PART I

We conduct our business in three segments: loan production, loan servicing (together, these two activities comprise mortgage banking activities) and investment management (refer to footnote 26). Our principal mortgage banking subsidiary, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (“PLS”), is a non-bank producer and servicer of mortgage loans in the United States. PLS is a seller/servicer for the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), each of which is a government ‑sponsored entity (“GSE”). It is also an approved issuer of securities guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), a lender of the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), a lender/servicer of the Veterans Administration (“VA”) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), and a servicer for the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). We refer to each of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, FHA, VA and USDA as an “Agency” and collectively as the “Agencies.” PLS is able to service loans in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and originate loans in 49 states and the District of Columbia, either because PLS is properly licensed in a particular jurisdiction or exempt or otherwise not required to be licensed in that jurisdiction.

PNMAC Capital Management, LLC (“PCM”), a Delaware limited liability company registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, manages PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust (“PMT”) , a mortgage real estate investment trust, listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol PMT. PCM also manages PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund, LLC and PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund, LP, both registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”), as amended, an affiliate of these Funds and PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund Investors, LLC. We refer to these funds collectively as our “Investment Funds” and, together with PMT, as our “Advised Entities.”

Mortgage Banking

Loan Production

Our loan production segment sources mortgage loans through two channels: correspondent production and consumer direct lending.

In correspondent production we manage, on behalf of PMT and for our own account, the acquisition of newly originated, prime credit quality, first-lien residential mortgage loans that have been underwritten to investor guidelines. PMT acquires, from approved correspondent sellers, newly originated mortgage loans, including both conventional and government-insured or guaranteed residential mortgage loans that qualify for inclusion in securitizations that are guaranteed by the Agencies. For conventional mortgage loans, we perform fulfillment activities for PMT and earn a fulfillment fee for each mortgage loan purchased by PMT. In the case of government insured mortgage loans, we purchase them from PMT at PMT’s cost plus a sourcing fee and fulfill them for our own account.

Through our consumer direct lending channel, we originate new prime credit quality, first-lien residential conventional and government-insured or guaranteed mortgage loans on a national basis to allow customers to purchase or refinance their homes. The consumer direct model relies on the Internet and call center-based staff to acquire and interact with customers across the country. We do not have a “brick and mortar” branch network and have been developing our consumer direct operations with call centers strategically positioned across the United States.

For loans originated through our consumer direct lending channel, we conduct our own fulfillment, earn interest income and gains or losses during the holding period and upon the sale or securitization of these loans, and retain the associated MSRs (subject to sharing with PMT a portion of such MSRs or cash with respect to certain consumer direct originated loans that refinance loans for which the related MSRs or excess servicing spread (“ESS”) was held by PMT).

Our loan production activity is summarized below:

Loan Servicing

Our loan servicing segment performs loan administration, collection, and default management activities, including the collection and remittance of loan payments; response to customer inquiries; accounting for principal and interest; holding custodial (impounded) funds for the payment of property taxes and insurance premiums; counseling delinquent mortgagors; and supervising foreclosures and property dispositions. We service a diverse portfolio of mortgage loans both as the owner of MSRs and on behalf of other MSR or mortgage owners. We provide servicing for conventional and government-insured or guaranteed loans (“prime servicing”), as well as servicing for distressed mortgage loans that have been acquired as investments by our Advised Entities (“special servicing”). As of December 31, 2015, the portfolio of mortgage loans that we serviced or subserviced totaled approximately $160.2 billion in unpaid principal balance (“UPB”).

Investment Management

We are an investment manager through our subsidiary, PCM. PCM currently manages PMT and the Investment Funds. PMT and the Investment Funds had combined net assets of approximately $1.7 billion as of December 31, 2015. For these activities, we earn management fees as a percentage of net assets and may earn incentive compensation based on investment performance.

U.S. Mortgage Market

The U.S. residential mortgage market is one of the largest financial markets in the world, with approximately $10.0 trillion of outstanding debt and average annual origination volume of $1.4 trillion for the fiv e years ending December 31, 2015 .   M any of the largest financial institutions , including banks which have traditionally held the majority of the market share in mortgage originations and servicing,   have reduce d their participation in the mortgage market and the industry remains in a period of significant transformation , creating opportunities for non-bank participants .

The residential mortgage industry is characterized by high barriers to entry, including the necessity for approvals required to sell loans to and service loans for the Agencies, state licensing requirements for non-federally chartered banks, sophisticated infrastructure, technology, and processes required for successful operations, and financial capital requirements.

