaneously. The IRS granted the Appeals Office review and our representatives attended Appeals Office conferences. One or more additional conferences with the Appeals Office will be required to resolve our cases and we anticipate these will occur in 2013. If the IRS were to pursue the TRS case and prevail, the TRS would owe approximately $1.1 million of additional U.S. federal income taxes plus possible additional state income taxes of $199,000 , net of federal benefit. Alternatively, if the IRS were to pursue the REIT case and prevail, our REIT would owe approximately $4.6 million of U.S. federal excise taxes. The excise taxes assessed on the REIT would be in lieu of the TRS additional income taxes. We believe the IRS transfer pricing methodologies applied in the audits contain flaws and that the IRS adjustments to the rent charged are inconsistent with the U.S. federal tax laws related to REITs and true leases. U.S. federal income tax assessment statutes of limitations generally limit the time the IRS has to make assessments to within three years after a return is due or filed, whichever is later. As a result, the IRS has requested and we have agreed to extend the assessment statute of limitations three times for both the TRS and the REIT for the 2007 tax year. The most recent IRS request was made in January 2013, and extends the statute of limitations for the 2007 tax year to March 31, 2014.

In June 2012, the IRS completed audits of the same TRS and our REIT for the tax years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009. With respect to the 2009 tax year, the IRS has not proposed any adjustments to the TRS or the REIT. For the 2008 tax year, the IRS has issued notices of proposed adjustments for both the REIT and the TRS. The REIT adjustment is for $3.3 million of U.S. federal excise taxes and represents the amount by which the IRS asserts that the rent charged to the TRS was greater than the arms'

length rate. The TRS adjustment is for $1.6 million of additional income which would equate to approximately $467,000 of additional U.S. federal income taxes and potential state income taxes of $83,000 , net of federal benefit. The TRS adjustment represents the IRS' imputation of compensation to the TRS for agreeing to be a party to the lessor entity's bank loan agreement. We own a 75% interest in the lessor entity. We strongly disagree with both of the IRS adjustments for the reasons noted under the 2007 audits, and in addition, we believe the IRS has misinterpreted certain terms of the lease, third party hotel management, and bank loan agreements. We have filed a written protest and requested an IRS Appeals Office review. The IRS has granted the Appeals Office review and has assigned the same Appeals team that is overseeing our 2007 cases to our 2008 cases. We anticipate that the initial Appeals conference for the 2008 cases will occur in 2013. In March 2012, the IRS requested and we consented to extend the statute of limitations for the TRS and REIT for the 2008 tax year to March 31, 2013. In January 2013, the IRS requested and we agreed to extend the statute to March 31, 2014.

With respect to both the 2007 and 2008 IRS audits, we believe we will substantially prevail in the eventual settlement of the audits and that the settlements will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We have concluded that the positions reported on the tax returns under audit by the IRS are, solely on their technical merits, more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon examination.

  

During 2010, the Canadian taxing authorities selected our TRS subsidiary that leased our one Canadian hotel for audit for the tax years ended December 31, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The Canadian hotel was sold in June 2008 and the TRS ceased activity in Canada at that time. In May 2012, the Canadian taxing authorities issued their final letter of audit adjustments. Their adjustments are nominal in amount and did not result in the assessment of any additional taxes.

In addition, if the IRS were to successfully challenge the terms of our leases with any of our taxable REIT subsidiaries for 2009 and later years, we or our taxable REIT subsidiaries could owe additional taxes and we could be required to pay penalty taxes if the effect of such challenges were to cause us to fail to meet certain REIT income tests, which could materially adversely affect us and the value of our securities.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities.

To qualify as a REIT for 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 stock. We may be required to make distributions to shareholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. We may elect to pay dividends on our common stock in cash or a combination of cash and shares of securities as permitted under federal income tax laws governing REIT distribution requirements. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits.

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

The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may limit our ability to hedge mortgage securities and related borrowings by requiring us to limit our income and assets in each year from certain hedges, together with any other income not generated from qualified real estate assets, to no more than 25% of our gross income. In addition, we must limit our aggregate income from nonqualified hedging transactions, from our provision of services, and from other non-qualifying sources to no more than 5% of our annual gross income. As a result, we may have to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques. This could result in greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to incur. However, for transactions that we enter into to protect against interest rate risks on debt incurred to acquire qualified REIT assets and for which we identify as hedges for tax purposes, any associated hedging income is excluded from the 95% income test and the 75% income test applicable to a REIT. If we were to violate the 25% or 5% limitations, we may have to pay a penalty tax equal to the amount of income in excess of those limitations multiplied by a fraction intended to reflect our profitability. If we fail to satisfy the REIT gross income tests, unless our failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, we could lose our REIT status for federal income tax purposes.

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT, we must also ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities, and qualified REIT real estate assets. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% of the value of our total assets can be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter,

we must correct such failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter to avoid losing our REIT status and suffer adverse tax consequences. As a result, we may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to borrow to make distributions to shareholders.

