Item 1A. Risk Factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully read and consider the following risk factors and all other information contained in this report. If any of the following risks, as well as additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial, occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risk factors summarized below are categorized as follows: (i) Risks Related to Our Business, (ii) Risks Related to Our Manager, (iii) Risks Related to the Financial Markets, (iv) Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT and (v) Risks Related to Our Common Stock. However, these categories do overlap and should not be considered exclusive.

Risks Related to Our Business

We may not be able to successfully operate our business strategy or generate sufficient revenue to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully operate our business or implement our operating policies and strategies. There can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient returns to pay our operating expenses and make satisfactory distributions to our stockholders, or any distributions at all. Our results of operations and our ability to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders depend on several factors, including the availability of opportunities to acquire attractive assets, the level and volatility of interest rates, the availability of adequate short- and long-term financing, and conditions in the real estate market, the financial markets and economic conditions.

The value of our investments is based on various assumptions that could prove to be incorrect and could have a negative impact on our financial results.

When we make investments, we base the price we pay and, in some cases, the rate of amortization of those investments on, among other things, our projection of the cash flows from the related pool of loans. We generally record such investments on our balance sheet at fair value, and we measure their fair value on a recurring basis. Our projections of the cash flow from our investments, and the determination of the fair value thereof, are based on assumptions about various factors, including, but not limited to:

 

Our assumptions could differ materially from actual results. The use of different estimates or assumptions in connection with the valuation of these investments could produce materially different fair values for such investments, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations. The ultimate realization of the value of our investments may be materially different than the fair values of such investments as reflected in our Consolidated Financial Statements as of any particular date.

We refer to our MSRs, mortgage servicing rights financing receivables, Excess MSRs, and the base fee portion of the related MSRs included in our Servicer Advance Investments, collectively, as our interests in MSRs.

With respect to our investments in interests in MSRs, residential mortgage loans and consumer loans, and a portion of our RMBS, when the related loans are prepaid as a result of a refinancing or otherwise, the related cash flows payable to us will either, in the case of interest-only RMBS, and/or interests in MSRs, cease (unless, in the case of our interests in MSRs, the loans are recaptured upon a refinancing), or we will cease to receive interest income on such investments, as applicable. Borrowers under residential mortgage loans and consumer loans are generally permitted to prepay their loans at any time without penalty. Our expectation of prepayment rates is a significant assumption underlying our cash flow projections. Prepayment rate is the measurement of how quickly borrowers pay down the UPB of their loans or how quickly loans are otherwise brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. A significant increase in prepayment rates could materially reduce the ultimate cash flows and/or interest income, as applicable, we receive from our investments, and we could ultimately receive substantially less than what we paid for such assets, decreasing the fair value of our investments. If the fair value of our investment portfolio decreases, we would generally be required to record a non-cash charge, which would have a negative impact on our financial results. Consequently, the price we pay to acquire our investments may prove to be too high if there is a significant increase in prepayment rates.

The values of our investments are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates. Historically, the value of MSRs, which underpin the value of our investments, including interests in MSRs, has increased when interest rates rise and decreased when interest rates decline due to the effect of changes in interest rates on prepayment rates. Prepayment rates could increase as a result of a general economic recovery or other factors, which would reduce the value of our interests in MSRs.

Moreover, delinquency rates have a significant impact on the value of our investments. When the UPB of mortgage loans cease to be a part of the aggregate UPB of the serviced loan pool (for example, when delinquent loans are foreclosed on or repurchased, or otherwise sold, from a securitized pool), the related cash flows payable to us, as the holder of an interest in the related MSR, cease. An increase in delinquencies will generally result in lower revenue because typically we will only collect on our interests in MSRs from GSEs or mortgage owners for performing loans. An increase in delinquencies with respect to the loans underlying our servicer advances could also result in a higher advance balance and the need to obtain additional financing, which we may not be able to do on favorable terms or at all. Additionally, in the case of residential mortgage loans, consumer loans and RMBS that we own, an increase in foreclosures could result in an acceleration of repayments, resulting in a decrease in interest income. Alternatively, increases in delinquencies and defaults could also adversely affect our investments in RMBS, residential mortgage loans and/or consumer loans if and to the extent that losses are suffered on residential mortgage loans, consumer loans or, in the case of RMBS, the residential mortgage loans underlying such RMBS. Accordingly, if delinquencies are significantly greater than expected, the estimated fair value of these investments could be diminished. As a result, we could suffer a loss, which would have a negative impact on our financial results.

We are party to several “recapture agreements” whereby our MSR or Excess MSR is retained if the applicable Servicing Partner originates a new loan the proceeds of which are used to repay a loan underlying an MSR or Excess MSR in our portfolio. We believe that such agreements will mitigate the impact on our returns in the event of a rise in voluntary prepayment rates, with respect to investments where we have such agreements. There are no assurances, however, that counterparties will enter into such arrangements with us in connection with any future investment in MSRs or Excess MSRs. We are not party to any such arrangements with respect to any of our investments other than MSRs and Excess MSRs.

If the applicable Servicing Partner does not meet anticipated recapture targets, the servicing cash flow on a given pool could be significantly lower than projected, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of our MSRs or Excess MSRs and consequently on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Our recapture target for our current recapture agreements is stated in the table in Note 12 to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Servicer advances may not be recoverable or may take longer to recover than we expect, which could cause us to fail to achieve our targeted return on our Servicer Advance Investments or MSRs.

NRM is generally required to make servicer advances related to the pools of loans for which it is the named servicer. In addition, we have agreed (in the case of Nationstar, together with certain third-party investors) to purchase from certain of our Servicing Partners all servicer advances related to certain loan pools, as a result of which we are entitled to amounts representing repayment for such advances. During any period in which a borrower is not making payments, a servicer is generally required under the applicable servicing agreement to advance its own funds to cover the principal and interest remittances due to investors in the loans, pay property taxes and insurance premiums to third parties, and to make payments for legal expenses and other protective advances. The servicer also advances funds to maintain, repair and market real estate properties on behalf of investors in the loans.

Repayment of servicer advances and payment of deferred servicing fees are generally made from late payments and other collections and recoveries on the related residential mortgage loan (including liquidation, insurance and condemnation proceeds) or, if the related servicing agreement provides for a “general collections backstop,” from collections on other residential mortgage loans

to which such servicing agreement relates. The rate and timing of payments on servicer advances and deferred servicing fees are unpredictable for several reasons, including the following:

 

As home values change, the servicer may have to reconsider certain of the assumptions underlying its decisions to make advances. In certain situations, its contractual obligations may require the servicer to make certain advances for which it may not be reimbursed. In addition, when a residential mortgage loan defaults or becomes delinquent, the repayment of the advance may be delayed until the residential mortgage loan is repaid or refinanced, or a liquidation occurs. To the extent that one of our Servicing Partners fails to recover the servicer advances in which we have invested, or takes longer than we expect to recover such advances, the value of our investment could be adversely affected and we could fail to achieve our expected return and suffer losses.

Servicing agreements related to residential mortgage securitization transactions generally require a residential mortgage servicer to make servicer advances in respect of serviced residential mortgage loans unless the servicer determines in good faith that the servicer advance would not be ultimately recoverable from the proceeds of the related residential mortgage loan, mortgaged property or mortgagor. In many cases, if the servicer determines that a servicer advance previously made would not be recoverable from these sources, the servicer is entitled to withdraw funds from the related custodial account in respect of payments on the related pool of serviced mortgages to reimburse the related servicer advance. This is what is often referred to as a “general collections backstop.” The timing of when a servicer may utilize a general collections backstop can vary (some contracts require actual liquidation of the related loan first, while others do not), and contracts vary in terms of the types of servicer advances for which reimbursement from a general collections backstop is available. Accordingly, a servicer may not ultimately be reimbursed if both (i) the payments from related loan, property or mortgagor payments are insufficient for reimbursement, and (ii) a general collections backstop is not available or is insufficient. Also, if a servicer improperly makes a servicer advance, it would not be entitled to reimbursement. While we do not expect recovery rates to vary materially during the term of our investments, there can be no assurance regarding future recovery rates related to our portfolio.

We rely heavily on our Servicing Partners to achieve our investment objective and have no direct ability to influence their performance.

The value of substantially all of our investments is dependent on the satisfactory performance of servicing obligations by the related mortgage servicer or subservicer, as applicable. The duties and obligations of mortgage servicers are defined through contractual agreements, generally referred to as Servicing Guides in the case of GSEs, the MBS Guide in the case of Ginnie Mae or pooling agreements, securitization servicing agreements, pooling and servicing agreements or other similar agreements (collectively, “PSAs”) in the case of Non-Agency RMBS (collectively, the “Servicing Guidelines”). The duties of the subservicers we engage to service the loans underlying our MSRs are contained in subservicing agreements with our subservicers. The duties of a subservicer under a subservicing agreement may not be identical to the obligations of the servicer under Servicing Guidelines. Our interests in MSRs are subject to all of the terms and conditions of the applicable Servicing Guidelines. Servicing Guidelines generally provide for the possibility of termination of the contractual rights of the servicer in the absolute discretion of the owner of the mortgages being serviced (or the required bondholders in the case of Non-Agency RMBS). Under the Agency Servicing Guidelines, the servicer may be terminated by the applicable Agency for any reason, “with” or “without” cause, for all or any portion of the loans being serviced for such Agency. In the event mortgage owners (or bondholders) terminate the servicer (regardless of whether such servicer is a subsidiary of New Residential or one of its subservicers), the related interests in MSRs would under most circumstances lose all value on a going forward basis. If the servicer is terminated as servicer for any Agency pools, the servicer’s right to service the related mortgage loans will be extinguished and our interests in related MSRs will likely lose all of

their value. Any recovery in such circumstances, in the case of Non-Agency RMBS, will be highly conditioned and may require, among other things, a new servicer willing to pay for the right to service the applicable residential mortgage loans while assuming responsibility for the origination and prior servicing of the residential mortgage loans. In addition, in the case of Agency MSRs, any payment received from a successor servicer will be applied first to pay the applicable Agency for all of its claims and costs, including claims and costs against the servicer that do not relate to the residential mortgage loans for which we own interests in the MSRs. A termination could also result in an event of default under our related financings. It is expected that any termination of a servicer by mortgage owners (or bondholders) would take effect across all mortgages of such mortgage owners (or bondholders) and would not be limited to a particular vintage or other subset of mortgages. Therefore, it is possible that all investments with a given servicer would lose all their value in the event mortgage owners (or bondholders) terminate such servicer. See “—We have significant counterparty concentration risk in certain of our Servicing Partners, and are subject to other counterparty concentration and default risks.” As a result, we could be materially and adversely affected if one of our Servicing Partners is unable to adequately carry out its duties as a result of:

 

In the ordinary course of business, our Servicing Partners are subject to numerous legal proceedings, federal, state or local governmental examinations, investigations or enforcement actions, which could adversely affect their reputation and their liquidity, financial position and results of operations. Mortgage servicers, including certain of our Servicing Partners, have experienced heightened regulatory scrutiny and enforcement actions, and our Servicing Partners could be adversely affected by the market’s perception that they could experience, or continue to experience, regulatory issues. See “—Certain of our Servicing Partners have been and are subject to federal and state regulatory matters and other litigation, which may adversely impact us.” In light of recent regulatory actions against Ocwen, we cannot assure you that Ocwen will not be removed as servicer by the Agencies or by bondholders, which could have a material adverse effect on our interests in MSRs serviced or subserviced by Ocwen.

Loss mitigation techniques are intended to reduce the probability that borrowers will default on their loans and to minimize losses when defaults occur, and they may include the modification of mortgage loan rates, principal balances and maturities. If any of our Servicing Partners fail to adequately perform their loss mitigation obligations, we could be required to make or purchase, as applicable, servicer advances in excess of those that we might otherwise have had to make or purchase, and the time period for collecting servicer advances may extend. Any increase in servicer advances or material increase in the time to resolution of a defaulted loan could result in increased capital requirements and financing costs for us and our co-investors and could adversely affect our liquidity and net income. In the event that one of our servicers from which we are obligated to purchase servicer advances is required by the applicable Servicing Guidelines to make advances in excess of amounts that we or, in the case of Nationstar, the co-investors, are willing or able to fund, such servicer may not be able to fund these advance requests, which could result in a termination event under the applicable Servicing Guidelines, an event of default under our advance facilities and a breach of our purchase agreement with such servicer. As a result, we could experience a partial or total loss of the value of our Servicer Advance Investments.

MSRs and servicer advances are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations and may be subject to various judicial and administrative decisions. If the Servicing Partner actually or allegedly failed to comply with applicable laws, rules or regulations, it could be terminated as the servicer, and could lead to civil and criminal liability, loss of licensing, damage to our reputation and litigation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, servicer advances that are improperly made may not be eligible for financing under our facilities and may not be reimbursable by the related securitization trust or other owner of the residential mortgage loan, which could cause us to suffer losses.

Favorable servicer ratings from third-party rating agencies, such as S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) and Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”), are important to the conduct of a mortgage servicer’s loan servicing business, and a downgrade in a Servicing Partner’s servicer ratings could have an adverse effect on the value of our interests in MSRs and result in an event of default under our financings. Downgrades in a Servicing Partner’s servicer ratings could adversely affect our ability

to finance our assets and maintain their status as an approved servicer by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Downgrades in servicer ratings could also lead to the early termination of existing advance facilities and affect the terms and availability of financing that a Servicing Partner or we may seek in the future. A Servicing Partner’s failure to maintain favorable or specified ratings may cause their termination as a servicer and may impair their ability to consummate future servicing transactions, which could result in an event of default under our financing for servicer advances and have an adverse effect on the value of our investments because we will rely heavily on Servicing Partners to achieve our investment objectives and have no direct ability to influence their performance.

For additional information about the ways in which we may be affected by mortgage servicers, see “—The value of our interests in MSRs, servicer advances, residential mortgage loans and RMBS may be adversely affected by deficiencies in servicing and foreclosure practices, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.”

A number of lawsuits, including class-actions, have been filed against mortgage servicers alleging improper servicing in connection with residential non-agency mortgage securitizations. Investors in, and counterparties to, such securitizations may commence legal action against us and responding to such claims, and any related losses, could negatively impact our business.

A number of lawsuits, including class actions, have been filed against mortgage servicers alleging improper servicing in connection with residential non-agency mortgage securitizations. Investors in, and counterparties to, such securitizations may commence legal action against us and responding to such claims, and any related losses, could negatively impact our business. The number of counterparties on behalf of which we service loans significantly increases as the size of our non-agency MSR portfolio increases and we may become subject to claims and legal proceedings, including purported class-actions, in the ordinary course of our business, challenging whether our loan servicing practices and other aspects of our business comply with applicable laws, agreements and regulatory requirements. We are unable to predict whether any such claims will be made, the ultimate outcome of any such claims, the possible loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such claims or the potential impact any such claims may have on us or our business and operations.  Regardless of the merit of any such claims or lawsuits, defending any claims or lawsuits may be time consuming and costly and we may be required to expend significant internal resources and incur material expenses, and management time may be diverted from other aspects of our business, in connection therewith. Further, if our efforts to defend any such claims or lawsuits are not successful, our business could be materially and adversely affected. As a result of investor and other counterparty claims, we could also suffer reputational damage and trustees, lenders and other counterparties could cease wanting to do business with us.

Certain of our Servicing Partners have been and are subject to federal and state regulatory matters and other litigation, which may adversely impact us.

Regulatory actions or legal proceedings against certain of our Servicing Partners could increase our financing costs or operating expenses, reduce our revenues or otherwise materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Such Servicing Partners may be subject to additional federal and state regulatory matters in the future that could materially and adversely affect the value of our investments to the extent we rely on them to achieve our investment objectives because we have no direct ability to influence their performance. Certain of our Servicing Partners have disclosed certain matters in their periodic reports filed with the SEC, and there can be no assurance that such events will not have a material adverse effect on them. We are currently evaluating the impact of such events and cannot assure you what impact these events may have or what actions we may take under our agreements with the servicer. In addition, any of our Servicing Partners could be removed as servicer by the related loan owner or certain other transaction counterparties, which could have a material adverse effect on our interests in the loans and MSRs serviced by such Servicing Partner.

In addition, certain of our Servicing Partners have been and continue to be subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with formal and informal inquiries, such Servicing Partners may receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of their activities, including whether certain of their residential loan servicing and originations practices, bankruptcy practices and other aspects of their business comply with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. Such Servicing Partners cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of any of the aforementioned actions, proceedings or inquiries, or that such outcomes will not have a material adverse effect on their reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Completion of the pending transactions related to MSRs (the “MSR Transactions”) is subject to various closing conditions, involves significant costs, and we cannot assure you if, when or the terms on which such transactions will close. Failure to complete the pending MSR Transactions could adversely affect our future business and results of operations.

We have entered into an agreement for the purchase and sale of approximately $60.1 billion UPB of MSRs and related servicer advances from PHH (the various aspects of such transaction, the “PHH Transaction”). Although we have completed a portion of the MSR transfers contemplated by the PHH Transaction, the completion of the pending portions of the PHH Transaction is subject to the satisfaction of closing conditions, consents of third parties and certain actions by rating agencies and we cannot assure you that such conditions will be satisfied or that such portions of the PHH Transaction will be successfully completed on their current terms, if at all. In the event that any portion of the PHH Transaction is not consummated, we will have spent considerable time and resources, and incurred substantial costs, many of which must be paid even if the PHH Transaction is not completed. The purchase settled in stages during 2017. As of December 31, 2017 , MSRs, and related servicer advances receivables, with respect to private-label residential mortgage loans of approximately $6.0 billion in total UPB with a purchase price of approximately $35.5 million had not been settled.

In addition, we have entered into an agreement for Ocwen to transfer its remaining interests in $110.0 billion of UPB of non-Agency MSRs to NRM (the “Ocwen Subject MSRs”). We currently hold certain interests in the Ocwen Subject MSRs (including all servicer advances) pursuant to existing agreements with Ocwen. The transfer of Ocwen’s interests in the Ocwen Subject MSRs is subject to numerous consents of third parties and certain actions by rating agencies. While certain of the Ocwen Subject MSRs have previously transferred to NRM, there is no assurance that we will be able to obtain such consents in order to transfer Ocwen’s interests in the Ocwen Subject MSRs to NRM. We have spent considerable time and resources, and incurred substantial costs, in connection with the negotiation of such transaction and we will incur such costs even if the Ocwen Subject MSRs cannot be transferred to NRM. As of December 31, 2017 , MSRs representing approximately $14.8 billion UPB of underlying loans have been transferred pursuant to the Ocwen Transaction, and MSRs representing approximately $86.8 billion UPB of underlying loans remain to be transferred (after paydowns and other factors).

We may be unable to become the named servicer in respect of certain Non-Agency MSRs because, among other potential reasons, we do not maintain any servicer ratings from rating agencies. If we are unable to become the named servicer in respect of any of the Ocwen Subject MSRs in accordance with the Ocwen Transaction (Note 5 to our Consolidated Financial Statements), Ocwen has the right, in certain circumstances, to purchase from us our interests in the related MSRs. In such a situation, we will be required to sell Ocwen those assets (and will cease to receive income on those investments) and/or may be required to refinance certain indebtedness on terms that are not favorable to us.