Our Growth Strategies

Since our establishment, we have demonstrated our ability to apply our residential mortgage expertise and operating capabilities to multiple business opportunities. In the initial years of our operation, for example, we identified investing in distressed mortgage assets as an attractive opportunity and we raised and deployed capital through a series of successful transactions. As the mortgage market presented opportunities in new loan production and servicing, we expanded our management and capabilities to profitably capitalize on these businesses as well.

Our growth strategies include:

Grow ing our Mortgage Loan Servicing Portfolio

We expect to grow our servicing portfolio on an organic basis, as our correspondent government ‑insured production and consumer direct   lending adds new prime servicing for owned MSRs, and correspondent conventional lendin g adds new subservicing. In 2015 , our correspondent and consumer direct loan production totaled $35.6  billion in UPB . We plan to supplement our organic growth by adding new special servicing through continued distressed loan acquisitions by PMT and potentially other entities that we m ay manage in the future. We have acquire d MSRs from large mortgage servicers, which are selling MSRs due to continuing operational and regulatory pressures, higher regulatory capital requirements for banks, and a re-focus on core customers and business, and from independent mortgage banks, which are selling MSRs due to reduced origination volumes, operational losses, and a need for capital. During 2015 , we completed acquisitio ns of MSRs with UPB totaling $33  billion. We effected these acquisitions through a co ‑investment with PMT by which we financed a portion of these purchases through the sale to PMT of ESS.

Growing Correspondent Production through Expanding Seller Relationships

We expect to grow our correspondent production business by expanding the number and types of sellers from which we purchase loans and increasing the volume of loans that we purchase from our existing sellers as we continue to add to the loan products that we offer and deepen our participation in certain geographic markets in the United States. Over the past few years, a number of large banks have exited or reduced the size of their correspondent production businesses, creating an opportunity for non ‑bank entities to gain market share. We believe that we are well positioned to take advantage of this opportunity based on our management expertise in the correspondent production business, our relationships with correspondent sellers, and our supporting systems and processes.

Growing Consumer Direct Lending through Portfolio Refinance and Non ‑Portfolio Originations

We expect to grow our consumer direct lending business by leveraging our growing servicing portfolio through refinance activities as well as increasing our non ‑portfolio originations. As our servicing portfolio grows, we will have a greater number of leads to pursue, which we believe will lead to greater refinancing activity through our consumer direct business. At the same time, we are making significant investments in technology, personnel and marketing to increase our non ‑portfolio originations. We believe that our national call center model and our technology will enable us to drive origination process efficiencies and best ‑in ‑class customer service.

Growing Commercial Real Estate Finance Focused on Small Balance Loans

During 2015, w e enter ed the commercial real estate finance business . We are focusing on the produ ction of small balance multifamily loans (typically under $10 million in UPB).  We are investing in personnel, system s and marketing to build our multifamily real estate finance platform, which we believe complements our existing business es in residential mortgages. 

Compliance and Regulatory

Our business is subject to extensive federal, state and local regulation. Our loan production and loan servicing operations are primarily regulated at the state level by state licensing authorities and administrative agencies, with additional oversight from the CFPB. We, along with certain PennyMac employees who engage in regulated activities, must apply for licensing as a mortgage banker or lender, loan servicer and debt collector pursuant to applicable state law. These state licensing requirements typically require an application process, the payment of fees, background checks and administrative review. Our servicing operations are licensed (or exempt or otherwise not required to be licensed) to service mortgage loans in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our consumer direct lending business is licensed to originate loans in 49 states and the District of Columbia. From time to time, we receive requests from states and Agencies and various investors for records, documents and information regarding our policies, procedures and practices regarding our loan production and loan servicing business activities, and undergo periodic

examinations by federal and state regulatory agencies. We incur significant ongoing costs to comply with these licensing and examination requirements.

While the U.S. federal government does not primarily regulate loan production, the federal Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (the “SAFE Act”) requires all states to enact laws that require all individuals acting in the United States as mortgage loan originators to be individually licensed or registered if they intend to offer mortgage loan products. These licensing requirements include enrollment in the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System, application to state regulators for individual licenses, a minimum of 20 hours of pre ‑licensing education, an annual minimum of eight hours of continuing education and the successful completion of both national and state exams.

In addition to licensing requirements, we must comply with a number of federal consumer protection laws, including, among others:

Many of these laws are further impacted by the SAFE Act and implementation of new rules by the CFPB under the Dodd ‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”).