As a REIT, we must distribute at least 90% of our annual REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains, (subject to certain adjustments) to our shareholders. To the extent that we satisfy the distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our shareholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under federal tax laws.

From time to time, we may generate taxable income greater than our net income for financial reporting purposes or our taxable income may be greater than our cash flow available for distribution to shareholders. If we do not have other funds available in these situations, we could be required to borrow funds, sell investments at disadvantageous prices, or find another alternative source of funds to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year. These alternatives could increase our costs or reduce our equity. We may elect to pay dividends on our common stock in cash or a combination of cash and shares of securities as permitted under federal income tax laws governing REIT distribution requirements.

We may in the future choose to pay dividends in our common shares instead of cash, in which case shareholders may be required to pay income taxes in excess of the cash dividends they receive.

Although we have no current intention to do so, we may, in the future, distribute taxable dividends that are payable in cash and common shares at the election of each shareholder. Taxable shareholders receiving such dividends will be required to include the full amount of the dividend as ordinary income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, shareholders may be required to pay income taxes with respect to such dividends in excess of the cash dividends received. If a U.S. shareholder sells the common shares that it receives as a dividend in order to pay this tax, the sales proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend, depending on the market price of our shares at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to certain non-U.S. shareholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. federal income tax with respect to such dividends, including in respect of all or a portion of such dividend that is payable in common shares. In addition, if a significant number of our shareholders determine to sell common shares in order to pay taxes owed on dividends, it may put downward pressure on the trading price of our common shares.

It is unclear whether and to what extent we will be able to pay taxable dividends in cash and common shares in later years. Moreover, various aspects of such a taxable cash/share dividend are uncertain and have not yet been addressed by the IRS. No assurance can be given that the IRS will not impose additional requirements in the future with respect to taxable cash/share dividends, including on a retroactive basis, or assert that the requirements for such taxable cash/share dividends have not been met.

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

At any time, the federal income tax laws governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended. Any of those new laws or interpretations may take effect retroactively and could adversely affect us or our shareholders. Effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012, the maximum regular income tax rate applicable to individuals on dividend income from regular C corporations is 20%. This reduces substantially the so-called “double taxation” (that is, taxation at both the corporate and shareholder levels) applicable to corporations that are not taxed as REITs. Generally, dividends from REITs will not qualify for such maximum rate, and dividends from REITs may be taxed at regular income tax rates as great as 39.6%. This difference in maximum tax rates could ultimately cause individual investors to view stocks of non-REIT corporations as more attractive relative to shares of REITs because the dividends paid by non-REIT corporations would be subject to lower tax rates. We cannot predict whether in fact this will occur or, if it occurs, what the impact will be on the value of our securities.

Your investment in our securities has various federal, state, and local income tax risks that could affect the value of your investment.

Although the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relevant to your investment in our securities are generally described in “Federal Income Tax Consequences of Our Status as a REIT,” we strongly urge you to consult your own tax advisor concerning the effects of federal, state, and local income tax law on an investment in our securities because of the complex nature of the tax rules applicable to REITs and their shareholders.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR CORPORATE STRUCTURE

There are no assurances of our ability to make distributions in the future.

In December 2011, the Board of Directors approved our dividend policy for 2012 with an annualized target of $0.44 per share for 2012. For the year ended December 31, 2012 , we have declared dividends of $0.44 per share. In December 2012, the Board of Directors approved our dividend policy for 2013 with an annualized target of $0.48 per share for 2013, and we expect to pay a quarterly dividend of $0.12 per share for 2013. However, our ability to pay dividends may be adversely affected by the risk factors described herein. All distributions will be made at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon our earnings, our financial condition, maintenance of our REIT status and such other factors as our Board of Directors may deem relevant from time to time. There are no assurances of our ability to pay dividends in the future. In addition, some of our distributions may include a return of capital.

Failure to maintain an exemption from the Investment Company Act would adversely affect our results of operations.

We believe that we will conduct our business in a manner that allows us to avoid registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the 1940 Act. Under Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, entities that are primarily engaged in the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring “mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate” are not treated as investment companies. The SEC staff’s position generally requires us to maintain at least 55% of our assets directly in qualifying real estate interests to be able to rely on this exemption. To constitute a qualifying real estate interest under this 55% requirement, a real estate interest must meet various criteria. Mortgage securities that do not represent all of the certificates issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgages may be treated as securities separate from the underlying mortgage loans and, thus, may not qualify for purposes of the 55% requirement. Our ownership of these mortgage securities, therefore, is limited by the provisions of the 1940 Act and SEC staff interpretive positions. There are no assurances that efforts to pursue our intended investment program will not be adversely affected by operation of these rules.

Our charter does not permit ownership in excess of 9.8% of our capital stock, and attempts to acquire our capital stock in excess of the 9.8% limit without approval from our Board of Directors are void.