Our ability to acquire MSRs may be subject to the approval of various third parties and such approvals may not be provided on a timely basis or at all, or may be subject to conditions, representations and warranties and indemnities.

Our ability to acquire MSRs may be subject to the approval of various third parties and such approvals may not be provided on a timely basis or at all, or may be conditioned upon our satisfaction of significant conditions which could require material expenditures and the provision of significant representations, warranties and indemnities. Such third parties may include the Agencies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) with respect to agency MSRs, and securitization trustees, master servicers, depositors, rating agencies and insurers, among others, with respect to non-agency MSRs. The process of obtaining any such approvals required for a servicing transfer, especially with respect to non-agency MSRs, may be time consuming and costly and we may be required to expend significant internal resources and incur material expenses in connection with such transactions.  Further, the parties from whom approval is necessary may require that we provide significant representations and warranties and broad indemnities as a condition to their consent, which such representations and warranties and indemnities, if given, may expose us to material risks in addition to those arising under the related servicing agreements. Consenting parties may also charge a material consent fee and may require that we reimburse them for the legal expenses they incur in connection with their approval of the servicing transfer, which such expenses may include costs relating to substantial contract due diligence and may be significant. No assurance can be given that we will be able to successfully obtain the consents required to acquire the MSRs that we have agreed to purchase. 

We have significant counterparty concentration risk in certain of our Servicing Partners and are subject to other counterparty concentration and default risks.

We are not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or from concentrating any or all of our transactions with a few counterparties. Any loss suffered by us as a result of a counterparty defaulting, refusing to conduct business with us or imposing more onerous terms on us would also negatively affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Our interests in MSRs relate to loans serviced or subserviced, as applicable, by our Servicing Partners. As disclosed in Notes 4, 5, and 6 of our Consolidated Financial Statements, certain of our Servicing Partners service and/or subservice a substantial portion

of our interests in MSRs. If any of these Servicing Partners is the named servicer of the related MSR and is terminated, its servicing performance deteriorates, or in the event that any of them files for bankruptcy, our expected returns on these investments could be severely impacted. In addition, a large portion of the loans underlying our Non-Agency RMBS are serviced by certain of our Servicing Partners. We closely monitor our Servicing Partners’ mortgage servicing performance and overall operating performance, financial condition and liquidity, as well as their compliance with applicable regulations and Servicing Guidelines. We have various information, access and inspection rights in our agreements with these Servicing Partners that enable us to monitor aspects of their financial and operating performance and credit quality, which we periodically evaluate and discuss with their management. However, we have no direct ability to influence our Servicing Partners’ performance, and our diligence cannot prevent, and may not even help us anticipate, the termination of any such Servicing Partners’ servicing agreement or a severe deterioration of any of our Servicing Partners’ servicing performance on our portfolio of interests in MSRs.

Furthermore, certain of our Servicing Partners are subject to numerous legal proceedings, federal, state or local governmental examinations, investigations or enforcement actions, which could adversely affect their operations, reputation and liquidity, financial position and results of operations. See “—Certain of our Servicing Partners have been and are subject to federal and state regulatory matters and other litigation, which may adversely impact us” for more information.

None of our Servicing Partners has an obligation to offer us any future co-investment opportunity on the same terms as prior transactions, or at all, and we may not be able to find suitable counterparties from which to acquire interests in MSRs, which could impact our business strategy. See “—We rely heavily on our Servicing Partners to achieve our investment objective and have no direct ability to influence their performance.”

Repayment of the outstanding amount of servicer advances (including payment with respect to deferred servicing fees) may be subject to delay, reduction or set-off in the event that the related Servicing Partner breaches any of its obligations under the Servicing Guidelines, including, without limitation, any failure of such Servicing Partner to perform its servicing and advancing functions in accordance with the terms of such Servicing Guidelines. If any applicable Servicing Partner is terminated or resigns as servicer and the applicable successor servicer does not purchase all outstanding servicer advances at the time of transfer, collection of the servicer advances will be dependent on the performance of such successor servicer and, if applicable, reliance on such successor servicer’s compliance with the “first-in, first-out” or “FIFO” provisions of the Servicing Guidelines. In addition, such successor servicers may not agree to purchase the outstanding advances on the same terms as our current purchase arrangements and may require, as a condition of their purchase, modification to such FIFO provisions, which could further delay our repayment and adversely affect the returns from our investment.

We are subject to substantial other operational risks associated with our Servicing Partners in connection with the financing of servicer advances. In our current financing facilities for servicer advances, the failure of our Servicing Partner to satisfy various covenants and tests can result in an amortization event and/or an event of default. We have no direct ability to control our Servicing Partners’ compliance with those covenants and tests. Failure of our Servicing Partners to satisfy any such covenants or tests could result in a partial or total loss on our investment.

In addition, our Servicing Partners are party to our servicer advance financing agreements, with respect to those advances where they service or subservice the loans underlying the related MSRs. Our ability to obtain financing for these assets is dependent on our Servicing Partners’ agreement to be a party to the related financing agreements. If our Servicing Partners do not agree to be a party to these financing agreements for any reason, we may not be able to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all. Our ability to obtain financing on such assets is dependent on our Servicing Partners’ ability to satisfy various tests under such financing arrangements. Breaches and other events with respect to our Servicing Partners (which may include, without limitation, failure of a Servicing Partner to satisfy certain financial tests) could cause certain or all of the relevant servicer advance financing to become due and payable prior to maturity.

We are dependent on our Servicing Partners as the servicer or subservicer of the residential mortgage loans with respect to which we hold interests in MSRs, and their servicing practices may impact the value of certain of our assets. We may be adversely impacted:

Our interests in MSRs relate to loans serviced or subserviced, as applicable, by our Servicing Partners. As disclosed in Notes 4, 5, and 6 of our Consolidated Financial Statements, certain of our Servicing Partners service and/or subservice a substantial portion of our interests in MSRs. In addition, Nationstar is currently the servicer for a significant portion of our loans, and the loans underlying our RMBS. If the servicing performance of one of our subservicers deteriorates, if one of our subservicers files for bankruptcy or if one of our subservicers is otherwise unwilling or unable to continue to subservice MSRs for us, our expected returns on these investments would be severely impacted. In addition, if a subservicer becomes subject to a regulatory consent order or similar enforcement proceeding, that regulatory action could adversely affect us in several ways. For example, the regulatory action could result in delays of transferring servicing from an interim subservicer to our designated successor subservicer or cause the subservicer’s performance to degrade. Any such development would negatively affect our expected returns on these investments, and such effect could be materially adverse to our business and results of operations. We closely monitor each subservicer’s mortgage servicing performance and overall operating performance, financial condition and liquidity, as well as its compliance with applicable regulations and GSE servicing guidelines. We have various information, access and inspection rights in our respective agreements with our subservicers that enable us to monitor aspects of their financial and operating performance and credit quality, which we periodically evaluate and discuss with each subservicer’s respective management. However, we have no direct ability to influence each subservicer’s performance, and our diligence cannot prevent, and may not even help us anticipate, a severe deterioration of each subservicer’s respective servicing performance on our MSR portfolio.

In addition, a material portion of the consumer loans in which we have invested are serviced by OneMain. If OneMain is terminated as the servicer of some or all of these portfolios, or in the event that it files for bankruptcy or is otherwise unable to continue to service such loans, our expected returns on these investments could be severely impacted.

Moreover, we are party to repurchase agreements with a limited number of counterparties. If any of our counterparties elected not to roll our repurchase agreements, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Our risk-management processes may not accurately anticipate the impact of market stress or counterparty financial condition, and as a result, we may not take sufficient action to reduce our risks effectively. Although we will monitor our credit exposures, default risk may arise from events or circumstances that are difficult to detect, foresee or evaluate. In addition, concerns about, or a default by, one large participant could lead to significant liquidity problems for other participants, which may in turn expose us to significant losses.

In the event of a counterparty default, particularly a default by a major investment bank or Servicing Partner, we could incur material losses rapidly, and the resulting market impact of a major counterparty default could seriously harm our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. In the event that one of our counterparties becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy, our ability to eventually recover any losses suffered as a result of that counterparty’s default may be limited by the liquidity of the counterparty or the applicable legal regime governing the bankruptcy proceeding.

A bankruptcy of any of our Servicing Partners could materially and adversely affect us.

If any of our Servicing Partners becomes subject to a bankruptcy proceeding, we could be materially and adversely affected, and you could suffer losses, as discussed below.

A sale of MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or other assets, including loans, could be re-characterized as a pledge of such assets in a bankruptcy proceeding.

We believe that a mortgage servicer’s transfer to us of MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other asset transferred pursuant to a related purchase agreement, including loans, constitutes a sale of such assets, in which case such assets would not be part of such servicer’s bankruptcy estate. The servicer (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding), a bankruptcy trustee appointed in such servicer’s bankruptcy proceeding, or any other party in interest, however, might assert in a bankruptcy proceeding MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other assets transferred to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement were not sold to us but were instead pledged to us as security for such servicer’s obligation to repay amounts paid by us to the servicer pursuant to the related purchase agreement. We generally create and perfect security interests with respect to the MSRs that we acquire, though we do not do so in all instances. If such assertion were successful, all or part of the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other asset transferred to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement would constitute property of the bankruptcy estate of such servicer, and our rights against the servicer could be those of a secured creditor with a lien on such present and future assets. Under such circumstances, cash proceeds generated from our collateral would constitute “cash collateral” under the provisions of the U.S. bankruptcy laws. Under U.S. bankruptcy laws, the servicer could not use our cash collateral without either (a) our consent or (b) approval by the bankruptcy court, subject to providing us

with “adequate protection” under the U.S. bankruptcy laws. In addition, under such circumstances, an issue could arise as to whether certain of these assets generated after the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding would constitute after-acquired property excluded from our entitlement pursuant to the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

If such a recharacterization occurs, the validity or priority of our security interest in the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or other assets could be challenged in a bankruptcy proceeding of such servicer.

If the purchases pursuant to the related purchase agreement are recharacterized as secured financings as set forth above, we nevertheless created and perfected security interests with respect to the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances and other assets that we may have purchased from such servicer by including a pledge of collateral in the related purchase agreement and filing financing statements in appropriate jurisdictions. Nonetheless, to the extent we have created and perfected a security interest, our security interests may be challenged and ruled unenforceable, ineffective or subordinated by a bankruptcy court, and the amount of our claims may be disputed so as not to include all MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances to be collected. If this were to occur, or if we have not created a security interest, then the servicer’s obligations to us with respect to purchased MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or other assets would be deemed unsecured obligations, payable from unencumbered assets to be shared among all of such servicer’s unsecured creditors. In addition, even if the security interests are found to be valid and enforceable, if a bankruptcy court determines that the value of the collateral is less than such servicer’s underlying obligations to us, the difference between such value and the total amount of such obligations will be deemed an unsecured “deficiency” claim and the same result will occur with respect to such unsecured claim. In addition, even if the security interest is found to be valid and enforceable, such servicer would have the right to use the proceeds of our collateral subject to either (a) our consent or (b) approval by the bankruptcy court, subject to providing us with “adequate protection” under U.S. bankruptcy laws. Such servicer also would have the ability to confirm a chapter 11 plan over our objections if the plan complied with the “cramdown” requirements under U.S. bankruptcy laws.

Payments made by a servicer to us could be voided by a court under federal or state preference laws.

If one of our Servicing Partners were to file, or to become the subject of, a bankruptcy proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code or similar state insolvency laws, and our security interest (if any) is declared unenforceable, ineffective or subordinated, payments previously made by a servicer to us pursuant to the related purchase agreement may be recoverable on behalf of the bankruptcy estate as preferential transfers. Among other reasons, a payment could constitute a preferential transfer if a court were to find that the payment was a transfer of an interest of property of such servicer that:

If the court were to determine that any payments were avoidable as preferential transfers, we would be required to return such payments to such servicer’s bankruptcy estate and would have an unsecured claim against such servicer with respect to such returned amounts.

Payments made to us by such servicer, or obligations incurred by it, could be voided by a court under federal or state fraudulent conveyance laws.

The mortgage servicer (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding), a bankruptcy trustee appointed in such servicer’s bankruptcy proceeding, or another party in interest could also claim that such servicer’s transfer to us of MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or other assets or such servicer’s agreement to incur obligations to us under the related purchase agreement was a fraudulent conveyance. Under U.S. bankruptcy laws and similar state insolvency laws, transfers made or obligations incurred could be voided if, among other reasons, such servicer, at the time it made such transfers or incurred such obligations: (a) received less than reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration for such transfer or incurrence and (b) either (i) was insolvent at the time of, or was rendered insolvent by reason of, such transfer or incurrence; (ii) was engaged in, or was about to engage in, a business or transaction for which the assets remaining with such servicer were an unreasonably small capital; or (iii) intended to incur, or believed that it would incur, debts beyond its ability to pay such debts as they mature. If any transfer or incurrence is determined to be a fraudulent conveyance, our Servicing Partner, as applicable (as debtor-in-possession in the

bankruptcy proceeding), or a bankruptcy trustee on such Servicing Partner’s behalf would be entitled to recover such transfer or to avoid the obligation previously incurred.

Any purchase agreement pursuant to which we purchase interests in MSRs, servicer advances or other assets, including loans, or any subservicing agreement between us and a subservicer on our behalf could be rejected in a bankruptcy proceeding of one of our Servicing Partners or counterparties.

 

A mortgage servicer (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding) or a bankruptcy trustee appointed in such servicer’s or counterparty’s bankruptcy proceeding could seek to reject the related purchase agreement or subservicing agreement with a counterparty and thereby terminate such servicer’s or counterparty’s obligation to service the MSRs or interests in MSRs and servicer advances or any other asset transferred pursuant to such purchase agreement, and terminate our right to acquire additional assets under such purchase agreement and our right to require such servicer to use commercially reasonable efforts to transfer servicing. If the bankruptcy court approved the rejection, we would have a claim against such servicer or counterparty for any damages from the rejection, and the resulting transfer of our interests in MSRs or servicing of the MSRs relating to our Excess MSRs to another subservicer may result in significant cost and may negatively impact the value of our interests in MSRs.

A bankruptcy court could stay a transfer of servicing to another servicer.

Our ability to terminate a subservicer or to require a mortgage servicer to use commercially reasonable efforts to transfer servicing rights to a new servicer would be subject to the automatic stay in such servicer’s bankruptcy proceeding. To enforce this right, we would have to seek relief from the bankruptcy court to lift such stay, and there is no assurance that the bankruptcy court would grant this relief.

Any Subservicing Agreement could be rejected in a bankruptcy proceeding. 

If one of our Servicing Partners were to file, or to become the subject of, a bankruptcy proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code or similar state insolvency laws, such Servicing Partner (as debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy proceeding) or the bankruptcy trustee could reject its subservicing agreement with us and terminate such Servicing Partner’s obligation to service the MSRs, servicer advances or loans in which we have an investment. Any claim we have for damages arising from the rejection of a subservicing agreement would be treated as a general unsecured claim for purposes of distributions from such Servicing Partner’s bankruptcy estate.

Our Servicing Partners could discontinue servicing.

If one of our Servicing Partners were to file, or to become the subject of, a bankruptcy proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code, such Servicing Partner could be terminated as servicer (with bankruptcy court approval) or could discontinue servicing, in which case there is no assurance that we would be able to continue receiving payments and transfers in respect of the interests in MSRs, servicer advances and other assets purchased under the related purchase agreement or subserviced under the related subservicing agreement. Even if we were able to obtain the servicing rights or terminate the related subservicer, because we do not and in the future may not have the employees, servicing platforms, or technical resources necessary to service mortgage loans, we would need to engage an alternate subservicer (which may not be readily available on acceptable terms or at all) or negotiate a new subservicing agreement with such servicer, which presumably would be on less favorable terms to us. Any engagement of an alternate subservicer by us would require the approval of the related RMBS trustees or the Agencies, as applicable.

The automatic stay under the United States Bankruptcy Code may prevent the ongoing receipt of servicing fees or other amounts due.

Even if we are successful in arguing that we own the interests in MSRs, servicer advances and other assets, including loans, purchased under the related purchase agreement, we may need to seek relief in the bankruptcy court to obtain turnover and payment of amounts relating to such assets, and there may be difficulty in recovering payments in respect of such assets that may have been commingled with other funds of such servicer.

A bankruptcy of any of our Servicing Partners may default our MSR, Excess MSR and servicer advance financing facilities and negatively impact our ability to continue to purchase interests in MSRs.

If any of our Servicing Partners were to file for bankruptcy or become the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding, it could result in an event of default under certain of our financing facilities that would require the immediate paydown of such facilities. In this scenario, we may not be able to comply with our obligations to purchase interests in MSRs and servicer advances under the related purchase agreements. Notwithstanding this inability to purchase, the related seller may try to force us to continue making such

purchases. If it is determined that we are in breach of our obligations under our purchase agreements, any claims that we may have against such related seller may be subject to offset against claims such seller may have against us by reason of this breach.

GSE initiatives and other actions may adversely affect returns from interests in MSRs.

On January 18, 2011, the FHFA announced that it had instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to study possible alternatives to the current residential mortgage servicing and compensation system used for single-family mortgage loans. It is unclear what Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac may propose as alternatives to current servicing compensation practices, or when any such alternatives may become effective. Although we do not expect MSRs that have already been created to be subject to any changes implemented by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, it is possible that, because of the significant role of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in the secondary mortgage market, any changes they implement could become prevalent in the mortgage servicing industry generally. Other industry stakeholders or regulators may also implement or require changes in response to the perception that the current mortgage servicing practices and compensation do not appropriately serve broader housing policy objectives. These proposals are still evolving. To the extent the GSEs implement reforms that materially affect the market for conforming loans, there may be secondary effects on the subprime and Alt-A markets. These reforms may have a material adverse effect on the economics or performance of any interests in MSRs that we may acquire in the future.

Changes to the minimum servicing amount for GSE loans could occur at any time and could impact us in significantly negative ways that we are unable to predict or protect against.

Currently, when a loan is sold into the secondary market for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loans, the servicer is generally required to retain a minimum servicing amount (“MSA”) of 25 basis points of the UPB for fixed rate mortgages. As has been widely publicized, in September 2011, the FHFA announced that a Joint Initiative on Mortgage Servicing Compensation was seeking public comment on two alternative mortgage servicing compensation structures detailed in a discussion paper. Changes to the MSA structure could significantly impact our business in negative ways that we cannot predict or protect against. For example, the elimination of a MSA could radically change the mortgage servicing industry and could severely limit the supply of interests in MSRs available for sale. In addition, a removal of, or reduction in, the MSA could significantly reduce the recapture rate on the affected loan portfolio, which would negatively affect the investment return on our interests in MSRs. We cannot predict whether any changes to current MSA rules will occur or what impact any changes will have on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Our interests in MSRs may involve complex or novel structures.

Interests in MSRs may entail new types of transactions and may involve complex or novel structures. Accordingly, the risks associated with the transactions and structures are not fully known to buyers and sellers. In the case of interests in MSRs on Agency pools, Agencies may require that we submit to costly or burdensome conditions as a prerequisite to their consent to an investment in, or our financing of, interests in MSRs on Agency pools. Agency conditions, including capital requirements, may diminish or eliminate the investment potential of interests in MSRs on Agency pools by making such investments too expensive for us or by severely limiting the potential returns available from interests in MSRs on Agency pools.