We are committed to complying with all applicable laws, regulations and contractual agreements. We believe that compliance is best managed by integrating responsibility within each department’s activities to promote management and employee accountability. Accordingly, we have implemented a matrixed approach to the integration of our compliance program that utilizes expertise within the organization and defines clear responsibilities for the program; specifically, business units are responsible for defining and managing compliance performance through process ‑based controls, risk remediation and reporting. Centralized monitoring and independent review, control testing, validation and regulation interpretation is performed by our Quality Control, Corporate Compliance, Enterprise Risk Management, Internal Audit and Legal groups.

We have established a management Mortgage Regulatory Compliance Committee (“MRCC”) to oversee the compliance program, engender a culture conducive to ethical conduct and compliance throughout our Company, assure that we proactively identify and respond to changes in our risk profile and regulatory environment, and establish compliance program standards, articulated in compliance policies. The MRCC has identified individuals throughout the organization to oversee specific areas of compliance. MRCC membership includes senior management from across the Company and meets monthly to remain updated on recurring and rotational topics.

We administer a compliance training program comprised of general training and role-centric training. Both are designed to promote a contemporary understanding of compliance issues and regulations affecting the mortgage industry.

During 2015, our loan origination and servicing operations were reviewed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, FHA, the FDIC and by other state and federal regulators. There were no significant findings or allegations of violations of law from any of these reviews.

Intellectual Property

We hold registered trademarks with respect to the name PennyMac ® , the swirl design and rooftop design appearing in certain PennyMac drawings and logos and various additional designs and word marks relating to the PennyMac name. We do not otherwise rely on any copyright, patent or other form of registration to protect our rights in our intellectual property. Our other intellectual property includes proprietary know ‑how and technological innovations, such as our proprietary loan ‑level analytics “LENE SM ” (Loan Enhancement Normalization Engine) for distressed loan management, and other trade secrets that we have developed to maintain our competitive position.

Competition

Given the diverse and specialized nature of our businesses, we do not believe we have a direct competitor for the totality of our business. We compete with a number of nationally ‑focused companies in each of our businesses.

In our mortgage banking segments, we compete with large financial institutions and with other independent residential mortgage loan producers and servicers, such as Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, U.S. Bank, Quicken Loans, Nationstar Mortgage and Walter Investment Management Corp. In our loan production segment, we compete on the basis of product offerings, technical knowledge, manufacturing quality, speed of execution, rate and fees. In our servicing segment, we compete on the basis of experience in the residential loan servicing business, quality of high ‑touch special servicing and historical servicing performance, and quality of execution, especially in high ‑touch special servicing.

In our investment management segment, we compete for capital with both traditional and alternative investment managers. We compete on the basis of historical track record of risk ‑adjusted returns, experience of investment management team, the return profile of prospective investment opportunities and on the level of fees and expenses.

Employees

As of December 31, 2015, we, through a subsidiary, had 2,509 employees.

Available Information

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available free of charge at  www.pennymacfinancial.com  through the investor relations section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filing such material with the SEC. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our filings at  www.sec.gov . In addition, the public may read and copy the materials we file with the SEC at the SEC's Public Reference Room at 100 F. Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Information regarding the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The above references to our website and the SEC’s website do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on those websites and should not be considered part of this document.

strengthened capital and prudential standards for banks and bank holding companies, (iv) enhanced regulation of financial markets, including the derivatives and securitization markets, and (v) amendments to the TILA and RESPA, aimed at improving consumer protections with respect to residential mortgage originations, including disclosures, originator compensation, minimum repayment standards, prepayment considerations appraisals and servicing requirements.

Our failure to comply with any of these laws or regulations could subject us to lawsuits or governmental actions and damage our reputation, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our failure to comply with these laws, regulations and rules may result in increased costs of doing business, reduced payments by borrowers, modification of the original terms of mortgage loans, permanent forgiveness of debt, delays in the foreclosure process, increased servicing advances, litigation, reputational damage, enforcement actions, and repurchase and indemnification obligations. Our failure to adequately supervise service providers, including outside foreclosure counsel, may also have these negative results.

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

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

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

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

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

Final regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act regarding “ability to repay” and other standards and practices were adopted by the CFPB and became effective in January 2014. Before originating a mortgage loan, a lender must determine, on the basis of certain information and according to specified criteria, that the prospective borrower has the ability to repay the loan. Lenders that issue loans meeting certain heightened underwriting requirements will be presumed to comply with the new rule with respect to these loans.