For the purpose of preserving our REIT qualification, our charter prohibits direct or constructive ownership by any person of more than 9.8% of the lesser of the total number or value of the outstanding shares of our common stock or more than 9.8% of the lesser of the total number or value of the outstanding shares of our preferred stock unless our Board of Directors grants a waiver. Our charter’s constructive ownership rules are complex and may cause the outstanding stock owned by a group of related individuals or entities to be deemed to be constructively owned by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of less than 9.8% of the outstanding stock by an individual or entity could cause that individual or entity to own constructively in excess of 9.8% of the outstanding stock, and thus be subject to our charter’s ownership limit. Any attempt to own or transfer shares of our common or preferred stock in excess of the ownership limit without the consent of the Board of Directors will be void, and could result in the shares being automatically transferred to a charitable trust.

Because provisions contained in Maryland law and our charter may have an anti-takeover effect, investors may be prevented from receiving a “control premium” for their shares.

Provisions contained in our charter and Maryland general corporation law may have effects that delay, defer, or prevent a takeover attempt, which may prevent shareholders from receiving a “control premium” for their shares. For example, these provisions may defer or prevent tender offers for our common stock or purchases of large blocks of our common stock, thereby limiting the opportunities for our shareholders to receive a premium for their common stock over then-prevailing market prices.

These provisions include the following:

  

Maryland statutory law provides that an act of a director relating to or affecting an acquisition or a potential acquisition of control of a corporation may not be subject to a higher duty or greater scrutiny than is applied to any other act of a director. Hence, directors of a Maryland corporation are not required to act in takeover situations under the same standards as apply in Delaware and other corporate jurisdictions.

Offerings of debt securities, which would be senior to our common stock and any preferred stock upon liquidation, or equity securities, which would dilute our existing shareholders’ holdings could be senior to our common stock for the purposes of dividend distributions, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and any preferred stock.

We may attempt to increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes, convertible securities, and classes of preferred stock or common stock or classes of preferred units. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities or preferred units and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of shares of preferred stock or common stock. Furthermore, holders of our debt securities and preferred stock or preferred units and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing shareholders or reduce the market price of our common or preferred stock or both. Our preferred stock or preferred units could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments that could limit our ability to make a dividend distribution to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, or nature of our future offerings. Thus, our shareholders bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our securities and diluting their securities holdings in us.

Securities eligible for future sale may have adverse effects on the market price of our securities.

We cannot predict the effect, if any, of future sales of securities, or the availability of securities for future sales, on the market price of our outstanding securities. Sales of substantial amounts of common stock, or the perception that these sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices for our securities.

We also may issue from time to time additional securities or units of our operating partnership in connection with the acquisition of properties and we may grant additional demand or piggyback registration rights in connection with these issuances. Sales of substantial amounts of our securities or the perception that such sales could occur may adversely affect the prevailing market price for our securities or may impair our ability to raise capital through a sale of additional debt or equity securities.

We depend on key personnel with long-standing business relationships. The loss of key personnel could threaten our ability to operate our business successfully.

Our future success depends, to a significant extent, upon the continued services of our management team. In particular, the lodging industry experience of Messrs. Monty J. Bennett, Kessler, Brooks, Kimichik, Nunneley and Welter and the extent and nature of the relationships they have developed with hotel franchisors, operators, and owners and hotel lending and other financial institutions are critically important to the success of our business. We do not maintain key–person life insurance on any of our officers other than in connection with our deferred compensation plan. Although these officers currently have employment agreements with us, we cannot assure their continued employment. The loss of services of one or more members of our corporate management team could harm our business and our prospects.

An increase in market interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities.

A factor investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our securities is our dividend rate as a percentage of our share or unit price relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may desire a higher dividend or interest rate on our securities or seek securities paying higher dividends or interest. The market price of our securities is likely based on the earnings and return that we derive from our investments, income with respect to our properties, and our related distributions to shareholders and not from the market value or underlying appraised value of the properties or investments themselves. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions can affect the market price of our securities. For instance, if interest rates rise without an increase in our dividend rate, the market price of our common or preferred stock could decrease because potential investors may require a higher dividend yield on our common or preferred stock as market rates on interest-bearing securities, such as bonds, rise. In addition, rising interest rates would result in increased interest expense on our variable–rate debt, thereby adversely affecting cash flow and our ability to service our indebtedness and pay dividends.

Our major policies, including our policies and practices with respect to investments, financing, growth, debt capitalization, and REIT qualification and distributions, are determined by our Board of Directors. Although we have no present intention to do so, our Board of Directors may amend or revise these and other policies from time to time without a vote of our shareholders. Accordingly, our shareholders will have limited control over changes in our policies and the changes could harm our business, results of operations, and share price.

Changes in our strategy or investment or leverage policy could expose us to greater credit risk and interest rate risk or could result in a more leveraged balance sheet. We cannot predict the effect any changes to our current operating policies and strategies may have on our business, operating results, and stock price. However, the effects may be adverse.