It is possible that an Agency’s views on whether any such acquisition structure is appropriate or acceptable may not be known to us when we make an investment and may change from time to time for any reason or for no reason, even with respect to a completed investment. An Agency’s evolving posture toward an acquisition or disposition structure through which we invest in or dispose of interests in MSRs on Agency pools may cause such Agency to impose new conditions on our existing interests in MSRs on Agency pools, including the owner’s ability to hold such interests in MSRs on Agency pools directly or indirectly through a grantor trust or other means. Such new conditions may be costly or burdensome and may diminish or eliminate the investment potential of the interests in MSRs on Agency pools that are already owned by us. Moreover, obtaining such consent may require us or our co-investment counterparties to agree to material structural or economic changes, as well as agree to indemnification or other terms that expose us to risks to which we have not previously been exposed and that could negatively affect our returns from our investments.

Our ability to finance the MSRs and servicer advances acquired in the MSR Transactions may depend on the related Servicing Partner’s cooperation with our financing sources and compliance with certain covenants.

We have in the past and intend to continue to finance some or all of the MSRs or servicer advances acquired in the MSR Transactions, and as a result, we will be subject to substantial operational risks associated with the related Servicing Partners. In our current financing facilities for interests in MSRs and servicer advances, the failure of the related Servicing Partner to satisfy various covenants and tests can result in an amortization event and/or an event of default. Our financing sources may require us to include similar provisions in any financing we obtain relating to the MSRs and servicer advances acquired in the MSR Transactions. If

we decide to finance such assets, we will not have the direct ability to control any party’s compliance with any such covenants and tests and the failure of any party to satisfy any such covenants or tests could result in a partial or total loss on our investment. Some financing sources may be unwilling to finance any assets acquired in the MSR Transactions.

In addition, any financing for the MSRs and servicer advances acquired in the MSR Transactions may be subject to regulatory approval and the agreement of the relevant Servicing Partner to be party to such financing agreements. If we cannot get regulatory approval or these parties do not agree to be a party to such financing agreements, we may not be able to obtain financing on favorable terms or at all.

Mortgage servicing is heavily regulated at the U.S. federal, state and local levels, and each transfer of MSRs to our subservicer of such MSRs may not be approved by the requisite regulators.

Mortgage servicers must comply with U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations. These laws and regulations cover topics such as licensing; allowable fees and loan terms; permissible servicing and debt collection practices; limitations on forced-placed insurance; special consumer protections in connection with default and foreclosure; and protection of confidential, nonpublic consumer information. The volume of new or modified laws and regulations has increased in recent years, and states and individual cities and counties continue to enact laws that either restrict or impose additional obligations in connection with certain loan origination, acquisition and servicing activities in those cities and counties. The laws and regulations are complex and vary greatly among the states and localities, and in some cases, these laws are in conflict with each other or with U.S. federal law. In connection with the MSR Transactions, there is no assurance that each transfer of MSRs to our selected subservicer will be approved by the requisite regulators. If regulatory approval for each such transfer is not obtained, we may incur additional costs and expenses in connection with the approval of another replacement subservicer.

We do not have legal title to the MSRs underlying our Excess MSRs or certain of our Servicer Advance Investments.

We do not have legal title to the MSRs underlying our Excess MSRs or certain of the MSRs related to the transactions contemplated by the purchase agreements pursuant to which we acquire Servicer Advance Investments from Ocwen, SLS and Nationstar, and are subject to increased risks as a result of the related servicer continuing to own the mortgage servicing rights. The validity or priority of our interest in the underlying mortgage servicing could be challenged in a bankruptcy proceeding of the servicer, and the related purchase agreement could be rejected in such proceeding. Any of the foregoing events might have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. As part of the Ocwen Transaction, we and Ocwen have agreed to cooperate to obtain any third party consents required to transfer Ocwen’s remaining interest in the Ocwen Subject MSRs to us. As noted above, however, there is no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining those consents.

Many of our investments may be illiquid, and this lack of liquidity could significantly impede our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions or to realize the value at which such investments are carried if we are required to dispose of them.

Many of our investments are illiquid. Illiquidity may result from the absence of an established market for the investments, as well as legal or contractual restrictions on their resale, refinancing or other disposition. Dispositions of investments may be subject to contractual and other limitations on transfer or other restrictions that would interfere with subsequent sales of such investments or adversely affect the terms that could be obtained upon any disposition thereof.

Interests in MSRs are highly illiquid and may be subject to numerous restrictions on transfers, including without limitation the receipt of third-party consents. For example, the Servicing Guidelines of a mortgage owner may require that holders of Excess MSRs obtain the mortgage owner’s prior approval of any change of direct ownership of such Excess MSRs. Such approval may be withheld for any reason or no reason in the discretion of the mortgage owner. Moreover, we have not received and do not expect to receive any assurances from any GSEs that their conditions for the sale by us of any interests in MSRs will not change. Therefore, the potential costs, issues or restrictions associated with receiving such GSEs’ consent for any such dispositions by us cannot be determined with any certainty. Additionally, interests in MSRs may entail complex transaction structures and the risks associated with the transactions and structures are not fully known to buyers or sellers. As a result of the foregoing, we may be unable to locate a buyer at the time we wish to sell interests in MSRs. There is some risk that we will be required to dispose of interests in MSRs either through an in-kind distribution or other liquidation vehicle, which will, in either case, provide little or no economic benefit to us, or a sale to a co-investor in the interests in MSRs, which may be an affiliate. Accordingly, we cannot provide any assurance that we will obtain any return or any benefit of any kind from any disposition of interests in MSRs. We may not benefit from the full term of the assets and for the aforementioned reasons may not receive any benefits from the disposition, if any, of such assets.

In addition, some of our real estate and other securities may not be registered under the relevant securities laws, resulting in a prohibition against their transfer, sale, pledge or other disposition except in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of, or is otherwise in accordance with, those laws. There are also no established trading markets for a majority of our intended investments. Moreover, certain of our investments, including our investments in consumer loans and certain of our interests in MSRs, are made indirectly through a vehicle that owns the underlying assets. Our ability to sell our interest may be contractually limited or prohibited. As a result, our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic and other conditions may be limited.

Our real estate and other securities have historically been valued based primarily on third-party quotations, which are subject to significant variability based on the liquidity and price transparency created by market trading activity. A disruption in these trading markets could reduce the trading for many real estate and other securities, resulting in less transparent prices for those securities, which would make selling such assets more difficult. Moreover, a decline in market demand for the types of assets that we hold would make it more difficult to sell our assets. If we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our illiquid investments quickly, we may realize significantly less than the amount at which we have previously valued these investments.

Market conditions could negatively impact our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

The market in which we operate is affected by a number of factors that are largely beyond our control but can nonetheless have a potentially significant, negative impact on us. These factors include, among other things:

 

Changes in these factors are difficult to predict, and a change in one factor can affect other factors. For example, at various points in time, increased default rates in the subprime mortgage market played a role in causing credit spreads to widen, reducing availability of credit on favorable terms, reducing liquidity and price transparency of real estate related assets, resulting in difficulty in obtaining accurate mark-to-market valuations, and causing a negative perception of the state of the real estate markets and of REITs generally. Market conditions could be volatile or could deteriorate as a result of a variety of factors beyond our control with adverse effects to our financial condition.

The geographic distribution of the loans underlying, and collateral securing, certain of our investments subjects us to geographic real estate market risks, which could adversely affect the performance of our investments, our results of operations and financial condition.

The geographic distribution of the loans underlying, and collateral securing, our investments, including our interests in MSRs, servicer advances, Non-Agency RMBS and loans, exposes us to risks associated with the real estate and commercial lending industry in general within the states and regions in which we hold significant investments. These risks include, without limitation: possible declines in the value of real estate; risks related to general and local economic conditions; possible lack of availability of mortgage funds; overbuilding; extended vacancies of properties; increases in competition, property taxes and operating expenses; changes in zoning laws; increased energy costs; unemployment; costs resulting from the clean-up of, and liability to third parties for damages resulting from, environmental problems; casualty or condemnation losses; uninsured damages from floods, hurricanes, earthquakes or other natural disasters; and changes in interest rates.

As of December 31, 2017 , 24.0% and 19.0% of the total UPB of the residential mortgage loans underlying our Excess MSRs and MSRs, respectively, was secured by properties located in California, which are particularly susceptible to natural disasters such

as fires, earthquakes and mudslides. 8.7% and 6.0% of the total UPB of the residential mortgage loans underlying our Excess MSRs and MSRs, respectively, was secured by properties located in Florida, which are particularly susceptible to natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. As of December 31, 2017 , 38.4% of the collateral securing our Non-Agency RMBS was located in the Western U.S., 23.6% was located in the Southeastern U.S., 20.1% was located in the Northeastern U.S., 10.5% was located in the Midwestern U.S. and 7.3% was located in the Southwestern U.S. We were unable to obtain geographical information for 0.1% of the collateral. As a result of this concentration, we may be more susceptible to adverse developments in those markets than if we owned a more geographically diverse portfolio. To the extent any of the foregoing risks arise in states and regions where we hold significant investments, the performance of our investments, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could suffer a material adverse effect.

Many of the RMBS in which we invest are collateralized by subprime mortgage loans, which are subject to increased risks.

Many of the RMBS in which we invest are backed by collateral pools of subprime residential mortgage loans. “Subprime” mortgage loans refer to mortgage loans that have been originated using underwriting standards that are less restrictive than the underwriting requirements used as standards for other first and junior lien mortgage loan purchase programs, such as the programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These lower standards include mortgage loans made to borrowers having imperfect or impaired credit histories (including outstanding judgments or prior bankruptcies), mortgage loans where the amount of the loan at origination is 80% or more of the value of the mortgage property, mortgage loans made to borrowers with low credit scores, mortgage loans made to borrowers who have other debt that represents a large portion of their income and mortgage loans made to borrowers whose income is not required to be disclosed or verified. Subprime mortgage loans may experience delinquency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and loss rates that are higher, and that may be substantially higher, than those experienced by mortgage loans underwritten in a more traditional manner. Thus, because of the higher delinquency rates and losses associated with subprime mortgage loans, the performance of RMBS backed by subprime mortgage loans could be correspondingly adversely affected, which could adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity, financial condition and business.

The value of our interests in MSRs, servicer advances, residential mortgage loans and RMBS may be adversely affected by deficiencies in servicing and foreclosure practices, as well as related delays in the foreclosure process.

Allegations of deficiencies in servicing and foreclosure practices among several large sellers and servicers of residential mortgage loans that surfaced in 2010 raised various concerns relating to such practices, including the improper execution of the documents used in foreclosure proceedings (so-called “robo signing”), inadequate documentation of transfers and registrations of mortgages and assignments of loans, improper modifications of loans, violations of representations and warranties at the date of securitization and failure to enforce put-backs.

As a result of alleged deficiencies in foreclosure practices, a number of servicers temporarily suspended foreclosure proceedings beginning in the second half of 2010 while they evaluated their foreclosure practices. In late 2010, a group of state attorneys general and state bank and mortgage regulators representing nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia, along with the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), began an investigation into foreclosure practices of banks and servicers. The investigations and lawsuits by several state attorneys general led to a settlement agreement in early February 2012 with five of the nation’s largest banks, pursuant to which the banks agreed to pay more than $25.0 billion to settle claims relating to improper foreclosure practices. The settlement does not prohibit the states, the federal government, individuals or investors from pursuing additional actions against the banks and servicers in the future.

Under the terms of the agreements governing our Servicer Advance Investments and MSRs, we (in certain cases, together with third-party co-investors) are required to make or purchase from certain of our Servicing Partners, servicer advances on certain loan pools. While a residential mortgage loan is in foreclosure, servicers are generally required to continue to advance delinquent principal and interest and to also make advances for delinquent taxes and insurance and foreclosure costs and the upkeep of vacant property in foreclosure to the extent it determines that such amounts are recoverable. Servicer advances are generally recovered when the delinquency is resolved.

Foreclosure moratoria or other actions that lengthen the foreclosure process increase the amount of servicer advances we or our Servicing Partners are required to make, and we are required to purchase, lengthen the time it takes for us to be repaid for such advances and increase the costs incurred during the foreclosure process. In addition, servicer advance financing facilities contain provisions that modify the advance rates for, and limit the eligibility of, servicer advances to be financed based on the length of time that servicer advances are outstanding, and, as a result, an increase in foreclosure timelines could further increase the amount of servicer advances that we need to fund with our own capital. Such increases in foreclosure timelines could increase our need for capital to fund servicer advances (which do not bear interest), which would increase our interest expense, reduce the value of our investment and potentially reduce the cash that we have available to pay our operating expenses or to pay dividends.

Even in states where servicers have not suspended foreclosure proceedings or have lifted (or will soon lift) any such delayed foreclosures, servicers, including our Servicing Partners, have faced, and may continue to face, increased delays and costs in the foreclosure process. For example, the current legislative and regulatory climate could lead borrowers to contest foreclosures that they would not otherwise have contested under ordinary circumstances, and servicers may incur increased litigation costs if the validity of a foreclosure action is challenged by a borrower. In general, regulatory developments with respect to foreclosure practices could result in increases in the amount of servicer advances and the length of time to recover servicer advances, fines or increases in operating expenses, and decreases in the advance rate and availability of financing for servicer advances. This would lead to increased borrowings, reduced cash and higher interest expense which could negatively impact our liquidity and profitability. Although the terms of our Servicer Advance Investments contain adjustment mechanisms that would reduce the amount of performance fees payable to the related Servicing Partner if servicer advances exceed pre-determined amounts, those fee reductions may not be sufficient to cover the expenses resulting from longer foreclosure timelines.

The integrity of the servicing and foreclosure processes is critical to the value of the residential mortgage loans in which we invest and of the portfolios of loans underlying our interests in MSRs and RMBS, and our financial results could be adversely affected by deficiencies in the conduct of those processes. For example, delays in the foreclosure process that have resulted from investigations into improper servicing practices may adversely affect the values of, and result in losses on, these investments. Foreclosure delays may also increase the administrative expenses of the securitization trusts for the RMBS, thereby reducing the amount of funds available for distribution to investors.

In addition, the subordinate classes of securities issued by the securitization trusts may continue to receive interest payments while the defaulted loans remain in the trusts, rather than absorbing the default losses. This may reduce the amount of credit support available for senior classes of RMBS that we may own, thus possibly adversely affecting these securities. Additionally, a substantial portion of the $25.0 billion settlement is a “credit” to the banks and servicers for principal write-downs or reductions they may make to certain mortgages underlying RMBS. There remains uncertainty as to how these principal reductions will work and what effect they will have on the value of related RMBS. As a result, there can be no assurance that any such principal reductions will not adversely affect the value of our interests in MSRs and RMBS.

While we believe that the sellers and servicers would be in violation of the applicable Servicing Guidelines to the extent that they have improperly serviced mortgage loans or improperly executed documents in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings, or do not comply with the terms of servicing contracts when deciding whether to apply principal reductions, it may be difficult, expensive, time consuming and, ultimately, uneconomic for us to enforce our contractual rights. While we cannot predict exactly how the servicing and foreclosure matters or the resulting litigation or settlement agreements will affect our business, there can be no assurance that these matters will not have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

A failure by any or all of the members of Buyer to make capital contributions for amounts required to fund servicer advances could result in an event of default under our advance facilities and a complete loss of our investment.

As described in Note 6 to our Consolidated Financial Statements, New Residential and third-party co-investors, through a joint venture entity (Advance Purchaser LLC, the “Buyer”) have agreed to purchase all future arising servicer advances from Nationstar under certain residential mortgage servicing agreements. Buyer relies, in part, on its members to make committed capital contributions in order to pay the purchase price for future servicer advances. A failure by any or all of the members to make such capital contributions for amounts required to fund servicer advances could result in an event of default under our advance facilities and a complete loss of our investment.

The residential mortgage loans underlying the securities we invest in and the loans we directly invest in are subject to delinquency, foreclosure and loss, which could result in losses to us.

Mortgage backed securities are securities backed by mortgage loans. The ability of borrowers to repay these mortgage loans is dependent upon the income or assets of these borrowers. If a borrower has insufficient income or assets to repay these loans, it will default on its loan. Our investments in RMBS will be adversely affected by defaults under the loans underlying such securities. To the extent losses are realized on the loans underlying the securities in which we invest, we may not recover the amount invested in, or, in extreme cases, any of our investment in such securities.

Residential mortgage loans, including manufactured housing loans and subprime mortgage loans, are secured by single-family residential property and are also subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure, and risks of loss. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by a residential property is dependent upon the income or assets of the borrower. A number of factors may impair borrowers’ abilities to repay their loans, including, among other things, changes in the borrower’s employment status, changes in national, regional or local economic conditions, changes in interest rates or the availability of credit on favorable terms, changes in regional or local real estate values, changes in regional or local rental rates and changes in real estate taxes.

In the event of default under a residential 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 outstanding principal and accrued but unpaid interest of the loan, which could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

Our investments in real estate and other securities are subject to changes in credit spreads as well as available market liquidity, which could adversely affect our ability to realize gains on the sale of such investments.

Real estate and other securities are subject to changes in credit spreads. Credit spreads measure the yield demanded on securities by the market based on their credit relative to a specific benchmark.

Fixed rate securities are valued based on a market credit spread over the rate payable on fixed rate U.S. Treasuries of like maturity. Floating rate securities are valued based on a market credit spread over LIBOR and are affected similarly by changes in LIBOR spreads. As of December 31, 2017 , 90.5% of our Non-Agency RMBS Portfolio consisted of floating rate securities and 9.5% consisted of fixed rate securities, and 9.2% of our Agency RMBS portfolio consisted of floating rate securities and 90.8% consisted of fixed rate securities, based on the amortized cost basis of all securities (including the amortized cost basis of interest-only and residual classes). Excessive supply of these securities combined with reduced demand will generally cause the market to require a higher yield on these securities, resulting in the use of a higher, or “wider,” spread over the benchmark rate to value such securities. Under such conditions, the value of our real estate and other securities portfolios would tend to decline. Conversely, if the spread used to value such securities were to decrease, or “tighten,” the value of our real estate and other securities portfolio would tend to increase. Such changes in the market value of our real estate securities portfolios may affect our net equity, net income or cash flow directly through their impact on unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale securities, and therefore our ability to realize gains on such securities, or indirectly through their impact on our ability to borrow and access capital. Widening credit spreads could cause the net unrealized gains on our securities and derivatives, recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income or retained earnings, and therefore our book value per share, to decrease and result in net losses.

Prepayment rates on our residential mortgage loans and those underlying our real estate and other securities may adversely affect our profitability.

In general, residential mortgage loans may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Prepayments result when homeowners/mortgagors satisfy (i.e., pay off) the mortgage upon selling or refinancing their mortgaged property. When we acquire a particular loan or security, we anticipate that the loan or underlying residential mortgage loans will prepay at a projected rate which, together with expected coupon income, provides us with an expected yield on such investments. If we purchase assets at a premium to par value, and borrowers prepay their mortgage loans faster than expected, the corresponding prepayments on our assets may reduce the expected yield on such assets because we will have to amortize the related premium on an accelerated basis. Conversely, if we purchase assets at a discount to par value, when borrowers prepay their mortgage loans slower than expected, the decrease in corresponding prepayments on our assets may reduce the expected yield on such assets because we will not be able to accrete the related discount as quickly as originally anticipated.