The CFPB’s TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule, which is intended to improve the way consumers receive information about home loans both when they apply and when they are getting ready to close, became effective on October 3, 2015.  TRID represents a comprehensive overhaul of not only the existing home loan disclosure rules, but the entire home loan origination process, and has required industry wide changes to the way in which home loan brokers, lenders, settlement agents and service providers must work with each other. The rule has required, and will continue to require, substantial expense and effort in order to comply.  We relied on several third party vendors, in addition to our internal resources, to implement all of the home loan disclosure changes required by TRID by the

October 3, 2015 deadline. There can be no assurances that we have properly implemented the requirements of the TRID rule.

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

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

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

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

Our failure to comply with the laws, rules or regulations to which we are subject, whether actual or alleged, would expose us to fines, penalties or potential litigation liabilities, including costs, settlements and judgments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows and our ability to make distributions to our shareholders.

We are highly dependent on U.S. government ‑sponsored entities, and any changes in these entities or their current roles could materially and adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial position and results of operations.

Our ability to generate revenues through mortgage loan sales depends to a significant degree on programs administered by GSEs, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government agencies, including Ginnie Mae, and others that facilitate the issuance of mortgage ‑backed securities (“MBS”), in the secondary market. These Agencies play a critical role in the mortgage industry and we have significant business relationships with many of them. Presently, almost all of the newly originated conforming loans that we originate directly with borrowers or assist PMT in acquiring from mortgage lenders through our correspondent production program qualify under existing standards for inclusion in mortgage securities backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. We also derive other material financial benefits from these relationships, including the assumption of credit risk by these Agencies on loans included in such mortgage securities in exchange for our payment of guarantee fees and the ability to avoid certain loan inventory finance costs through streamlined loan funding and sale procedures.

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

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

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

Changes in Agency guidelines or guarantees could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are required to follow specific guidelines that impact the way that we service and originate Agency loans, including guidelines with respect to:

In particular, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) has directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to align their guidelines for servicing delinquent mortgages that they own or that back securities which they guarantee, which can result in monetary incentives for servicers that perform well and penalties for those that do not. In addition, the FHFA has directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to assess compensatory penalties against servicers in connection with the failure to meet specified timelines relating to delinquent loans and foreclosure proceedings, and other breaches of servicing obligations.

We generally cannot negotiate these terms with the Agencies and they are subject to change at any time. A significant change in these guidelines that has the effect of decreasing the fees we charge or requires us to expend additional resources in providing mortgage services could decrease our revenues or increase our costs, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, changes in the nature or extent of the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or the insurance provided by the FHA could also have broad adverse market implications. The guarantee fees that we are required to pay to the Agencies for these guarantees have increased significantly over time and any future increases in these fees or the premiums we are required to pay the FHA for insurance would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our inability to meet certain net worth and liquidity requirements imposed by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

In October 2014, Ginnie Mae announced several new issuer requirement changes, as well as a new issuer scorecard as part of an overall effort to ensure that Ginnie Mae’s MBS guarantee program continues to be flexible and available to as many entities as possible.  The issuer scorecard enables issuers to better understand and comply with Ginnie Mae expectations and provides issuers with a framework and methodology from which they can gauge their effectiveness against a pre-determined set of Ginnie Mae metrics as well as how they rank against their peers.  The new Ginnie Mae financial requirements include net worth and liquid asset criteria for single-family issuers, as well as issuers participating in more than one MBS program.  Issuers were required to meet the new requirements beginning December 31, 2015.

On January 30, 2015, FHFA proposed new minimum financial eligibility requirements for GSE seller/servicers.  These eligibility requirements align the minimum financial requirements for mortgage seller/servicers to do business with the GSEs.  Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, at the direction of and in consultation with FHFA, undertook an extensive review of financial risks that the GSEs face from doing business with their sellers and servicers.  Based on this analysis, FHFA proposed minimum financial requirements, including net worth, capital ratio and liquidity criteria, in order to set a minimum level of capital needed to adequately absorb potential losses and a minimum amount of liquidity needed to service GSE loans to cover the financial risks.  These FHFA minimum financial requirements became effective on December 31, 2015. 

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

Changes to government mortgage modification and related programs could adversely affect our future revenues and costs.

Under the Making Home Affordable program (“MHA”) and similar government programs, a participating servicer may be entitled to receive financial incentives in connection with any modification plans that it enters into with eligible borrowers and subsequent success fees to the extent that a borrower remains current in any agreed upon loan modification. While we participate in and dedicate numerous resources to the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and related programs within MHA, changes in legislation or regulation regarding HAMP or any other government mortgage modification program or changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for modifications of mortgage loans may impact the extent to which we participate in and receive financial benefits from such programs, or may increase our operating costs and the expense of our participation in such programs.