Prepayment rates on loans are influenced by changes in mortgage and market interest rates and a variety of economic, geographic, political and other factors, all of which are beyond our control. Consequently, such prepayment rates cannot be predicted with certainty and no strategy can completely insulate us from prepayment or other such risks. In periods of declining interest rates, prepayment rates on mortgage loans generally increase. If general interest rates decline at the same time, the proceeds of such prepayments received during such periods are likely to be reinvested by us in assets yielding less than the yields on the assets that were prepaid. In addition, the market value of our loans and real estate and other securities may, because of the risk of prepayment, benefit less than other fixed-income securities from declining interest rates.

We may purchase assets that have a higher or lower coupon rate than the prevailing market interest rates. In exchange for a higher coupon rate, we would then pay a premium over par value to acquire these securities. In accordance with GAAP, we would amortize the premiums over the life of the related assets. If the mortgage loans securing these assets prepay at a more rapid rate than anticipated, we would have to amortize our premiums on an accelerated basis which may adversely affect our profitability. As compensation for a lower coupon rate, we would then pay a discount to par value to acquire these assets. In accordance with GAAP, we would accrete any discounts over the life of the related assets. If the mortgage loans securing these assets prepay at a slower rate than anticipated, we would have to accrete our discounts on an extended basis which may adversely affect our profitability. Defaults on the mortgage loans underlying Agency RMBS typically have the same effect as prepayments because of the underlying Agency guarantee.

Prepayments, which are the primary feature of mortgage backed securities that distinguish them from other types of bonds, are difficult to predict and can vary significantly over time. As the holder of the security, on a monthly basis, we receive a payment

equal to a portion of our investment principal in a particular security as the underlying mortgages are prepaid. In general, on the date each month that principal prepayments are announced (i.e., factor day), the value of our real estate related security pledged as collateral under our repurchase agreements is reduced by the amount of the prepaid principal and, as a result, our lenders will typically initiate a margin call requiring the pledge of additional collateral or cash, in an amount equal to such prepaid principal, in order to re-establish the required ratio of borrowing to collateral value under such repurchase agreements. Accordingly, with respect to our Agency RMBS, the announcement on factor day of principal prepayments is in advance of our receipt of the related scheduled payment, thereby creating a short-term receivable for us in the amount of any such principal prepayments. However, under our repurchase agreements, we may receive a margin call relating to the related reduction in value of our Agency RMBS and, prior to receipt of this short-term receivable, be required to post additional collateral or cash in the amount of the principal prepayment on or about factor day, which would reduce our liquidity during the period in which the short-term receivable is outstanding. As a result, in order to meet any such margin calls, we could be forced to sell assets in order to maintain liquidity. Forced sales under adverse market conditions may result in lower sales prices than ordinary market sales made in the normal course of business. If our real estate and other securities were liquidated at prices below our amortized cost (i.e., the cost basis) of such assets, we would incur losses, which could adversely affect our earnings. In addition, in order to continue to earn a return on this prepaid principal, we must reinvest it in additional real estate and other securities or other assets; however, if interest rates decline, we may earn a lower return on our new investments as compared to the real estate and other securities that prepay.

Prepayments may have a negative impact on our financial results, the effects of which depend on, among other things, the timing and amount of the prepayment delay on our Agency RMBS, the amount of unamortized premium or discount on our loans and real estate and other securities, the rate at which prepayments are made on our Non-Agency RMBS, the reinvestment lag and the availability of suitable reinvestment opportunities.

Our investments in loans, REO and RMBS may be subject to significant impairment charges, which would adversely affect our results of operations.

We will be required to periodically evaluate our investments for impairment indicators. The value of an investment is impaired when our analysis indicates that, with respect to a security, it is probable that the value of the security is other-than-temporarily impaired. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based on a variety of factors depending upon the nature of the investment and the manner in which the income related to such investment was calculated for purposes of our financial statements. If we determine that an impairment has occurred, we are required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of the investment, which would adversely affect our results of operations in the applicable period and thereby adversely affect our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

The lenders under our financing agreements may elect not to extend financing to us, which could quickly and seriously impair our liquidity.

We finance a meaningful portion of our investments with repurchase agreements and other short-term financing arrangements. Under the terms of repurchase agreements, we will sell an asset to the lending counterparty for a specified price and concurrently agree to repurchase the same asset from our counterparty at a later date for a higher specified price. During the term of the repurchase agreement—which can be as short as 30 days—the counterparty will make funds available to us and hold the asset as collateral. Our counterparties can also require us to post additional margin as collateral at any time during the term of the agreement. When the term of a repurchase agreement ends, we will be required to repurchase the asset for the specified repurchase price, with the difference between the sale and repurchase prices serving as the equivalent of paying interest to the counterparty in return for extending financing to us. If we want to continue to finance the asset with a repurchase agreement, we ask the counterparty to extend—or “roll”—the repurchase agreement for another term.

Our counterparties are not required to roll our repurchase agreements or other financing agreements upon the expiration of their stated terms, which subjects us to a number of risks. Counterparties electing to roll our financing agreements may charge higher spread and impose more onerous terms upon us, including the requirement that we post additional margin as collateral. More significantly, if a financing agreement counterparty elects not to extend our financing, we would be required to pay the counterparty in full on the maturity date and find an alternate source of financing. Alternate sources of financing may be more expensive, contain more onerous terms or simply may not be available. If we were unable to pay the repurchase price for any asset financed with a repurchase agreement, the counterparty has the right to sell the asset being held as collateral and require us to compensate it for any shortfall between the value of our obligation to the counterparty and the amount for which the collateral was sold (which may be a significantly discounted price). Moreover, our financing agreement obligations are currently with a limited number of counterparties. If any of our counterparties elected not to roll our financing agreements, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty in a timely manner. Finally, some of our financing agreements contain covenants and our failure to comply with such covenants could result in a loss of our investment.

The financing sources under our servicer advance financing facilities may elect not to extend financing to us or may have or take positions adverse to us, which could quickly and seriously impair our liquidity.

We finance a meaningful portion of our Servicer Advance Investments and servicer advances receivable with structured financing arrangements. These arrangements are commonly of a short-term nature. These arrangements are generally accomplished by having the named servicer, if the named servicer is a subsidiary of the Company, or the purchaser of such Servicer Advance Investments (which is a subsidiary of the Company) transfer our right to repayment for certain servicer advances that we have as servicer under the relevant Servicing Guidelines or that we have acquired from one of our Servicing Partners, as applicable, to one of our wholly owned bankruptcy remote subsidiaries (a “Depositor”). We are generally required to continue to transfer to the related Depositor all of our rights to repayment for any particular pool of servicer advances as they arise (and, if applicable, are transferred from one of our Servicing Partners) until the related financing arrangement is paid in full and is terminated. The related Depositor then transfers such rights to an “Issuer.” The Issuer then issues limited recourse notes to the financing sources backed by such rights to repayment.

The outstanding balance of servicer advances securing these arrangements is not likely to be repaid on or before the maturity date of such financing arrangements. Accordingly, we rely heavily on our financing sources to extend or refinance the terms of such financing arrangements. Our financing sources are not required to extend the arrangements upon the expiration of their stated terms, which subjects us to a number of risks. Financing sources electing to extend may charge higher interest rates and impose more onerous terms upon us, including without limitation, lowering the amount of financing that can be extended against any particular pool of servicer advances.

If a financing source is unable or unwilling to extend financing, including, but not limited to, due to legal or regulatory matters applicable to us or our Servicing Partners, the related Issuer will be required to repay the outstanding balance of the financing on the related maturity date. Additionally, there may be substantial increases in the interest rates under a financing arrangement if the related notes are not repaid, extended or refinanced prior to the expected repayment dated, which may be before the related maturity date. If an Issuer is unable to pay the outstanding balance of the notes, the financing sources generally have the right to foreclose on the servicer advances pledged as collateral.

Currently, certain of the notes issued under our structured servicer advance financing arrangements accrue interest at a floating rate of interest. Servicer advances are non-interest bearing assets. Accordingly, if there is an increase in prevailing interest rates and/or our financing sources increase the interest rate “margins” or “spreads.” the amount of financing that we could obtain against any particular pool of servicer advances may decrease substantially and/or we may be required to obtain interest rate hedging arrangements. There is no assurance that we will be able to obtain any such interest rate hedging arrangements.

Alternate sources of financing may be more expensive, contain more onerous terms or simply may not be available. Moreover, our structured servicer advance financing arrangements are currently with a limited number of counterparties. If any of our sources are unable to or elected not to extend or refinance such arrangements, we may not be able to find a replacement counterparty in a timely manner.

Many of our servicer advance financing arrangements are provided by financial institutions with whom we have substantial relationships. Some of our servicer advance financing arrangements entail the issuance of term notes to capital markets investors with whom we have little or no relationships or the identities of which we may not be aware and, therefore, we have no ability to control or monitor the identity of the holders of such term notes. Holders of such term notes may have or may take positions - for example, “short” positions in our stock or the stock of our servicers - that could be benefited by adverse events with respect to us or our Servicing Partners. If any holders of term notes allege or assert noncompliance by us or the related Servicing Partner under our servicer advance financing arrangements in order to realize such benefits, we or our Servicing Partners, or our ability to maintain servicer advance financing on favorable terms, could be materially and adversely affected.

In order to continue to finance servicer advances and deferred servicing fees arising in connection with the Ocwen Subject MSRs upon any transfer in connection with the Ocwen Transaction, we will need to amend our existing servicer advance financing facilities (or establish new servicer advance financing facilities) related to the Ocwen Subject MSRs to permit such continued financing. There is no assurance we will able to do so on favorable terms or at all. As of December 31, 2017 , we had borrowed $2.6 billion against approximately $3.0 billion of servicer advances and deferred servicing fees arising under the Ocwen Subject MSRs that had not yet been transferred. Our obligation to pay Ocwen lump sum payments in connection with any transfer of interests in the Ocwen Subject MSRs in connection with the Ocwen Transaction is not conditioned on having such servicer advance financings amended (or having new servicer advance financing facilities established).

We may not be able to finance our investments on attractive terms or at all, and financing for interests in MSRs or servicer advances may be particularly difficult to obtain.

The ability to finance investments with securitizations or other long-term non-recourse financing not subject to margin requirements has been more challenging since 2007 as a result of market conditions. These conditions may result in having to use less efficient forms of financing for any new investments, or the refinancing of current investments, which will likely require a larger portion of our cash flows to be put toward making the investment and thereby reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders and funds available for operations and investments, and which will also likely require us to assume higher levels of risk when financing our investments. In addition, there is a limited market for financing of interests in MSRs, and it is possible that one will not develop for a variety of reasons, such as the challenges with perfecting security interests in the underlying collateral.

Certain of our advance facilities may mature in the short term, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to renew these facilities on favorable terms or at all. Moreover, an increase in delinquencies with respect to the loans underlying our servicer advances could result in the need for additional financing, which may not be available to us on favorable terms or at all. If we are not able to obtain adequate financing to purchase servicer advances from our Servicing Partners or fund servicer advances under our MSRs in accordance with the applicable Servicing Guidelines, we or any such Servicing Partner, as applicable, could default on its obligation to fund such advances, which could result in its termination of us or any applicable Servicing Partner, as applicable, as servicer under the applicable Servicing Guidelines, and a partial or total loss of our interests in MSRs and servicer advances, as applicable.

The non-recourse long-term financing structures we use expose us to risks, which could result in losses to us.

We use structured finance and other non-recourse long-term financing for our investments to the extent available and appropriate. In such structures, our financing sources typically have only a claim against the assets included in the securitizations rather than a general claim against us as an entity. Prior to any such financing, we would seek to finance our investments with relatively short-term facilities until a sufficient portfolio is accumulated. As a result, we would be subject to the risk that we would not be able to 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 seek and acquire sufficient eligible assets or securities for a securitization. In addition, conditions in the capital markets may make the issuance of any such securitization less attractive to us even when we do have sufficient eligible assets or securities. While we would generally intend to retain a portion of the interests issued under such 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. Our inability to refinance any short-term facilities would also increase our risk because borrowings thereunder would likely be recourse to us as an entity. If we are unable to obtain and renew short-term facilities or to consummate securitizations to finance our investments on a long-term basis, we may be required to seek other forms of potentially less attractive financing or to liquidate assets at an inopportune time or price.

The final Basel FRTB Ruling, which raised capital charges for bank holders of ABS, CMBS and Non-Agency MBS beginning in 2019, could adversely impact available trading liquidity and access to financing.

In January 2006, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision released a finalized framework for calculating minimum capital requirements for market risk, which will take effect in January 2019. In the final proposal, capital requirements would overall be meaningfully higher than current requirements, but are less punitive than the previous December 2014 proposal. However, each country’s specific regulator may codify the rules differently. Under the framework, capital charges on a bond are calculated based on three components: default, market and residual risk. Implementation of the final proposal could impose meaningfully higher capital charges on dealers compared with current requirements, and could reduce liquidity in the securitized products market.

Risks associated with our investment in the consumer loan sector could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

Our portfolio includes an investment in the consumer loan sector. Although many of the risks applicable to consumer loans are also applicable to residential mortgage loans, and thus the type of risks that we have experience managing, there are nevertheless substantial risks and uncertainties associated with engaging in a different category of investment. There may be factors that affect the consumer loan sector with which we are not as familiar compared to the residential mortgage loan sector. Moreover, our underwriting assumptions for these investments may prove to be materially incorrect. It is also possible that the inclusion of consumer loans in our investment portfolio could divert our Manager’s time away from our other investments. Furthermore, external factors, such as compliance with regulations, may also impact our ability to succeed in the consumer loan investment

sector. In addition, one of our consumer loan investments is held through LoanCo (Note 9 to our Consolidated Financial Statements), in which we hold a minority, non-controlling interest. We do not control LoanCo and, as a result, LoanCo may make decisions, or take risks, that we would otherwise not make, and LoanCo may not have access to the same management and financing expertise that we have. Failure to successfully manage these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

The consumer loans we invest in are subject to delinquency and loss, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

The ability of borrowers to repay the consumer loans we invest in may be adversely affected by numerous personal factors, including unemployment, divorce, major medical expenses or personal bankruptcy. General factors, including an economic downturn, high energy costs or acts of God or terrorism, may also affect the financial stability of borrowers and impair their ability or willingness to repay the consumer loans in our investment portfolio. Furthermore, our returns on our consumer loan investments are dependent on the interest we receive exceeding any losses we may incur from defaults or delinquencies.The relatively higher interest rates paid by consumer loan borrowers could lead to increased delinquencies and defaults, or could lead to financially stronger borrowers prepaying their loans, thereby reducing the interest we receive from them, while financially weaker borrowers become delinquent or default, either of which would reduce the return on our investment or could cause losses.

In the event of any default under a loan in the consumer loan portfolio in which we have invested, we will bear a risk of loss of principal to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the collateral securing the loan, if any, and the principal and accrued interest of the loan. In addition, our investments in consumer loans may entail greater risk than our investments in residential mortgage loans, particularly in the case of consumer loans that are unsecured or secured by assets that depreciate rapidly. In such cases, repossessed collateral for a defaulted consumer loan may not provide an adequate source of repayment for the outstanding loan and the remaining deficiency often does not warrant further substantial collection efforts against the borrower. Further, repossessing personal property securing a consumer loan can present additional challenges, including locating the collateral and taking possession of it. In addition, borrowers under consumer loans may have lower credit scores. There can be no guarantee that we will not suffer unexpected losses on our investments as a result of the factors set out above, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

The servicer of the loans underlying our consumer loan investment may not be able to accurately track the default status of senior lien loans in instances where our consumer loan investments are secured by second or third liens on real estate.

A portion of our investment in consumer loans is secured by second and third liens on real estate. When we hold the second or third lien, another creditor or creditors, as applicable, holds the first and/or second, as applicable, lien on the real estate that is the subject of the security. In these situations our second or third lien is subordinate in right of payment to the first and/or second, as applicable, holder’s right to receive payment. Moreover, as the servicer of the loans underlying our consumer loan portfolio is not able to track the default status of a senior lien loan in instances where we do not hold the related first mortgage, the value of the second or third lien loans in our portfolio may be lower than our estimates indicate.

The consumer loan investment sector is subject to various initiatives on the part of advocacy groups and extensive regulation and supervision under federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

In recent years consumer advocacy groups and some media reports have advocated governmental action to prohibit or place severe restrictions on the types of short-term consumer loans in which we have invested. Such consumer advocacy groups and media reports generally focus on the annual percentage rate to a consumer for this type of loan, which is compared unfavorably to the interest typically charged by banks to consumers with top-tier credit histories.

The fees charged on the consumer loans in the portfolio in which we have invested may be perceived as controversial by those who do not focus on the credit risk and high transaction costs typically associated with this type of investment. If the negative characterization of these types of loans becomes increasingly accepted by consumers, demand for the consumer loan products in which we have invested could significantly decrease. Additionally, if the negative characterization of these types of loans is accepted by legislators and regulators, we could become subject to more restrictive laws and regulations in the area.

In addition, we are, or may become, subject to federal, state and local laws, regulations, or regulatory policies and practices, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) (which, among other things, established the CFPB with broad authority to regulate and examine financial institutions), which may, amongst other things, limit the amount of interest or fees allowed to be charged on the consumer loans we invest in, or the number of consumer loans that customers may receive or have outstanding. The operation of existing or future laws, ordinances and regulations could interfere with the focus of our investments which could have a negative impact on our financial results.

A significant portion of the residential mortgage loans that we acquire are, or may become, sub-performing loans, non-performing loans or REO assets, which increases our risk of loss.

We acquire distressed residential mortgage loans where the borrower has failed to make timely payments of principal and/or interest. As part of the residential mortgage loan portfolios we purchase, we also may acquire performing loans that are or subsequently become sub-performing or non-performing, meaning the borrowers fail to timely pay some or all of the required payments of principal and/or interest. Under current market conditions, it is likely that some 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.

The borrowers on sub-performing or non-performing loans may be in economic distress and may have become unemployed, bankrupt or otherwise unable or unwilling to make payments when due. Borrowers may also face difficulties with refinancing such loans, including due to reduced availability of refinancing alternatives and insufficient equity in their homes to permit them to refinance. Increases in mortgage interest rates would exacerbate these difficulties. We may need to foreclose on collateral securing such loans, and the foreclosure process can be lengthy and expensive. Furthermore, REO assets (i.e., real estate owned by the lender upon completion of the foreclosure process) are relatively illiquid, and we may not be able to sell such REO assets on terms acceptable to us or at all.

Even though we typically pay less than the amount owed on these loans to acquire them, if actual results differ from our assumptions in determining the price we paid to acquire such loans, we may incur significant losses. In addition, we may acquire REO assets directly, which involves the same risks. Any loss we incur may be significant and could materially and adversely affect us.

Certain jurisdictions require licenses to purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans and/or MSRs, and we may not be able to obtain and/or maintain such licenses.

Certain jurisdictions require a license to purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans and/or MSRs. We currently hold some but not all such licenses. In the event that any licensing requirement is applicable to us, there can be no assurance that we will obtain such licenses or, if obtained, that we will be able to maintain them. Our failure to obtain or maintain such licenses could restrict our ability to invest in loans in these jurisdictions if such licensing requirements are applicable. With respect to mortgage loans, in lieu of obtaining such licenses, we may contribute our acquired residential mortgage loans to one or more wholly owned trusts whose trustee is a national bank, which may be exempt from state licensing requirements. We have formed one or more subsidiaries to apply for certain state licenses. If these subsidiaries obtain the required licenses, any trust holding loans in the applicable jurisdictions may transfer such loans to such subsidiaries, resulting in these loans being held by a state-licensed entity. There can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain the requisite licenses in a timely manner or at all or in all necessary jurisdictions, or that the use of the trusts will reduce the requirement for licensing. In addition, even if we obtain necessary licenses, we may not be able to maintain them. Any of these circumstances could limit our ability to invest in residential mortgage loans or MSRs in the future and have a material adverse effect on us.

Our determination of how much leverage to apply to our investments may adversely affect our return on our investments and may reduce cash available for distribution.

We leverage certain of our assets through a variety of borrowings. Our investment guidelines do not limit the amount of leverage we may incur with respect to any specific asset or pool of assets. The return we are able to earn on our investments and cash available for distribution to our stockholders may be significantly reduced due to changes in market conditions, which may cause the cost of our financing to increase relative to the income that can be derived from our assets.

A significant portion of our investments are not match funded, which may increase the risks associated with these investments.

When available, a match funding strategy mitigates the risk of not being able to refinance an investment on favorable terms or at all. However, our Manager may elect for us to bear a level of refinancing risk on a short-term or longer-term basis, as in the case of investments financed with repurchase agreements, when, based on its analysis, our Manager determines that bearing such risk is advisable or unavoidable. In addition, we may be unable, as a result of conditions in the credit markets, to match fund our investments. For example since the 2008 recession, non-recourse term financing not subject to margin requirements has been more difficult to obtain, which impairs our ability to match fund our investments. Moreover, we may not be able to enter into interest rate swaps. A decision not to, or the inability to, match fund certain investments exposes us to additional risks.

Furthermore, we anticipate that, in most cases, for any period during which our floating rate assets are not match funded with respect to maturity, the income from such assets may respond more slowly to interest rate fluctuations than the cost of our borrowings.

Because of this dynamic, interest income from such investments may rise more slowly than the related interest expense, with a consequent decrease in our net income. Interest rate fluctuations resulting in our interest expense exceeding interest income would result in operating losses for us from these investments.

Accordingly, to the extent our investments are not match funded with respect to maturities and interest rates, we are exposed to the risk that we may not be able to finance or refinance our investments on economically favorable terms, or at all, or may have to liquidate assets at a loss.

Interest rate fluctuations and shifts in the yield curve may cause losses.

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. Our primary interest rate exposures relate to our interests in MSRs, RMBS, loans, derivatives and any floating rate debt obligations that we may incur. Changes in interest rates, including changes in expected interest rates or “yield curves,” affect our business in a number of ways. Changes in the general level of interest rates can affect our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income earned on our interest-earning assets and the interest expense incurred in connection with our interest-bearing liabilities and hedges. Changes in the level of interest rates also can affect, among other things, our ability to acquire real estate and other securities and loans at attractive prices, the value of our real estate and other securities, loans and derivatives and our ability to realize gains from the sale of such assets. We may wish to use hedging transactions to protect certain positions from interest rate fluctuations, but we may not be able to do so as a result of market conditions, REIT rules or other reasons. In such event, interest rate fluctuations could adversely affect our financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Recently, the Federal Reserve has increased the benchmark interest rate and indicated that there may be further increases in the future. In the event of a significant rising interest rate environment and/or economic downturn, loan and collateral defaults may increase and result in credit losses that would adversely affect our liquidity and operating results.

Our ability to execute our business strategy, particularly the growth of our investment portfolio, depends to a significant degree on our ability to obtain additional capital. Our financing strategy is dependent on our ability to place the debt we use to finance our investments at rates that provide a positive net spread. If spreads for such liabilities widen or if demand for such liabilities ceases to exist, then our ability to execute future financings will be severely restricted.

Interest rate changes may also impact our net book value as most of our investments are marked to market each quarter. Debt obligations are not marked to market. Generally, as interest rates increase, the value of our fixed rate securities decreases, which will decrease the book value of our equity.

Furthermore, shifts in the U.S. Treasury yield curve reflecting an increase in interest rates would also affect the yield required on our investments and therefore their value. For example, increasing interest rates would reduce the value of the fixed rate assets we hold at the time because the higher yields required by increased interest rates result in lower market prices on existing fixed rate assets in order to adjust the yield upward to meet the market, and vice versa. This would have similar effects on our real estate and other securities and loan portfolio and our financial position and operations to a change in interest rates generally.

Any hedging transactions that we enter into may limit our gains or result in losses.

We may use, when feasible and appropriate, derivatives to hedge a portion of our interest rate exposure, and this approach has certain risks, including the risk that losses on a hedge position will reduce the cash available for distribution to stockholders and that such losses may exceed the amount invested in such instruments. We have adopted a general policy with respect to the use of derivatives, which generally allows us to use derivatives where appropriate, but does not set forth specific policies and procedures or require that we hedge any specific amount of risk. From time to time, we may use derivative instruments, including forwards, futures, swaps and options, in our risk management strategy to limit the effects of changes in interest rates on our operations. A hedge may not be effective in eliminating all of the risks inherent in any particular position. Our profitability may be adversely affected during any period as a result of the use of derivatives.

There are limits to the ability of any hedging strategy to protect us completely against interest rate risks. When rates change, we expect the gain or loss on derivatives to be offset by a related but inverse change in the value of any items that we hedge. We cannot assure you, however, that our use of derivatives will offset the risks related to changes in interest rates. We cannot assure you that our hedging strategy and the derivatives that we use will adequately offset the risk of interest rate volatility or that our hedging transactions will not result in losses. In addition, our hedging strategy may limit our flexibility by causing us to refrain from taking certain actions that would be potentially profitable but would cause adverse consequences under the terms of our hedging arrangements. The REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code limit our ability to hedge. In managing our hedge

instruments, we consider the effect of the expected hedging income on the REIT qualification tests that limit the amount of gross income that a REIT may receive from hedging. We need to carefully monitor, and may have to limit, our hedging strategy to assure that we do not realize hedging income, or hold hedges having a value, in excess of the amounts that would cause us to fail the REIT gross income and asset tests. See “—Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT—Complying with the REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge effectively.”

Accounting for derivatives under GAAP is extremely complicated. Any failure by us to account for our derivatives properly in accordance with GAAP in our financial statements could adversely affect us. In addition, under applicable accounting standards, we may be required to treat some of our investments as derivatives, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

Maintenance of our 1940 Act exclusion imposes limits on our operations.

We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that neither we nor any of our subsidiaries are required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. We believe we will not be considered an investment company under Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act because we will not engage primarily, or hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. However, under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act, because we are a holding company that will conduct its businesses primarily through wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries, the securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” under Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we may own, may not have a combined value in excess of 40% of the value of our total assets (exclusive of U.S. Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis, unless another exclusion from the definition of “investment company” is available to us. For purposes of the foregoing, we currently treat our interest in our SLS Servicer Advance Investment and our subsidiaries that hold consumer loans as investment securities because these subsidiaries presently rely on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act. The 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act limits the types of businesses in which we may engage through our subsidiaries. In addition, the assets we and our subsidiaries may originate or acquire are limited by the provisions of the 1940 Act and the rules and regulations promulgated under the 1940 Act, which may adversely affect our business.

If the value of securities issued by our subsidiaries that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, together with any other investment securities we own, exceeds the 40% test under Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act (e.g., the value of our interests in the taxable REIT subsidiaries that hold Servicer Advance Investments and are not excluded from the definition of “investment company” by Section 3(c)(5)(A), (B) or (C) of the 1940 Act increases significantly in proportion to the value of our other assets), or if one or more of such subsidiaries fail to maintain an exclusion or exception from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either (a) to substantially change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company or (b) to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, either of which could have an adverse effect on us and the market price of our securities. As discussed above, for purposes of the foregoing, we generally treat our interests in our SLS Servicer Advance Investment and our subsidiaries that hold consumer loans as investment securities because these subsidiaries presently rely on the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act. If we or any of our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, the registered entity would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to capital structure (including the ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly change our operations.

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

For purposes of the foregoing, we treat our interests in certain of our wholly owned and majority owned subsidiaries, which constitute more than 60% of the value of our adjusted total assets on an unconsolidated basis, as non-investment securities because such subsidiaries qualify for exclusion from the definition of an investment company under the 1940 Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion is available for entities “primarily engaged” in the business of “purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” The Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion generally requires that at least 55% of these subsidiaries’ assets must comprise qualifying real estate assets and at least 80% of each of their portfolios must comprise qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets under the 1940 Act. We expect each of our subsidiaries relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) to rely on guidance published by the SEC staff or on our analyses of such guidance to

determine which assets are qualifying real estate assets and real estate-related assets. However, the SEC’s guidance was issued in accordance with factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations each of our subsidiaries may face, and much of the guidance was issued more than 20 years ago. No assurance can be given that the SEC staff will concur with the classification of each of our subsidiaries’ assets. In addition, the SEC staff may, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to re-classify some of our subsidiaries’ assets for purposes of qualifying for an exclusion from regulation under the 1940 Act. For example, the SEC and its staff have not published guidance with respect to the treatment of whole pool Non-Agency RMBS for purposes of the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. Accordingly, based on our own judgment and analysis of the guidance from the SEC and its staff identifying Agency whole pool certificates as qualifying real estate assets under Section 3(c)(5)(C), we treat whole pool Non-Agency RMBS issued with respect to an underlying pool of mortgage loans in which our subsidiary relying on Section 3(c)(5)(C) holds all of the certificates issued by the pool as qualifying real estate assets. Based on our own judgment and analysis of the guidance from the SEC and its staff with respect to analogous assets, we treat Excess MSRs for which we do not own the related servicing rights as real estate-related assets for purposes of satisfying the 80% test under the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion. If we are required to re-classify any of our subsidiaries’ assets, including those subsidiaries holding whole pool Non-Agency RMBS and/or Excess MSRs, such subsidiaries may no longer be in compliance with the exclusion from the definition of an “investment company” provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act, and in turn, we may not satisfy the requirements to avoid falling within the definition of an “investment company” provided by Section 3(a)(1)(C). To the extent that the SEC staff publishes new or different guidance or disagrees with our analysis with respect to any assets of our subsidiaries we have determined to be qualifying real estate assets or real estate-related assets, we may be required to adjust our strategy accordingly. In addition, we may be limited in our ability to make certain investments and these limitations could result in a subsidiary holding assets we might wish to sell or selling assets we might wish to hold.

In August 2011, the SEC issued a concept release soliciting public comments on a wide range of issues relating to companies engaged in the business of acquiring mortgages and mortgage-related instruments and that rely on Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the 1940 Act. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the laws and regulations governing the 1940 Act status of REITs, or guidance from the SEC or its staff regarding the Section 3(c)(5)(C) exclusion, will not change in a manner that adversely affects our operations. If we or our subsidiaries fail to maintain an exclusion or exception from the 1940 Act, we could, among other things, be required either to (a) change the manner in which we conduct our operations to avoid being required to register as an investment company, (b) effect sales of our assets in a manner that, or at a time when, we would not otherwise choose to do so, or (c) register as an investment company, any of which could negatively affect the value of our common stock, the sustainability of our business model, and our ability to make distributions. In addition, if we or any of our subsidiaries were required to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act, the registered entity would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to capital structure (including the ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the 1940 Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting, proxy disclosure and other rules and regulations that would significantly change our operations.

Rapid changes in the values of our assets may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exclusion from the 1940 Act.

If the market value or income potential of qualifying assets for purposes of our qualification as a REIT or our exclusion from registration as an investment company under the 1940 Act declines as a result of increased interest rates, changes in prepayment rates or other factors, or the market value or income from non-qualifying assets increases, we may need to increase our investments in qualifying assets and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets to maintain our REIT qualification or our exclusion from registration under the 1940 Act. If the change in market values or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of any non-qualifying assets we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent the intent to maintain our qualification as a REIT and exclusion from registration under the 1940 Act.

We are subject to significant competition, and we may not compete successfully.

We are subject to significant competition in seeking investments. We compete with other companies, including other REITs, insurance companies and other investors, including funds and companies affiliated with our Manager. Some of our competitors have greater resources than we possess or have greater access to capital or various types of financing structures than are available to us, and we may not be able to compete successfully for investments or provide attractive investment returns relative to our competitors. These competitors may be willing to accept lower returns on their investments and, as a result, our profit margins could be adversely affected. Furthermore, competition for investments that are suitable for us, including, but not limited to, interests in MSRs, may lead to decreased availability, higher market prices and decreased returns available from such investments, which may further limit our ability to generate our desired returns. We cannot assure you that other companies will not be formed that compete with us for investments or otherwise pursue investment strategies similar to ours or that we will be able to compete successfully against any such companies.

Furthermore, we currently do not have a mortgage servicing platform. Therefore, we may not be an attractive buyer for those sellers of MSRs that prefer to sell MSRs and their mortgage servicing platform in a single transaction. Since our business model does not currently include acquiring and running servicing platforms, to engage in a bid for such a business we would need to find a servicer to acquire and run the platform or we would need to incur additional costs to shut down the acquired servicing platform. The need to work with a servicer in these situations increases the complexity of such potential acquisitions, and our Servicing Partners may be unwilling or unable to act as servicer or subservicer on any acquisitions of interests in MSRs we want to execute. The complexity of these transactions and the additional costs incurred by us if we were to execute future acquisitions of this type could adversely affect our future operating results.

The valuations of our assets are subject to uncertainty because most of our assets are not traded in an active market.

There is not anticipated to be an active market for most of the assets in which we will invest. In the absence of market comparisons, we will use other pricing methodologies, including, for example, models based on assumptions regarding expected trends, historical trends following market conditions believed to be comparable to the then current market conditions and other factors believed at the time to be likely to influence the potential resale price of, or the potential cash flows derived from, an investment. Such methodologies may not prove to be accurate and any inability to accurately price assets may result in adverse consequences for us. A valuation is only an estimate of value and is not a precise measure of realizable value. Ultimate realization of the market value of a private asset depends to a great extent on economic and other conditions beyond our control. Further, valuations do not necessarily represent the price at which a private investment would sell since market prices of private investments can only be determined by negotiation between a willing buyer and seller. If we were to liquidate a particular private investment, the realized value may be more than or less than the valuation of such asset as carried on our books.

Changes in accounting rules could occur at any time and could impact us in significantly negative ways that we are unable to predict or protect against.

As has been widely publicized, the SEC, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and other regulatory bodies that establish the accounting rules applicable to us have recently proposed or enacted a wide array of changes to accounting rules. Moreover, in the future these regulators may propose additional changes that we do not currently anticipate. Changes to accounting rules that apply to us could significantly impact our business or our reported financial performance in negative ways that we cannot predict or protect against. We cannot predict whether any changes to current accounting rules will occur or what impact any codified changes will have on our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition, directly or through their impact on our Servicing Partners or counterparties.

A prolonged economic slowdown, a lengthy or severe recession, or declining real estate values could harm our operations.

We believe the risks associated with our business are more severe during periods in which an economic slowdown or recession is accompanied by declining real estate values, as was the case in 2008. Declining real estate values generally reduce the level of new mortgage loan originations, since borrowers often use increases in the value of their existing properties to support the purchase of, or investment in, additional properties. Borrowers may also be less able to pay principal and interest on our loans or the loans underlying our securities, interests in MSRs and servicer advances, if the real estate economy weakens. Further, declining real estate values significantly increase the likelihood that we will incur losses on our investments in the event of default because the value of our collateral may be insufficient to cover our basis. Any sustained period of increased payment delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could adversely affect our net interest income from the assets in our portfolio, which would significantly harm our revenues, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, business prospects and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

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

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 effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Stockholder or other litigation against HLSS and/or us could result in the payment of damages and/or may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Transactions, such as the HLSS Acquisition, often give rise to lawsuits by stockholders or other third parties. Stockholders may, among other things, assert claims relating to the parties’ mutual agreement to terminate the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “HLSS Initial Merger Agreement”). The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim regarding the HLSS Acquisition may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Further, such litigation could be costly and could divert our time and attention from the operation of the business.

On May 22, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company, Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund, filed a class action and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly on behalf of all stockholders and the Company, titled Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund v. New Residential Investment Corp., et al. , C.A. No. 11058-VCMR. On October 30, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The lawsuit names the Company, our directors, our Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I LP as defendants, and alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company, our directors, our Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I LP in connection with the HLSS Acquisition. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment, among other things, as to the applicability of Article Twelfth of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and as to the validity of the release of claims of the Company’s stockholders related to the termination of the HLSS Initial Merger Agreement. The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory relief, equitable relief and damages. On December 11, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was heard by the court on June 14, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the court issued an opinion dismissing without prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty claims and declaratory judgment claims, except for the claim relating to the applicability of Article Twelfth. On October 14, 2016, plaintiff moved to reargue the Court's dismissal opinion, and defendants filed an opposition to the motion for reargument on October 28, 2016. On December 1, 2016, the court denied the motion for reargument. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) on February 27, 2017 containing allegations and seeking relief similar to that in the Amended Complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 30, 2017. The court held an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on July 7, 2017, which the court granted in the defendants’ favor on October 6, 2017. On November 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court appealing the court’s original motion to dismiss opinion, motion for reargument opinion, and second motion to dismiss opinion. The parties have briefed the appeal and are currently awaiting argument and decision.

We have engaged and may in the future engage in a number of acquisitions (including the HLSS Acquisition and the Shellpoint Acquisition described in Note 18 to our Consolidated Financial Statements), and we may be unable to successfully integrate the acquired assets and assumed liabilities in connection with such acquisitions.

As part of our business strategy, we regularly evaluate acquisitions of what we believe are complementary assets. Identifying and achieving the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions is subject to a number of uncertainties, including, without limitation, whether we are able to acquire the assets, within our parameters, integrate the acquired assets and manage the assumed liabilities efficiently. As an example, we depend on Ocwen for significant operational support with respect to HLSS assets and the Ocwen Subject MSRs. It is possible that the integration process could take longer than anticipated and could result in additional and unforeseen expenses, the disruption of our ongoing business, processes and systems, or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures, practices and policies, any of which could adversely affect our ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions. There may be increased risk due to integrating the assets into our financial reporting and internal control systems. Difficulties in adding the assets into our business could also result in the loss of contract counterparties or other persons with whom we conduct business and potential disputes or litigation with contract counterparties or other persons with whom we or such counterparties conduct business. We could also be adversely affected by any issues attributable to the related seller’s operations that arise or are based on events or actions that occurred prior to the closing of such acquisitions. Completion of the integration process is subject to a number of uncertainties, and no assurance can be given that the anticipated benefits will be realized in their entirety or at all or, if realized, the timing of their realization. Failure to achieve these anticipated benefits could result in increased costs or decreases in the amount of expected revenues and could adversely affect our future business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows. Due to the costs of engaging in a number of acquisitions, we may also have difficulty completing more acquisitions in the future.