HAMP and other MHA programs have been extended and are now scheduled to expire on December 31, 2016. The expiration of these programs could significantly decrease our revenues, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”) allows us to refinance loans with an LTV greater than 100%. This program, and the FHA’s Short Refinance Program, allow us to refinance loans to existing borrowers who have little or negative equity in their homes. The FHA’s Short Refinance Program is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2016, and the expiration of that program or changes in legislation or regulations regarding that program could reduce our volume of refinancing originations to borrowers with little or negative equity in their homes.  Changes to HAMP, HARP, and other MHA or other programs could adversely affect our future revenues and costs.

Unlike competitors that are federally chartered banks, we are subject to the licensing and operational requirements of states and other jurisdictions that result in substantial compliance costs, and our business would be adversely affected if we lose our licenses.

Because we are not a federally chartered depository institution, we do not benefit from exemptions to state mortgage lending, loan servicing or debt collection licensing and regulatory requirements. We must comply with state licensing requirements and varying compliance requirements in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and regulatory changes may increase our costs through stricter licensing laws, disclosure laws or increased fees or may impose conditions to licensing that we or our personnel are unable to meet.

In most states in which we operate, a regulatory agency or agencies regulate and enforce laws relating to mortgage servicers and mortgage originators. These rules and regulations generally provide for licensing as a mortgage servicer, mortgage originator, loan modification underwriter, or third ‑party debt default specialist (or a combination thereof), requirements as to the form and content of employee compensation contracts and other documentation, licensing of our employees and those of independent contractors with whom we contract, and employee hiring background checks. They also set forth restrictions on advertising and collection practices and disclosure and record ‑keeping requirements, and they establish a variety of borrowers’ rights. Future state legislation and changes in existing regulation may significantly increase our compliance costs or reduce the amount of ancillary fees, including late fees, that we may charge to borrowers. This could make our business cost ‑prohibitive in the affected state or states and could materially affect our business.

States that currently do not provide extensive regulation of our business may later choose to do so, and if such states so act, we may not be able to obtain or maintain all requisite licenses and permits. The failure to satisfy those and other regulatory requirements could result in a default under our servicing agreements and credit facilities and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Government inquiries into foreclosure and bankruptcy practices and the associated delays could result in additional compliance costs on our servicing business, and may adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

In connection with allegations of irregularities in foreclosure and bankruptcy processes, including so-called “robo-signing” by mortgage loan servicers, certain state Attorneys General, court administrators and government agencies, as well as federal and state government representatives, have issued letters of inquiry about policies and procedures and requested suspension of foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings against certain mortgage servicers, especially with respect to notarization, affidavit and notice procedures.  Most recently, on March 3, 2015, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Michigan entered an order approving a settlement between the United States Trustee Program and a major bank in which the bank agreed to pay over $50 million as a result of, among other things, filing payment change notices with bankruptcy courts by employees who had not verified the accuracy of the notices.  If similar administrative, judicial or legislative actions are taken by federal or state regulators, court administrators or government entities against us, we may be subjected to fines and other sanctions, including foreclosure or bankruptcy moratoria, suspensions or delays.

Also, on February 9, 2012, federal and state agencies announced a $25 billion settlement with the five largest banks that resulted from investigations of foreclosure practices, which is referred to as the National Mortgage Settlement (the “Settlement”). As part of the Settlement, the banks agreed to comply with various servicing standards relating to

foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings, documentation of borrowers’ account balances, chain of title, and evaluation of borrowers for loan modifications and short sales as well as servicing fees and the use of force-placed insurance.

Although we are not a party to the Settlement, we are required to comply with certain material requirements and terms where, among other things, (i) we subservice loans in certain circumstances for the mortgage servicers that are parties to the Settlement, (ii) the agencies begin to enforce the Settlement by looking downstream to our arrangement with certain mortgage servicers, (iii) the MSR owners for whom we subservice loans or the mortgage loan sellers from whom we or our Advised Entities purchase loans request that we comply with certain aspects of the Settlement, or (iv) we otherwise find it prudent to comply with certain aspects of the Settlement. While we have made changes to our operating policies and procedures in light of the Settlement, further changes could be required and changes to our servicing practices may increase compliance and operating costs for our servicing business, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

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

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

We may be subject to certain banking regulations that may limit our business activities.