There may be difficulties with integrating the loans related to the Citi Transaction into Nationstar’s servicing platform, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

In connection with the Citi Transaction (Note 5 to our Consolidated Financial Statements), Citi’s remaining interim servicing obligations will be transferred to Nationstar, subject to GSE and other regulatory approvals. The ability to integrate and service the assets acquired in the Citi Transaction and in all similar future transactions will depend in large part on the success of Nationstar’s development and integration of expanded servicing capabilities with Nationstar’s current operations. We may fail to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits of the transaction if the integration process takes longer, or is more costly, than expected.

Potential difficulties we may encounter during the integration process with the assets acquired in the Citi Transaction or future similar acquisitions include, but are not limited to, the following:

Our failure to meet the challenges involved in successfully integrating the assets acquired in the Citi Transaction and in all similar future transactions with our current business could impair our operations. For example, it is possible that the data Nationstar acquires upon assuming the direct servicing obligations for the loans may not transfer from the Citi platform to its systems properly. This may result in data being lost, key information not being locatable on Nationstar’s systems, or the complete failure of the transfer. If Nationstar’s employees are unable to access customer information easily, or if Nationstar is unable to produce originals or copies of documents or accurate information about the loans, collections could be affected significantly, and Nationstar may not be able to enforce its right to collect in some cases. Similarly, collections could be affected by any changes to Nationstar’s collections practices, the restructuring of any key servicing functions, transfer of files and other changes that occur as a result of the transfer of servicing obligations from Citi to Nationstar.

We are responsible for certain of HLSS’s contingent and other corporate liabilities.

Under the HLSS acquisition agreement (see Note 1 to our Consolidated Financial Statements), we have assumed and are responsible for the payment of HLSS’s contingent and other liabilities, including: (i) liabilities for litigation relating to, arising out of or resulting from certain lawsuits in which HLSS is named as the defendant, (ii) HLSS’s tax liabilities, (iii) HLSS’s corporate liabilities, (iv) generally any actions with respect to the HLSS Acquisition brought by any third party and (v) payments under contracts. We currently cannot estimate the amount we may ultimately be responsible for as a result of assuming substantially all of HLSS’s contingent and other corporate liabilities. The amount for which we are ultimately responsible may be material and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. In addition, certain claims and lawsuits may require significant costs to defend and resolve and may divert management’s attention away from other aspects of operating and managing our business, each of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

 

Refer to “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—Stockholder or other litigation against HLSS and/or us could result in the payment of damages and/or may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity” for a description of the Chester County Employees’ Retirement Fund litigation.

We cannot guarantee that we will not receive further regulatory inquiries or be subject to litigation regarding the subject matter of the subpoenas or matters relating thereto, or that existing inquires, or, should they occur, any future regulatory inquiries or litigation, will not consume internal resources, result in additional legal and consulting costs or negatively impact our stock price.

We could be materially and adversely affected by past events, conditions or actions with respect to HLSS or Ocwen.

HLSS acquired assets and assumed liabilities could be adversely affected as a result of events or conditions that occurred or existed before the closing of the HLSS Acquisition. Adverse changes in the assets or liabilities we have acquired or assumed, respectively, as part of the HLSS Acquisition, could occur or arise as a result of actions by HLSS or Ocwen, legal or regulatory developments, including the emergence or unfavorable resolution of pre-acquisition loss contingencies, deteriorating general business, market, industry or economic conditions, and other factors both within and beyond the control of HLSS or Ocwen. We are subject to a variety of risks as a result of our dependence on Servicing Partners, including, without limitation, the potential loss of all of the value of our Excess MSRs in the event that the servicer of the underlying loans is terminated by the mortgage loan owner or RMBS bondholders. A significant decline in the value of HLSS assets or a significant increase in HLSS liabilities we have acquired could adversely affect our future business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. HLSS is subject to a number of other risks and uncertainties, including regulatory investigations and legal proceedings against HLSS, and others with whom HLSS conducted business. Moreover, any insurance proceeds received with respect to such matters may be inadequate to cover the

associated losses. Adverse developments at Ocwen, including liquidity issues, ratings downgrades, defaults under debt agreements, servicer rating downgrades, failure to comply with the terms of PSAs, termination under PSAs, Ocwen bankruptcy proceedings and additional regulatory issues and settlements, including those described above, could have a material adverse effect on us. See “—We rely heavily on our Servicing Partners to achieve our investment objective and have no direct ability to influence their performance.”

Our ability to borrow may be adversely affected by the suspension or delay of the rating of the notes issued under certain of our financing facilities by the credit agency providing the ratings.

Certain of our financing facilities are rated by one rating agency and we may sponsor financing facilities in the future that are rated by credit agencies. The related agency or rating agencies may suspend rating notes backed by servicer advances, MSRs, Excess MSRs and our other investments at any time. Rating agency delays may result in our inability to obtain timely ratings on new notes, or amend or modify other financing facilities which could adversely impact the availability of borrowings or the interest rates, advance rates or other financing terms and adversely affect our results of operations and liquidity. Further, if we are unable to secure ratings from other agencies, limited investor demand for unrated notes could result in further adverse changes to our liquidity and profitability.

A downgrade of certain of the notes issued under our financing facilities could cause such notes to become due and payable prior to their expected repayment date/maturity date, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Regulatory scrutiny regarding foreclosure processes could lengthen foreclosure timelines, which could increase advances and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

When a residential mortgage loan is in foreclosure, the servicer is generally required to continue to advance delinquent principal and interest to the securitization trust and to also make advances for delinquent taxes and insurance and foreclosure costs and the upkeep of vacant property in foreclosure to the extent it determines that such amounts are recoverable. These servicer advances are generally recovered when the delinquency is resolved. Foreclosure moratoria or other actions that lengthen the foreclosure process increase the amount of servicer advances, lengthen the time it takes for reimbursement of such advances and increase the costs incurred during the foreclosure process. In addition, servicer advance financing facilities generally contain provisions that limit the eligibility of servicer advances to be financed based on the length of time that servicer advances are outstanding, and, as a result, an increase in foreclosure timelines could further increase the amount of servicer advances that need to be funded from the related servicer’s own capital. Such increases in foreclosure timelines could increase the need for capital to fund servicer advances, which would increase our interest expense, delay the collection of interest income or servicing revenue until the foreclosure has been resolved and, therefore, reduce the cash that we have available to pay our operating expenses or to pay dividends. For more information, see “—We could be materially and adversely affected by past events, conditions or actions with respect to HLSS or Ocwen” above.

Certain of our Servicing Partners have triggered termination events or events of default under some PSAs underlying the MSRs with respect to which we are entitled to the basic fee component or Excess MSRs.

In certain of these circumstances, the related Servicing Partner may be terminated without any right to compensation for its loss, other than the right to be reimbursed for any outstanding servicer advances as the related loans are brought current, modified, liquidated or charged off. So long as we are in compliance with our obligations under our servicing agreements and purchase agreements, if we or one of our Servicing Partners is terminated as servicer, we may have the right to receive an indemnification payment from the applicable Servicing Partner, even if such termination related to servicer termination events or events of default existing at the time of any transaction with such Servicing Partner. If one of our Servicing Partners is terminated as servicer under a PSA, we will lose any investment related to such Servicing Partner’s MSRs. If we or such Servicing Partner is terminated as servicer with respect to a PSA and we are unable to enforce our contractual rights against such Servicing Partner, or if such Servicing Partner is unable to make any resulting indemnification payments to us, if any such payment is due and payable, it may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, ability to make distributions, liquidity and financing arrangements, including our servicer advance financing facilities, and may make it more difficult for us to acquire additional interests in MSRs in the future.

Our borrowings collateralized by loans require that we make certain representations and warranties that, if determined to be inaccurate, could require us to repurchase loans or cover losses.

Our financing facilities require us to make certain representations and warranties regarding the loans that collateralize the borrowings. Although we perform due diligence on the loans that we acquire, certain representations and warranties that we make

in respect of such loans may ultimately be determined to be inaccurate. In the event of a breach of a representation or warranty, we may be required to repurchase affected loans, make indemnification payments to certain indemnified parties or address any claims associated with such breach. Further, we may have limited or no recourse against the seller from whom we purchased the loans. Such recourse may be limited due to a variety of factors, including the absence of a representation or warranty from the seller corresponding to the representation provided by us or the contractual expiration thereof.

Representations and warranties made by us in our loan sale agreements may subject us to liability.

We may be liable to purchasers under the related sale agreement for any breaches of representations and warranties made by HLSS at the time the applicable loans were sold. Such representations and warranties may include, but are not limited to, issues such as the validity of the lien; the absence of delinquent taxes or other liens; the loans’ compliance with all local, state and federal laws and the delivery of all documents required to perfect title to the lien. If the purchaser is successful in asserting its claim for recourse, this could adversely affect the availability of financing under loan financing facilities or otherwise adversely impact our results of operations and liquidity. From time to time we sell residential mortgage loans pursuant to loan sale agreements. The risks describe in this paragraph relate to any such sales as well.

Our ability to exercise our cleanup call rights may be limited or delayed if a third party contests our ability to exercise our cleanup call rights, if the related securitization trustee refuses to permit the exercise of such rights, or if a related party is subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

Certain servicing contracts permit more than one party to exercise a cleanup call-meaning the right of a party to collapse a securitization trust by purchasing all of the remaining loans held by the securitization trust pursuant to the terms set forth in the applicable servicing agreement. While the servicers from which we acquired our cleanup call rights (or other servicers from which these servicers acquired MSRs) may be named as the party entitled to exercise such rights, certain third parties may also be permitted to exercise such rights. If any such third party exercises a cleanup call, we could lose our ability to exercise our cleanup call right and, as a result, lose the ability to generate positive returns with respect to the related securitization transaction. In addition, another party could impair our ability to exercise our cleanup call rights by contesting our rights (for example, by claiming that they hold the exclusive cleanup call right with respect to the applicable securitization trust). Moreover, because the ability to exercise a cleanup call right is governed by the terms of the applicable servicing agreement, any ambiguous or conflicting language regarding the exercise of such rights in the agreement may make it more difficult and costly to exercise a cleanup call right. Furthermore, certain servicing contracts provide cleanup call rights to a servicer currently subject to bankruptcy proceedings from which our servicers have acquired MSRs. While, notwithstanding the related bankruptcy proceedings, it is possible that we will be able to exercise the related cleanup calls within our desired time frame, our ability to exercise such rights may be significantly delayed or impaired by the applicable securitization trustee or bankruptcy estate or any additional steps required because of the bankruptcy process. Finally, many of our call rights are not currently exercisable and may not become exercisable for a period of years. As a result, our ability to realize the benefits from these rights will depend on a number of factors at the time they become exercisable many of which are outside our control, including interest rates, conditions in the capital markets and conditions in the residential mortgage market.

The exercise of cleanup calls could negatively impact our interests in MSRs.

The exercise of cleanup call rights results in the termination of the MSRs on the loans held within the related securitization trusts. To the extent we own interests in MSRs with respect to loans held within securitization trusts where cleanup call rights are exercised, whether they are exercised by us or a third party, the value of our interests in those MSRs will likely be reduced to zero and we could incur losses and reduced cash flows from any such interests.

New Residential’s subsidiary New Residential Mortgage LLC is or may become subject to significant state and federal regulations.

A subsidiary of New Residential, NRM, has obtained or is currently in the process of obtaining applicable qualifications, licenses and approvals to own Non-Agency and certain Agency MSRs in the United States and certain other jurisdictions.  As a result of NRM’s current and expected approvals, NRM is subject to extensive and comprehensive regulation under federal, state and local laws in the United States. These laws and regulations do, and may in the future, significantly affect the way that NRM does business, and subject NRM and New Residential to additional costs and regulatory obligations, which could impact our financial results.

 

NRM’s business may become subject to increasing regulatory oversight and scrutiny in the future as it continues seeking and obtaining additional approvals to hold MSRs, which may lead to regulatory investigations or enforcement, including both formal and informal inquiries, from various state and federal agencies as part of those agencies’ oversight of the mortgage servicing

business. An adverse result in governmental investigations or examinations or private lawsuits, including purported class action lawsuits, may adversely affect NRM’s and our financial results or result in serious reputational harm. In addition, a number of participants in the mortgage servicing industry have been the subject of purported class action lawsuits and regulatory actions by state or federal regulators, and other industry participants have been the subject of actions by state Attorneys General.

Failure of New Residential’s subsidiary, NRM, to obtain or maintain certain licenses and approvals required for NRM to purchase and own MSRs could prevent us from purchasing or owning MSRs, which could limit our potential business activities.

State and federal laws require a business to hold certain state licenses prior to acquiring MSRs. NRM is currently licensed or otherwise eligible to hold MSRs in each applicable state. As a licensee in such states, NRM may become subject to administrative actions in those states for failing to satisfy ongoing license requirements or for other state law violations, the consequences of which could include fines or suspensions or revocations of NRM’s licenses by applicable state regulatory authorities, which could in turn result in NRM becoming ineligible to hold MSRs in the related jurisdictions. We could be delayed or prohibited from conducting certain business activities if we do not maintain necessary licenses in certain jurisdictions. We cannot assure you that we will be able to maintain all of the required state licenses.

Additionally, NRM has received approval from FHA to hold MSRs associated with FHA-insured mortgage loans, from Fannie Mae to hold MSRs associated with loans owned by Fannie Mae, and from Freddie Mac to hold MSRs associated with loans owned by Freddie Mac. NRM may seek approval from Ginnie Mae to become an approved Ginnie Mae Issuer, which would make NRM eligible to hold MSRs associated with Ginnie Mae securities. As an approved Fannie Mae Servicer, Freddie Mac Servicer and FHA Lender, NRM is required to conduct aspects of its operations in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines published by FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to maintain those approvals. Should NRM fail to maintain FHA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac approval, or fail to obtain approval from Ginnie Mae, NRM may be unable to purchase certain types of MSRs, which could limit our potential business activities.

NRM is currently subject to various, and may become subject to additional information reporting and other regulatory requirements, and there is no assurance that we will be able to satisfy those requirements or other ongoing requirements applicable to mortgage loan servicers under applicable state and federal laws. Any failure by NRM to comply with such state or federal regulatory requirements may expose us to administrative or enforcement actions, license or approval suspensions or revocations or other penalties that may restrict our business and investment options, any of which could restrict our business and investment options, adversely impact our business and financial results and damage our reputation.

We may become subject to fines or other penalties based on the conduct of mortgage loan originators and brokers that originate residential mortgage loans related to MSRs that we acquire, and the third-party servicers we may engage to subservice the loans underlying MSRs we acquire.

We have acquired MSRs and may in the future acquire additional MSRs from third-party mortgage loan originators, brokers or other sellers, and we therefore are or will become dependent on such third parties for the related mortgage loans’ compliance with applicable law, and on third-party mortgage servicers, including our Servicing Partners, to perform the day-to-day servicing on the mortgage loans underlying any such MSRs. Mortgage loan originators and brokers are subject to strict and evolving consumer protection laws and other legal obligations with respect to the origination of residential mortgage loans. These laws and regulations include the residential mortgage servicing standards, “ability-to-repay” and “qualified mortgage” regulations promulgated by the CFPB, which became effective in 2014. In addition, there are various other federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are intended to discourage predatory lending practices by residential mortgage loan originators. These laws may be highly subjective and open to interpretation and, as a result, a regulator or court may determine that that there has been a violation where an originator or servicer of mortgage loans reasonably believed that the law or requirement had been satisfied. Although we do not currently originate or directly service any mortgage loans, failure or alleged failure by originators or servicers to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us, as an investor in MSRs, to state or CFPB administrative proceedings, which could result in monetary penalties, license suspensions or revocations, or restrictions to our business, all of which could adversely impact our business and financial results and damage our reputation.

The final servicing rules promulgated by the CFPB to implement certain sections of the Dodd-Frank Act include provisions relating to, among other things, periodic billing statements and disclosures, responding to borrower inquiries and complaints, force-placed insurance, and adjustable rate mortgage interest rate adjustment notices. Further, the mortgage servicing rules require servicers to, among other things, make good faith early intervention efforts to notify delinquent borrowers of loss mitigation options, to implement specified loss mitigation procedures, and if feasible, exhaust all loss mitigation options before proceeding to foreclosure. Proposed updates to further refine these rules have been published and will likely lead to further changes in requirements applicable to servicing mortgage loans.

We do not currently engage in any day-to-day servicing operations, and instead engage third-party servicers to subservice mortgage loans relating to any MSRs we acquire. It is therefore possible that a third-party servicer’s failure to comply with the new and evolving servicing protocols could adversely affect the value of the MSRs we acquire. Additionally, we may become subject to fines, penalties or civil liability based upon the conduct of any third-party servicer who services mortgage loans related to MSRs that we have acquired or will acquire in the future.

Investments in MSRs may expose us to additional risks.

We hold investments in MSRs. Our investments in MSRs may subject us to certain additional risks, including the following:

Our business, results of operations, financial condition and reputation could be adversely impacted if we are not able to successfully manage these or other risks related to investing and managing MSR investments.

Risks Related to Our Manager

We are dependent on our Manager and may not find a suitable replacement if our Manager terminates the Management Agreement.

None of our officers or other senior individuals who perform services for us (other than three part-time employees of NRM), is an employee of New Residential. Instead, these individuals are employees of our Manager. Accordingly, we are completely reliant on our Manager, which has significant discretion as to the implementation of our operating policies and strategies, to conduct our business. We are subject to the risk that our Manager will terminate the Management Agreement and that we will not be able to find a suitable replacement for our Manager in a timely manner, at a reasonable cost or at all. Furthermore, we are dependent on the services of certain key employees of our Manager whose compensation is partially or entirely dependent upon the amount of incentive or management compensation earned by our Manager and whose continued service is not guaranteed, and the loss of such services could adversely affect our operations.

On December 27, 2017, SoftBank announced that it completed the SoftBank Merger. In connection with the SoftBank Merger, Fortress will operate within SoftBank as an independent business headquartered in New York. While Fortress’s senior investment professionals are expected to remain in place, including those individuals who perform services for us, there can be no assurance that the SoftBank Merger will not have an impact on us or our relationship with the Manager.

There are conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager.

Our Management Agreement with our Manager was not negotiated between unaffiliated parties, and its terms, including fees payable, although approved by the independent directors of New Residential as fair, may not be as favorable to us as if they had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

There are conflicts of interest inherent in our relationship with our Manager insofar as our Manager and its affiliates—including investment funds, private investment funds, or businesses managed by our Manager, including Nationstar and OneMain—invest in real estate and other securities and loans, consumer loans and interests in MSRs and whose investment objectives overlap with our investment objectives. Certain investments appropriate for us may also be appropriate for one or more of these other investment vehicles. Certain members of our board of directors and employees of our Manager who are our officers also serve as officers and/or directors of these other entities. Although we have the same Manager, we may compete with entities affiliated with our Manager or Fortress for certain target assets. From time to time, affiliates of Fortress focus on investments in assets with a similar profile as our target assets that we may seek to acquire. These affiliates may have meaningful purchasing capacity, which may change over time depending upon a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, available equity capital and debt financing, market conditions and cash on hand. Fortress has two funds primarily focused on investing in Excess MSRs with approximately $0.6 billion in investments in aggregate. We have broad investment guidelines, and we have co-invested and may co-invest with Fortress funds or portfolio companies of private equity funds managed by our Manager (or an affiliate thereof) in a variety of investments. We also may invest in securities that are senior or junior to securities owned by funds managed by our Manager. Fortress funds generally have a fee structure similar to ours, but the fees actually paid will vary depending on the size, terms and performance of each fund.