As of September 30, 2015, PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (“PNC”) owned approximately 22% of the outstanding voting common shares of BlackRock, Inc. Based on PNC’s interests in and relationships with BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock, Inc. is deemed to be a non-bank subsidiary of PNC. BlackRock, Inc. is an affiliate of BlackRock Mortgage Ventures, LLC, which is one of our largest equity holders. Due to these relationships, we are deemed to be a non-bank subsidiary of PNC, which is regulated as a financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. As a non-bank subsidiary of PNC, we may be subject to certain banking regulations, including the supervision and regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). Such banking regulations could limit the activities and the types of businesses that we may conduct. The Federal Reserve has broad enforcement authority over financial holding companies and their subsidiaries. The Federal Reserve could exercise its power to restrict PNC from having a non-bank subsidiary that is engaged in any activity that, in the Federal Reserve’s opinion, is unauthorized or constitutes an unsafe or unsound business practice, and could exercise its power to restrict us from engaging in any such activity. The Federal Reserve may also impose substantial fines and other penalties for violations that we may commit. To the extent that we are subject to banking regulation, we could be at a competitive disadvantage because some of our competitors are not subject to these limitations.

In addition, provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule” prohibit or restrict a bank holding company and its affiliates from conducting certain transactions with certain investment funds, including hedge funds and private equity funds (collectively “covered funds”), when it has an ownership interest in, sponsors or advises a covered fund. The Volcker Rule prohibits proprietary trading as defined by such Rule, unless the trading is permitted by an exemption, such as for risk-mitigating hedging purposes. The Volcker Rule applies to us by virtue of our affiliation with PNC through BlackRock. On December 10, 2013, the regulatory agencies responsible for enforcing the Volcker Rule jointly issued implementing regulations that became effective April 1, 2014. While the Dodd-Frank Act provided that bank holding companies were required to conform their proprietary trading and covered funds activities by July 21, 2014, in connection with issuing the final Volcker Rule, the Federal Reserve extended the conformance period until July 21, 2015. The Federal Reserve is permitted, by rule or order, to extend the conformance period for one year at a time, for a total of not more than three years. On December 18, 2014, the Federal Reserve issued an order that further extends

until July 21, 2016 the conformance period only for the prohibitions and restrictions in connection with covered funds that were in place prior to December 31, 2013 (“legacy covered funds”). The Federal Reserve stated in the order that it intends to exercise its authority again next year and grant the final one-year extension in order to permit bank holding companies until July 21, 2017 to conform transactions with legacy covered funds to the covered funds requirements of the Volcker Rule .  The Volcker Rule limits our ability to acquire or retain an ownership interest in, sponsor, advise or manage covered funds, and limits investments in certain covered funds by our employees, among other restrictions. If a fund, whether newly created or existing, becomes a covered fund, then certain transactions between us and the covered fund could be prohibited or restricted, or the fund may need to be restructured. These prohibitions, restrictions and limitations could disadvantage us against those competitors that are not subject to the Volcker Rule in the ability to manage covered funds and to retain employees.  Our failure to comply with the requirements of the Volcker Rule may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

We originate loans and acquire real estate assets secured by multifamily and commercial properties. The profitability of these business activities will be closely tied to the overall success of the multifamily and commercial real estate market. Various changes in real estate conditions may impact the multifamily and commercial real estate sectors. Any negative trends in such real estate conditions may reduce demand for our products and services and, as a result, adversely affect our results of operations. These conditions include:

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

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

Under various U.S. federal, state and local laws, an owner or operator of real property may become liable for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released on its property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator was responsible for, or aware of, the release of such hazardous substances. The presence of hazardous substances may also adversely affect an owner’s ability to sell real estate, borrow using real estate as collateral or make debt payments to us. In addition, if we take title to a property, the presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect our ability to sell the property, and we may become liable to a governmental entity or to third

parties for various fines, damages or remediation costs. Any of these liabilities or events may materially and adversely affect the value of the relevant asset and/or our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

correspondent production and consumer direct origination businesses are also subject to overall market factors that can impact our ability to grow our loan production volume. For example, increased competition from new and existing market participants, reductions in the overall level of refinancing activity or slow growth in the level of new home purchase activity can impact our ability to continue to grow our loan production volume, and we may be forced to accept lower margins in our respective businesses in order to continue to compete and keep our volume of activity consistent with past or projected levels. We believe that changes in supply and demand within the marketplace have been driving lower margins in recent periods, which is reflected in our results of operations and in our gains on mortgage loans held for sale. If we are unable to grow our loan production volumes or if our margins become compressed, then our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

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

We operate in a highly competitive industry that could become even more competitive as a result of economic, legislative, regulatory and technological changes. With respect to mortgage loan production, we face competition in such areas as mortgage loan offerings, rates, fees and customer service. With respect to servicing, we face competition in areas such as fees and performance in reducing delinquencies and entering into successful modifications.

Competition in servicing mortgage loans and in originating or acquiring newly originated mortgage loans comes from large commercial banks and savings institutions and other independent mortgage servicers and originators. Many of these institutions have significantly greater resources and access to capital than we do, which may give them the benefit of a lower cost of funds. Additionally, our existing and potential competitors may decide to modify their business models to compete more directly with our loan production and servicing models. For example, other non ‑bank loan servicers may try to leverage their servicing relationships and expertise to develop or expand a loan origination business. Since the withdrawal of a number of large participants from these markets following the financial crisis in 2008, there have been relatively few large non ‑bank participants. As more non ‑bank entities enter these markets, our mortgage banking businesses may generate lower margins in order to effectively compete.

In addition, technological advances and heightened e ‑commerce activities have increased consumers’ accessibility to products and services. This has intensified competition among banks and non ‑banks in offering mortgage loans. We may be unable to compete successfully in our industries and this could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our earnings may decrease because of changes in prevailing interest rates.

Our profitability is directly affected by changes in prevailing interest rates. The following are the material risks we face related to increases in prevailing interest rates:

The following are the material risks we face related to decreases in prevailing interest rates:

An event of default, a negative ratings action by a rating agency, the perception of financial weakness, an adverse action by a regulatory authority, a lengthening of foreclosure timelines or a general deterioration in the economy that constricts the availability of credit may increase our cost of funds and make it difficult for us to refinance existing debt and borrow additional funds. In addition, we may not be able to adjust our operational capacity in a timely fashion, or at all, in response to increases or decreases in mortgage production volume resulting from changes in prevailing interest rates.

Any of the increases or decreases discussed above could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We may be unable to obtain sufficient capital and liquidity to meet the financing requirements of our business.

We will require new and continued debt financing to facilitate our anticipated growth. Accordingly, our ability to finance our operations and repay maturing obligations rests in large part on our ability to borrow money. We are generally required to renew our financing arrangements each year, which exposes us to refinancing and interest rate risks. Our ability to refinance existing debt and borrow additional funds is affected by a variety of factors beyond our control including:

No assurance can be given that any refinancing or additional financing will be possible when needed, that we will be able to negotiate acceptable terms or that market conditions will be favorable at the times that we require such refinancing or additional financing.  If we are unable to obtain sufficient capital to meet the financing requirements of our business, our financial condition and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.

We leverage our assets under credit and other financing agreements and utilize various other sources of borrowings, which exposes us to significant risk and may materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

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

We leverage certain of our other assets under a capital lease and a revolving credit agreement and may in the future utilize other sources of borrowings, including term loans, bank credit facilities and structured financing arrangements, among others. The amount of leverage we employ varies depending on the asset class being financed, our available capital, our ability to obtain and access financing arrangements with lenders and the lenders’ and rating agencies’ estimate of, among other things, the stability of our investment portfolio’s cash flow. We cannot assure you that we will have access to any debt or equity capital on favorable terms or at the desired times, or at all. Our inability to raise such capital or obtain financing on favorable terms could materially adversely impact our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to shareholders.

Unlike banks, we are not subject to regulatory restrictions on the amount of our leverage. Our total borrowings are only restricted by covenants in our credit and other financing agreements, minimum capital requirements mandated by the Agencies pursuant to seller/servicer arrangements, and market conditions.  Incurring substantial debt subjects us to the risk that our cash flow from operations may be insufficient to repurchase the assets that we have sold to the lenders under our repurchase agreements or otherwise service the debt incurred under our other credit and financing agreements.

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

Our credit and financing agreements contain financial and restrictive covenants that could adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to operate our businesses.

Our existing credit and financing agreements also impose financial and non ‑financial covenants and restrictions on us that impact our liquidity through minimum cash reserve requirements and impact our flexibility to determine our operating policies and investment strategies by limiting our ability to incur indebtedness; grant liens; engage in consolidations, mergers and asset sales, make restricted payments and investments; enter into transactions with affiliates; and amend, modify or prepay certain indebtedness . In our credit and financing agreements, we agree to certain covenants and restrictions and we make representations about the assets sold or pledged under these agreements. If we default on our obligations under a credit or financing agreement, fail to comply with certain covenants and restrictions or breach our representations and are unable to cure, the lender may be able to terminate the transaction or its commitments, accelerate any amounts outstanding, require us to post additional collateral or repurchase the assets, and cease entering into any other credit transactions with us.