Our Management Agreement with our Manager generally does not limit or restrict our Manager or its affiliates from engaging in any business or managing other pooled investment vehicles that invest in investments that meet our investment objectives. Our Manager intends to engage in additional real estate related management and real estate and other investment opportunities in the future, which may compete with us for investments or result in a change in our current investment strategy. In addition, our certificate of incorporation provides that if Fortress or an affiliate or any of their officers, directors or employees acquire knowledge of a potential transaction that could be a corporate opportunity, they have no duty, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to offer such corporate opportunity to us, our stockholders or our affiliates. In the event that any of our directors and officers who is also a director, officer or employee of Fortress or its affiliates acquires knowledge of a corporate opportunity or is offered a corporate opportunity, provided that this knowledge was not acquired solely in such person’s capacity as a director or officer of New Residential and such person acts in good faith, then to the fullest extent permitted by law such person is deemed to have fully satisfied such person’s fiduciary duties owed to us and is not liable to us if Fortress or its affiliates pursues or acquires the corporate opportunity or if such person did not present the corporate opportunity to us.

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

The management compensation structure that we have agreed to with our Manager, as well as compensation arrangements that we may enter into with our Manager in the future (in connection with new lines of business or other activities), may incentivize our Manager to invest in high risk investments. In addition to its management fee, our Manager is currently entitled to receive incentive compensation. In evaluating investments and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn incentive compensation may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of earnings, including through the use of leverage, at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher incentive compensation. Investments with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative than lower-yielding investments. Moreover, because our Manager receives compensation in the form of options in connection with the completion of our common equity offerings, our Manager may be incentivized to cause us to issue additional common stock, which could be dilutive to existing stockholders. In addition, our Manager’s management fee is not tied to our performance and may not sufficiently incentivize our Manager to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for us.

It would be difficult and costly to terminate our Management Agreement with our Manager.

It would be difficult and costly for us to terminate our Management Agreement with our Manager. The Management Agreement may only be terminated annually upon (i) the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of our independent directors, or by a vote of the holders of a simple majority of the outstanding shares of our common stock, that there has been unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us or (ii) a determination by a simple majority of our independent directors that the management fee payable to our Manager is not fair, subject to our Manager’s right to prevent such a termination by accepting a mutually acceptable reduction of fees. Our Manager will be provided 60 days’ prior notice of any termination and will be paid a termination fee equal to the amount of the management fee earned by the Manager during the 12-month period preceding such termination. In addition, following any termination of the Management Agreement, our Manager may require us to purchase its right to receive incentive compensation at a price determined as if our assets were sold for their fair market value (as determined by an appraisal, taking into account, among other things, the expected future performance of the underlying investments) or otherwise we may continue to pay the incentive compensation to our Manager. These provisions may increase the effective cost to us of terminating the Management Agreement, thereby adversely affecting our ability to terminate our Manager without cause.

Our directors have approved broad investment guidelines for our Manager and do not approve each investment decision made by our Manager. In addition, we may change our investment strategy without a stockholder vote, which may result in our making investments that are different, riskier or less profitable than our current investments.

Our Manager is authorized to follow broad investment guidelines. Consequently, our Manager has great latitude in determining the types and categories of assets it may decide are proper investments for us, including the latitude to invest in types and categories of assets that may differ from those in which we currently invest. Our directors will periodically review our investment guidelines and our investment portfolio. However, our board does not review or pre-approve each proposed investment or our related financing arrangements. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, the directors rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Furthermore, transactions entered into by our Manager may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by the directors, even if the transactions contravene the terms of the Management Agreement. In addition, we may change our investment strategy, including our target asset classes, without a stockholder vote.

Our investment strategy may evolve in light of existing market conditions and investment opportunities, and this evolution may involve additional risks depending upon the nature of the assets in which we invest and our ability to finance such assets on a short or long-term basis. Investment opportunities that present unattractive risk-return profiles relative to other available investment opportunities under particular market conditions may become relatively attractive under changed market conditions, and changes in market conditions may therefore result in changes in the investments we target. Decisions to make investments in new asset categories present risks that may be difficult for us to adequately assess and could therefore reduce our ability to pay dividends on our common stock or have adverse effects on our liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. A change in our investment strategy may also increase our exposure to interest rate, foreign currency, real estate market or credit market fluctuations and expose us to new legal and regulatory risks. In addition, a change in our investment strategy may increase our use of non-match-funded financing, increase the guarantee obligations we agree to incur or increase the number of transactions we enter into with affiliates. Our failure to accurately assess the risks inherent in new asset categories or the financing risks associated with such assets could adversely affect our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

Our Manager will not be liable to us for any acts or omissions performed in accordance with the Management Agreement, including with respect to the performance of our investments.

Pursuant to our Management Agreement, our Manager will not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder in good faith and will not be responsible for any action of our board of directors in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Our Manager, its members, managers, officers and employees will not be liable to us or any of our subsidiaries, to our board of directors, or our or any subsidiary’s stockholders or partners for any acts or omissions by our Manager, its members, managers, officers or employees, except by reason of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement. We shall, to the full extent lawful, reimburse, indemnify and hold our Manager, its members, managers, officers and employees and each other person, if any, controlling our Manager harmless of and from any and all expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims of any nature whatsoever (including attorneys’ fees) in respect of or arising from any acts or omissions of an indemnified party made in good faith in the performance of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement and not constituting such indemnified party’s bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard of our Manager’s duties under our Management Agreement.

Our Manager’s due diligence of investment opportunities or other transactions may not identify all pertinent risks, which could materially affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Our Manager intends to conduct due diligence with respect to each investment opportunity or other transaction it pursues. It is possible, however, that our Manager’s due diligence processes will not uncover all relevant facts, particularly with respect to any assets we acquire from third parties. In these cases, our Manager may be given limited access to information about the investment and will rely on information provided by the target of the investment. In addition, if investment opportunities are scarce, the process for selecting bidders is competitive, or the timeframe in which we are required to complete diligence is short, our ability to conduct a due diligence investigation may be limited, and we would be required to make investment decisions based upon a less thorough diligence process than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, investments and other transactions that initially appear to be viable may prove not to be over time, due to the limitations of the due diligence process or other factors.

The ownership by our executive officers and directors of shares of common stock, options, or other equity awards of OneMain, Nationstar, and other entities either owned by Fortress funds managed by affiliates of our Manager or managed by our Manager may create, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest.

Some of our directors, officers and other employees of our Manager hold positions with OneMain, Nationstar, and other entities either owned by Fortress funds managed by affiliates of our Manager or managed by our Manager and own such entities’ common stock, options to purchase such entities’ common stock or other equity awards. Such ownership may create, or may create the appearance of, conflicts of interest when these directors, officers and other employees are faced with decisions that could have different implications for such entities than they do for us.

Risks Related to the Financial Markets

We do not know what impact the Dodd-Frank Act will have on our business.

On July 21, 2010, the U.S. enacted the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act affects almost every aspect of the U.S. financial services industry, including certain aspects of the markets in which we operate. The Dodd-Frank Act imposes new regulations on us and how we conduct our business. As we describe in more detail below, it affects our business in many ways but it is difficult at this time to know exactly how or what the cumulative impact will be.

First, generally the Dodd-Frank Act strengthens the regulatory oversight of securities and capital markets activities by the SEC and empowers the newly-created CFPB to enforce laws and regulations for consumer financial products and services. It requires market participants to undertake additional record-keeping activities and imposes many additional disclosure requirements for public companies.

Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act contains a risk retention requirement for all asset-backed securities. We issue many asset-backed securities. In October 2014, final rules were promulgated by a consortium of regulators implementing the final credit risk retention requirements of Section 941(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Under these “Risk Retention Rules,” sponsors of both public and private securitization transactions or one of their majority owned affiliates are required to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing such securitization transactions. These regulations generally prohibit the sponsor or its affiliate from directly or indirectly hedging or otherwise selling or transferring the retained interest for a specified period of time, depending on the type of asset that is securitized. Beginning December 2015 and December 2016, respectively, sponsors securitizing residential mortgages and certain other types of assets must comply with the Risk Retention Rules. The Risk Retention Rules provide for limited exemptions for certain types of assets, however, these exemptions may be of limited use under our current market practices. In any event, compliance with these new Risk Retention Rules has increased and will likely continue to increase the administrative and operational costs of asset securitization.

Further, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes mandatory clearing and exchange-trading requirements on many derivatives transactions (including formerly unregulated over-the-counter derivatives) in which we may engage. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act is expected to increase the margin requirements for derivatives transactions that are not subject to mandatory clearing requirements, which may impact our activities. The Dodd-Frank Act also creates new categories of regulated market participants, such as “swap-dealers,” “security-based swap dealers,” “major swap participants” and “major security-based swap participants,” and subjects or may subject these regulated entities to significant new capital, registration, recordkeeping, reporting, disclosure, business conduct and other regulatory requirements that will give rise to new administrative costs.

Also, under the Dodd-Frank Act, financial regulators belonging to the Financial Stability Oversight Council are required to name financial institutions that are deemed to be systemically important to the economy and which may require closer regulatory supervision. Such systemically important financial institutions, or “SIFIs,” may be required to operate with greater safety margins,

such as higher levels of capital, and may face further limitations on their activities. The determination of what constitutes a SIFI is evolving, and in time SIFIs may include large investment funds and even asset managers. There can be no assurance that we will not be deemed to be a SIFI and thus subject to further regulation.

Even if certain of the new requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act are not directly applicable to us, they may still increase our costs of entering into transactions with the parties to whom the requirements are directly applicable. For instance, the new exchange-trading and trade reporting requirements may lead to reductions in the liquidity of derivative transactions, causing higher pricing or reduced availability of derivatives, or the reduction of arbitrage opportunities for us, which could adversely affect the performance of certain of our trading strategies. Importantly, many key aspects of the changes imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act will continue to be established by various regulatory bodies and other groups over the next several years. As a result, we do not know how significantly the Dodd-Frank Act will affect us. It is possible that the Dodd-Frank Act could, among other things, increase our costs of operating as a public company, impose restrictions on our ability to securitize assets and reduce our investment returns on securitized assets.

The federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and related efforts, along with any changes in laws and regulations affecting the relationship between these agencies and the U.S. government, may adversely affect our business.

The payments we receive on the Agency RMBS in which we invest depend upon a steady stream of payments by borrowers on the underlying mortgages and the fulfillment of guarantees by GSEs. Ginnie Mae is part of a U.S. Government agency and its guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs, but their guarantees are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

In response to the deteriorating financial condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the credit market disruption beginning in 2007, Congress and the U.S. Treasury undertook a series of actions to stabilize these GSEs and the financial markets, generally. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was signed into law on July 30, 2008, and established the FHFA, with enhanced regulatory authority over, among other things, the business activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the size of their portfolio holdings. On September 7, 2008, FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into federal conservatorship and, together with the U.S. Treasury, established a program designed to boost investor confidence in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s debt and Agency RMBS.

As the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHFA controls and directs the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and may (1) take over the assets of and operate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with all the powers of the stockholders, the directors and the officers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and conduct all business of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (2) collect all obligations and money due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (3) perform all functions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are consistent with the conservator’s appointment; (4) preserve and conserve the assets and property of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and (5) contract for assistance in fulfilling any function, activity, action or duty of the conservator.

Those efforts resulted in significant U.S. Government financial support and increased control of the GSEs.

The U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) announced in November 2008 a program of large-scale purchases of Agency RMBS in an attempt to lower longer-term interest rates and contribute to an overall easing of adverse financial conditions. Subject to specified investment guidelines, the portfolios of Agency RMBS purchased through the programs established by the U.S. Treasury and the Fed may be held to maturity and, based on mortgage market conditions, adjustments may be made to these portfolios. This flexibility may adversely affect the pricing and availability of Agency RMBS that we seek to acquire during the remaining term of these portfolios.

There can be no assurance that the U.S. Government’s intervention in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be adequate for the longer-term viability of these GSEs. These uncertainties lead to questions about the availability of and trading market for, Agency RMBS. Accordingly, if these government actions are inadequate and the GSEs defaulted on their guaranteed obligations, suffered losses or ceased to exist, the value of our Agency RMBS and our business, operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

Additionally, because of the financial problems faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to their federal conservatorships, many policymakers have been examining the value of a federal mortgage guarantee and the appropriate role for the U.S. government in providing liquidity for residential mortgage loans. In June 2013, legislation titled “Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013” was introduced in the U.S. Senate; in July 2013, legislation titled “Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act of 2013” was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bills differ in many respects, but both require the wind-down of the GSEs. Each chairman of the respective Congressional committees of jurisdiction, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury, has each stated that housing finance policy is a priority. However, the details of any plans, policies

or proposals with respect to the housing GSEs are unknown at this time. Other bills have been introduced that change the GSEs’ business charters and eliminate the entities or make other changes to the existing framework. We cannot predict whether or when the introduced legislation, the amended legislation or any future legislation may be enacted. Such legislation could materially and adversely affect the availability of, and trading market for, Agency RMBS and could, therefore, materially and adversely affect the value of our Agency RMBS and our business, operations and financial condition.

Legislation that permits modifications to the terms of outstanding loans may negatively affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

The U.S. government has enacted legislation that enables government agencies to modify the terms of a significant number of residential and other loans to provide relief to borrowers without the applicable investor’s consent. These modifications allow for outstanding principal to be deferred, interest rates to be reduced, the term of the loan to be extended or other terms to be changed in ways that can permanently eliminate the cash flow (principal and interest) associated with a portion of the loan. These modifications are currently reducing, or in the future may reduce, the value of a number of our current or future investments, including investments in mortgage backed securities and interests in MSRs. As a result, such loan modifications are negatively affecting our business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition. In addition, certain market participants propose reducing the amount of paperwork required by a borrower to modify a loan, which could increase the likelihood of fraudulent modifications and materially harm the U.S. mortgage market and investors that have exposure to this market. Additional legislation intended to provide relief to borrowers may be enacted and could further harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT

Qualifying as a REIT involves highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions for which only limited judicial and administrative authorities exist. Even a technical or inadvertent violation could jeopardize our REIT qualification. Our qualification as a REIT will depend on our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. Compliance with these requirements must be carefully monitored on a continuing basis. Monitoring and managing our REIT compliance has become challenging due to the increased size and complexity of the assets in our portfolio, a meaningful portion of which are not qualifying REIT assets. There can be no assurance that our Manager’s personnel responsible for doing so will be able to successfully monitor our compliance or maintain our REIT status.

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

We intend to operate in a manner intended to qualify us as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our ability to satisfy the asset tests depends upon our analysis of the fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we do not obtain independent appraisals. See “—Risks Related to our Business—The valuations of our assets are subject to uncertainty because most of our assets are not traded in an active market,” and “—Risks Related to Our Business—Rapid changes in the values of our assets may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or our exclusion from the 1940 Act.” Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to successfully manage the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, the proper classification of one or more of our investments (such as TBAs) may be uncertain in some circumstances, which could affect the application of the REIT qualification requirements. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) will not contend that our investments violate the REIT requirements.

If we were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we would be subject to U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates, and distributions to stockholders 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 stockholders, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of, and market price for, our stock. See also “—Our failure to qualify as a REIT would cause our stock to be delisted from the NYSE.”

Unless entitled to relief under certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, we also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we initially ceased to qualify as a REIT. The rule against re-electing REIT status following a loss of such status would also apply to us if Drive Shack failed to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year ended on or before December 31, 2014, and we were treated as a successor to Drive Shack for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Although Drive Shack (i) represented in the separation and distribution agreement that it entered into with us on April 26, 2013 (the “Separation and Distribution Agreement”) that it has no knowledge of any fact or circumstance that would

cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT and (ii) covenanted in the Separation and Distribution Agreement to use its reasonable best efforts to maintain its REIT status for each of Drive Shack’s taxable years ended on or before December 31, 2014 (unless Drive Shack obtains an opinion from a nationally recognized tax counsel or a private letter ruling from the IRS to the effect that Drive Shack’s failure to maintain its REIT status will not cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT under the successor REIT rule referred to above), no assurance can be given that such representation and covenant would prevent us from failing to qualify as a REIT. Although, in the event of a breach, we may be able to seek damages from Drive Shack, there can be no assurance that such damages, if any, would appropriately compensate us. In addition, if Drive Shack were to fail to qualify as a REIT despite its reasonable best efforts, we would have no claim against Drive Shack.

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would cause our stock to be delisted from the NYSE.

The NYSE requires, as a condition to the listing of our shares, that we maintain our REIT status. Consequently, if we fail to maintain our REIT status, our shares would promptly be delisted from the NYSE, which would decrease the trading activity of such shares. This could make it difficult to sell shares and would likely cause the market volume of the shares trading to decline.

If we were delisted as a result of losing our REIT status and desired to relist our shares on the NYSE, we would have to reapply to the NYSE to be listed as a domestic corporation. As the NYSE’s listing standards for REITs are less onerous than its standards for domestic corporations, it would be more difficult for us to become a listed company under these heightened standards. We might not be able to satisfy the NYSE’s listing standards for a domestic corporation. As a result, if we were delisted from the NYSE, we might not be able to relist as a domestic corporation, in which case our shares could not trade on the NYSE.

The failure of assets subject to repurchase agreements to qualify as real estate assets could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We enter into financing arrangements that are structured as sale and repurchase agreements pursuant to which we nominally sell certain of our assets to a counterparty and simultaneously enter into an agreement to repurchase these assets at a later date in exchange for a purchase price. Economically, these agreements are financings that are secured by the assets sold pursuant thereto. We believe that, for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, we should be treated as the owner of the assets that are the subject of any such sale and repurchase agreement, notwithstanding that those agreements generally transfer record ownership of the assets to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. It is possible, however, that the IRS could assert that we did not own the assets during the term of the sale and repurchase agreement, in which case we might fail to qualify as a REIT.

The failure of our Excess MSRs to qualify as real estate assets or the income from our Excess MSRs to qualify as mortgage interest could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We have received from the IRS a private letter ruling substantially to the effect that our Excess MSRs represent interests in mortgages on real property and thus are qualifying “real estate assets” for purposes of the REIT asset test, which generate income that qualifies as interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property for purposes of the REIT income test. The ruling is based on, among other things, certain assumptions as well as on the accuracy of certain factual representations and statements that we and Drive Shack have made to the IRS. If any of the representations or statements that we have made in connection with the private letter ruling, are, or become, inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect with respect to one or more Excess MSR investments, or if we acquire an Excess MSR investment with terms that are not consistent with the terms of the Excess MSR investments described in the private letter ruling, then we will not be able to rely on the private letter ruling. If we are unable to rely on the private letter ruling with respect to an Excess MSR investment, the IRS could assert that such Excess MSR investments do not qualify under the REIT asset and income tests, and if successful, we might fail to qualify as a REIT.

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

Dividends payable to domestic stockholders that are individuals, trusts, and estates are generally taxed at reduced tax rates applicable to “qualified dividends.” Dividends payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for those 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 adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock. In addition, the relative attractiveness of real estate in general may be adversely affected by the favorable tax treatment given to non-REIT corporate dividends, which could affect the value of our real estate assets negatively.

REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to execute our business plan.

We generally must distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding any net capital gain, in order for corporate income tax not to apply to earnings that we distribute. We intend to make distributions to our stockholders to comply with the REIT requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. However, differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash could require us to sell assets or borrow funds on a short-term or long-term basis to meet the 90% distribution requirement of the Internal Revenue Code. Certain of our assets, such as our investment in consumer loans, generate substantial mismatches between taxable income and available cash. As a result, 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 taxable distributions of our capital stock or debt securities in order to comply with REIT requirements. Further, amounts distributed will not be available to fund investment activities. If we fail to obtain debt or equity capital in the future, it could limit our ability to satisfy our liquidity needs, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

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

Based on IRS guidance concerning the classification of Excess MSRs, we intend to treat our Excess MSRs as ownership interests in the interest payments made on the underlying residential mortgage loans, akin to an “interest only” strip. Under this treatment, for purposes of determining the amount and timing of taxable income, each Excess MSR is treated as a bond that was issued with original issue discount on the date we acquired such Excess MSR. In general, we will be required to accrue original issue discount based on the constant yield to maturity of each Excess MSR, and to treat such original issue discount as taxable income in accordance with the applicable U.S. federal income tax rules. The constant yield of an Excess MSR will be determined, and we will be taxed, based on a prepayment assumption regarding future payments due on the residential mortgage loans underlying the Excess MSR. If the residential mortgage loans underlying an Excess MSR prepay at a rate different than that under the prepayment assumption, our recognition of original issue discount will be either increased or decreased depending on the circumstances. Thus, in a particular taxable year, we may be required to accrue an amount of income in respect of an Excess MSR that exceeds the amount of cash collected in respect of that Excess MSR. Furthermore, it is possible that, over the life of the investment in an Excess MSR, the total amount we pay for, and accrue with respect to, the Excess MSR may exceed the total amount we collect on such Excess MSR. No assurance can be given that we will be entitled to a deduction for such excess, meaning that we may be required to recognize “phantom income” over the life of an Excess MSR.

Other debt instruments that we may acquire, including consumer loans, may be issued with, or treated as issued with, original issue discount. Those instruments would be subject to the original issue discount accrual and income computations that are described above with regard to Excess MSRs.

Under the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), we generally will be required to take certain amounts into income no later than the time such amounts are reflected on certain financial statements. The application of this rule may require the accrual of, among other categories of income, income with respect to certain debt instruments or mortgage-backed securities, such as original issue discount or market discount, earlier than would be the case under the general tax rules, although the precise application of this rule is unclear at this time.  This rule generally will be effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 or, for debt instruments or mortgage-backed securities issued with original issue discount, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2018.

We may acquire debt instruments in the secondary market for less than their face amount. The discount at which such debt instruments are acquired may reflect doubts about their ultimate collectability rather than current market interest rates. The amount of such discount will nevertheless generally be treated as “market discount” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Accrued market discount is reported as income when, and to the extent that, any payment of principal of the debt instrument is made. If we collect less on the debt instrument than our purchase price plus the market discount we had previously reported as income, we may not be able to benefit from any offsetting loss deductions.

In addition, we may acquire debt instruments that are subsequently modified by agreement with the borrower. If the amendments to the outstanding instrument are “significant modifications” under the applicable U.S. Treasury regulations, the modified instrument will be considered to have been reissued to us in a debt-for-debt exchange with the borrower. In that event, we may be required to recognize taxable gain to the extent the principal amount of the modified instrument exceeds our adjusted tax basis in the unmodified instrument, even if the value of the instrument or the payment expectations have not changed. Following such a taxable modification, we would hold the modified loan with a cost basis equal to its principal amount for U.S. federal tax purposes.

Finally, in the event that any debt instruments acquired by us are delinquent as to mandatory principal and interest payments, or in the event payments with respect to a particular instrument are not made when due, we may nonetheless be required to continue to recognize the unpaid interest as taxable income as it accrues, despite doubt as to its ultimate collectability. Similarly, we may be required to accrue interest income with respect to debt instruments at the stated rate regardless of whether corresponding cash payments are received or are ultimately collectible. In each case, while we would in general ultimately have an offsetting loss deduction available to us when such interest was determined to be uncollectible, the utility of that deduction could depend on our having taxable income of an appropriate character in that later year or thereafter.

In any event, if our investments generate more taxable income than cash in any given year, we may have difficulty satisfying our annual REIT distribution requirement.

We may be unable to generate sufficient cash from operations to pay our operating expenses and to pay distributions to our stockholders.

As a REIT, we are generally required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and not including net capital gains) each year to our stockholders. To qualify for the tax benefits accorded to REITs, we intend to make distributions to our stockholders in amounts such that we distribute all or substantially all of our net taxable income, subject to certain adjustments, although there can be no assurance that our operations will generate sufficient cash to make such distributions. Moreover, our ability to make distributions may be adversely affected by the risk factors described herein. See also “—Risks Related to our Common Stock—We have not established a minimum distribution payment level, and we cannot assure you of our ability to pay distributions in the future.”

The stock ownership limit imposed by the Internal Revenue Code for REITs and our certificate of incorporation may inhibit market activity in our stock and 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 stock 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 after our first taxable year. Our certificate of incorporation, with certain exceptions, authorizes our board of directors to take the actions that are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Stockholders are generally restricted from owning more than 9.8% by value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding shares of common stock, or 9.8% by value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of our outstanding shares of capital stock. Our board may grant an exemption in its sole discretion, subject to such conditions, representations and undertakings as it may determine in its sole discretion. These ownership limits could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

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, 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. Moreover, if a REIT distributes less than 85% of its ordinary income and 95% of its capital gain net income plus any undistributed shortfall from the prior year (the “Required Distribution”) to its stockholders during any calendar year (including any distributions declared by the last day of the calendar year but paid in the subsequent year), then it is required to pay an excise tax on 4% of any shortfall between the Required Distribution and the amount that was actually distributed. Any of these taxes would decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders. In addition, 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 may hold some of our assets through TRSs. Such subsidiaries generally will be subject to corporate level income tax at regular rates and the payment of such taxes would reduce our return on the applicable investment. Currently, we hold some of our investments in TRSs, including Servicer Advance Investments and MSRs, and we may contribute other non-qualifying investments, such as our investment in consumer loans, to a TRS in the future.

Complying with the REIT requirements may negatively impact our investment returns or cause us to forgo otherwise attractive opportunities, liquidate assets or contribute assets to a TRS.

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 stockholders and the ownership of our stock. As a result of these tests, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, forgo otherwise attractive investment opportunities, liquidate assets in adverse market conditions or contribute assets to a TRS that is subject to regular corporate federal income tax. Our ability to

acquire and hold MSRs, interests in consumer loans, Servicer Advance Investments and other investments is subject to the applicable REIT qualification tests, and we may have to hold these interests through TRSs, which would negatively impact our returns from these assets. In general, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make and retain certain attractive investments.

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

The existing REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code may substantially limit our ability to hedge our operations because a significant amount of the income from those hedging transactions is likely to be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both REIT gross income tests. In addition, we must limit our aggregate income from non-qualified hedging transactions, from our provision of services and from other non-qualifying sources, to less than 5% of our annual gross income (determined without regard to gross income from qualified hedging transactions).

As a result, we may have to limit our use of certain hedging techniques or implement those hedges through TRSs. This could result in greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to incur or could increase the cost of our hedging activities. If we fail to comply with these limitations, we could lose our REIT qualification for U.S. federal income tax purposes, unless our failure was due to reasonable cause, and not due to willful neglect, and we meet certain other technical requirements. Even if our failure were due to reasonable cause, we might incur a penalty tax. See also “—Risks Related to Our Business—Any hedging transactions that we enter into may limit our gains or result in losses.”

Distributions to tax-exempt investors may be classified as unrelated business taxable income.

Neither ordinary nor capital gain distributions with respect to our stock nor gain from the sale of stock should generally constitute unrelated business taxable income to a tax-exempt investor. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. In particular:

 

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

We may enter into securitization or other financing transactions that result in the creation of taxable mortgage pools for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a REIT, so long as we own 100% of the equity interests in a taxable mortgage pool, we would generally not be adversely affected by the characterization of a securitization as a taxable mortgage pool. Certain categories of stockholders, however, such as foreign stockholders eligible for treaty or other benefits, stockholders with net operating losses, and certain tax exempt stockholders that are subject to unrelated business income tax, could be subject to increased taxes on a portion of their dividend income from us that is attributable to the taxable mortgage pool. In addition, to the extent that our stock is owned by tax exempt “disqualified organizations,” such as certain government-related entities and charitable remainder trusts that are not subject to tax on unrelated business income, we could incur a corporate level tax on a portion of our income from the taxable mortgage pool. In that case, we might reduce the amount of our distributions to any disqualified organization whose stock ownership gave rise to the tax. Moreover, we may 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. These limitations may prevent us from using certain techniques to maximize our returns from securitization transactions.

Uncertainty exists with respect to the treatment of TBAs for purposes of the REIT asset and income tests, and the failure of TBAs to be qualifying assets or of income/gains from TBAs to be qualifying income could adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT.

We purchase and sell Agency RMBS through TBAs and recognize income or gains from the disposition of those TBAs, through dollar roll transactions or otherwise. In a dollar roll transaction, we exchange an existing TBA for another TBA with a different settlement date. There is no direct authority with respect to the qualification of TBAs as real estate assets or U.S. Government securities for purposes of the 75% asset test or the qualification of income or gains from dispositions of TBAs as gains from the

sale of real property (including interests in real property and interests in mortgages on real property) or other qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test. For a particular taxable year, we would treat such TBAs as qualifying assets for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and income and gains from such TBAs as qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, to the extent set forth in an opinion from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP substantially to the effect that (i) for purposes of the REIT asset tests, our ownership of a TBA should be treated as ownership of the underlying Agency RMBS, and (ii) for purposes of the 75% REIT gross income test, any gain recognized by us in connection with the settlement of such TBAs should be treated as gain from the sale or disposition of the underlying Agency RMBS. Opinions of counsel are not binding on the IRS, and no assurance can be given that the IRS would not successfully challenge the conclusions set forth in such opinions. In addition, it must be emphasized that any opinion of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP would be based on various assumptions relating to any TBAs that we enter into and would be conditioned upon fact-based representations and covenants made by our management regarding such TBAs. No assurance can be given that the IRS would not assert that such assets or income are not qualifying assets or income. If the IRS were to successfully challenge any conclusions of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, we could be subject to a penalty tax or we could fail to qualify as a REIT if a sufficient portion of our assets consists of TBAs or a sufficient portion of our income consists of income or gains from the disposition of TBAs.

The tax on prohibited transactions will limit our ability to engage in transactions that would be treated as prohibited transactions for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Net income that we derive from a “prohibited transaction” is subject to a 100% tax. The term “prohibited transaction” generally includes a sale or other disposition of property (including mortgage loans, but other than foreclosure property, as discussed below) that is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of our trade or business. We might be subject to this tax if we were to dispose of or securitize loans or Excess MSRs in a manner that was treated as a prohibited transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

We intend to conduct our operations so that no asset that we own (or are treated as owning) will be treated as, or as having been, held-for-sale to customers, and that a sale of any such asset will not be treated as having been in the ordinary course of our business. As a result, we may choose not to engage in certain sales of loans or Excess MSRs 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. In addition, whether property is held “primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business” depends on the particular facts and circumstances. No assurance can be given that any property that we sell will not be treated as property held-for-sale to customers, or that we can comply with certain safe-harbor provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that would prevent such treatment. The 100% prohibited transaction tax does not apply to gains from the sale of property that is held through a TRS or other taxable corporation, although such income will be subject to tax in the hands of the corporation at regular corporate rates. We intend to structure our activities to prevent prohibited transaction characterization.

Liquidation of assets may jeopardize our REIT qualification or create additional tax liability for us.

To qualify as a REIT, we must comply with requirements regarding the composition of our assets and our sources of income. If we are compelled to liquidate our investments to repay obligations to our lenders, 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.

Changes to U.S. federal income tax laws could materially and adversely affect us and our stockholders.

The present U.S. federal income tax treatment of REITs and their shareholders 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 shares. The U.S. federal income tax rules, including those dealing with REITs, are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department, which results in statutory changes as well as frequent revisions to regulations and interpretations.

The recently enacted TCJA makes substantial changes to the Internal Revenue Code. Among those changes are a significant permanent reduction in the generally applicable corporate tax rate, changes in the taxation of individuals and other non-corporate taxpayers that generally but not universally reduce their taxes on a temporary basis subject to “sunset” provisions, the elimination or modification of various currently allowed deductions (including substantial limitations on the deductibility of interest and, in the case of individuals, the deduction for personal state and local taxes), certain additional limitations on the deduction of net operating losses and preferential rates of taxation on most ordinary REIT dividends and certain business income derived by non-corporate taxpayers in comparison to other ordinary income recognized by such taxpayers. The effect of these, and the many other, changes made in the TCJA is highly uncertain, both in terms of their direct effect on the taxation of an investment in our common stock and their indirect effect on the value of our assets or market conditions generally. Furthermore, many of the provisions of

the TCJA will require guidance through the issuance of Treasury regulations in order to assess their effect. There may be a substantial delay before such regulations are promulgated, increasing the uncertainty as to the ultimate effect of the statutory amendments on us. It is also likely that there will be technical corrections legislation proposed with respect to the TCJA next year, the effect of which cannot be predicted and may be adverse to us or our stockholders.

Risks Related to our Common Stock

There can be no assurance that the market for our stock will provide you with adequate liquidity.

Our common stock began trading (on a when issued basis) on the NYSE on May 2, 2013. There can be no assurance that an active trading market for our common stock will be sustained in the future, and the market price of our common stock may fluctuate widely, depending upon many factors, some of which may be beyond our control. These factors include, without limitation:

 

Stock markets in general have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of a particular company. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Sales or issuances of shares of our common stock could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Sales or issuances of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock, or the perception that such sales or issuances might occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. The issuance of our common stock in connection with property, portfolio or business acquisitions or the exercise of outstanding options or otherwise could also have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock. We have an effective registration statement on file to sell common stock or convertible securities in public offerings.

Failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.

As a public company, we are required to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Internal control over financial reporting is complex and may be revised over time to adapt to changes in our business, or changes in applicable accounting rules. We have made investments through joint ventures, such as our investment in consumer loans, and accounting for such investments can increase the complexity of maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. We cannot assure you that our internal control over financial reporting will be effective in the future or that a material weakness will not be discovered with respect to a prior period for which we had previously believed that our internal control over financial reporting was effective. If we are not able to maintain or document effective internal control over financial reporting, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be able to certify as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Matters impacting our internal control over financial reporting may cause us to be unable to report our financial information on a timely basis, or may cause us to restate previously issued financial information, and thereby subject us to adverse regulatory consequences, including sanctions or investigations by the SEC, or violations of applicable stock exchange listing rules. There could also be a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of investor confidence in us and the reliability of our financial statements. Confidence in the reliability of our financial statements is also likely to suffer if we or our independent registered public accounting firm reports a material weakness in the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. This could materially adversely affect us by, for example, leading to a decline in our stock price and impairing our ability to raise capital.

Your percentage ownership in us may be diluted in the future.

Your percentage ownership in us may be diluted in the future because of equity awards that we expect will be granted to our Manager, to the directors, officers and employees of our Manager who perform services for us, and to our directors, officers and employees, as well as other equity instruments such as debt and equity financing. We have adopted a Nonqualified Stock Option and Incentive Award Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), which provides for the grant of equity-based awards, including restricted stock, options, stock appreciation rights, performance awards, tandem awards and other equity-based and non-equity based awards, in each case to our Manager, to the directors, officers, employees, service providers, consultants and advisor of our Manager who perform services for us, and to our directors, officers, employees, service providers, consultants and advisors. We reserved 15 million shares of our common stock for issuance under the Plan. The term of the Plan expires in 2023. On the first day of each fiscal year beginning during the term of the Plan, that number will be increased by a number of shares of our common stock equal to 10% of the number of shares of our common stock newly issued by us during the immediately preceding fiscal year. In connection with any offering of our common stock, we will issue to our Manager options relating to shares of our common stock, representing 10% of the number of shares being offered. Our board of directors may also determine to issue options to the Manager that are not subject to the Plan, provided that the number of shares relating to any options granted to the Manager in connection with an offering of our common stock would not exceed 10% of the shares sold in such offering and would be subject to NYSE rules.

We may incur or issue debt or issue equity, which may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.

We may in the future incur or issue debt or issue equity or equity-related securities. In the event of our liquidation, lenders and holders of our debt and holders of our preferred stock (if any) would receive a distribution of our available assets before common stockholders. Any future incurrence or issuance of debt would increase our interest cost and could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows. We are not required to offer any additional equity securities to existing common stockholders on a preemptive basis. Therefore, additional issuances of common stock, directly or through convertible or exchangeable securities, warrants or options, will dilute the holdings of our existing common stockholders and such issuances, or the perception of such issuances, may reduce the market price of our common stock. Any preferred stock issued by us would likely have a preference on distribution payments, periodically or upon liquidation, which could eliminate or otherwise limit our ability to make distributions to common stockholders. Because our decision to incur or issue debt or issue equity or equity-related securities in the future will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, nature or success of our future capital raising efforts. Thus, common stockholders bear the risk that our future incurrence or issuance of debt or issuance of equity or equity-related securities will adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

We have not established a minimum distribution payment level, and we cannot assure you of our ability to pay distributions in the future.

We intend to make quarterly distributions of our REIT taxable income to holders of our common stock out of assets legally available therefor. We have not established a minimum distribution payment level and our ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected by a number of factors, including the risk factors described in this report. Any distributions will be authorized by our board of directors and declared by us based upon a number of factors, including our actual and anticipated results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, restrictions under Delaware law or applicable financing covenants, our REIT taxable income, the annual distribution requirements under the REIT provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, our operating expenses and other factors our directors deem relevant.

Our board of directors approved two increases in our quarterly dividends during 2017, which has resulted in reduced cash flows. Although we have other sources of liquidity, such as sales of and repayments from our investments, potential debt financing sources and the issuance of equity securities, there can be no assurance that we will generate sufficient cash or achieve investment results that will allow us to make a specified level of cash distributions or year-to-year increases in cash distributions in the future.

Furthermore, while we are required to make distributions in order to maintain our REIT status (as described above under “—Risks Related to our Taxation as a REIT—We may be unable to generate sufficient cash from operations to pay our operating expenses and to pay distributions to our stockholders”), we may elect not to maintain our REIT status, in which case we would no longer be required to make such distributions. Moreover, even if we do elect to maintain our REIT status, we may elect to comply with the applicable requirements by, after completing various procedural steps, distributing, under certain circumstances, a portion of the required amount in the form of shares of our common stock in lieu of cash. If we elect not to maintain our REIT status or to satisfy any required distributions in shares of common stock in lieu of cash, such action could negatively and materially affect our business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition as well as the market price of our common stock. No assurance can be given that we will make any distributions on shares of our common stock in the future.