Because our credit and financing agreements typically contain cross ‑default provisions, a default that occurs under any one agreement could allow the lenders under our other agreements to also declare a default, thereby exposing us to a variety of lender remedies, such as those described above, and potential losses arising therefrom. Any losses that we incur on our credit and financing agreements could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

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

We pursue hedging strategies to reduce our exposure to adverse changes in interest rates. Our hedging activity will vary in scope based on the risks hedged, the level of interest rates, the type of investments held, and other changing market conditions. Hedging instruments involve risk because they often are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities, and our interest rate hedging may fail to protect or could adversely affect us because, among other things:

In addition, we may fail to recalculate, re ‑adjust and execute hedges in an efficient manner. Any hedging activity, which is intended to limit losses, may materially and adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows. Therefore, while we may enter into such transactions seeking to reduce interest rate risk, unanticipated changes in interest rates may result in worse overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. A liquid secondary market may not exist for a hedging instrument purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in significant losses. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in hedging strategies and price movements in the portfolio positions or liabilities being hedged may vary materially. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not establish an effective correlation between such hedging instruments and the portfolio positions or liabilities being hedged. Any such ineffective correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss. Numerous regulations currently apply to hedging and any new regulations or changes in existing regulations may significantly increase our administrative or compliance costs. Our derivative agreements generally provide for the daily mark to market of our hedge exposures. If a hedge counterparty determines that its exposure to us exceeds its exposure threshold, it may initiate a margin call and require us to post collateral. If we are unable to satisfy a margin call, we would be in default of our agreement, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We use estimates in determining the fair value of our MSRs, which are highly volatile assets with continually changing values. If our estimates of their value prove to be inaccurate, we may be required to write down the values of the MSRs which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The value of our MSRs is based on the cash flows projected to result from the servicing of the related mortgage loans and continually fluctuates due to a number of factors. These factors include prepayment speeds, changes in interest rates and other market conditions, which affect the number of loans that are repaid or refinanced and thus no longer result in cash flows, and the number of loans that become delinquent.

We use internal financial models that utilize our understanding of inputs and assumptions used by market participants to value our MSRs for purposes of financial reporting and for purposes of determining the price that we pay

for portfolios of MSRs and to acquire loans for which we will retain MSRs. These models are complex and use asset ‑specific collateral data and market inputs for interest and discount rates. In addition, the modeling requirements of MSRs are complex because of the high number of variables that drive cash flows associated with MSRs. Even if the general accuracy of our valuation models is validated, valuations are highly dependent upon the reasonableness of our inputs and the results of the models.

If loan delinquencies or prepayment speeds are higher than anticipated or other factors perform worse than modeled, the recorded value of certain of our MSRs may decrease, which would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Increases in delinquencies and defaults may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Falling home prices across the United States may result in higher loan ‑to ‑value ratios (“LTVs”), lower recoveries in foreclosure and an increase in loss severities above those that would have been realized had property values remained the same or continued to increase. Some borrowers do not have sufficient equity in their homes to permit them to refinance their existing loans, which may reduce the volume or growth of our loan production business. This may also provide borrowers with an incentive to default on their mortgage loans even if they have the ability to make principal and interest payments. Further, despite recent increases, interest rates have remained near historical lows for an extended period of time. Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgage loans must make larger monthly payments when the interest rates on those mortgage loans adjust upward from their initial fixed rates or low introductory rates to the rates computed in accordance with the applicable index and margin. Increases in monthly payments may increase the delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures on a significant number of the loans that we service.

Increased mortgage delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures may result in lower revenue for loans that we service for the Agencies because we only collect servicing fees from the Agencies for performing loans. Additionally, while increased delinquencies generate higher ancillary fees, including late fees, these fees are not likely to be recoverable in the event that the related loan is liquidated. In addition, an increase in delinquencies lowers the interest income that we receive on cash held in collection and other accounts because there is less cash in those accounts. Also, increased mortgage defaults may ultimately reduce the number of mortgages that we service.

Increased mortgage delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures will also result in a higher cost to service those loans due to the increased time and effort required to collect payments from delinquent borrowers and to acquire and liquidate the properties securing the loans or otherwise resolve loan defaults if payment collection is unsuccessful, and only a portion of these increased costs are recoverable under our servicing agreements. Increased mortgage delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures may also result in an increase in our interest expense and affect our liquidity as a result of borrowing under our credit facilities to fund an increase in the advances we are obligated to make to fulfill our obligations to MBS holders and to protect our investors’ interests in the properties securing the delinquent mortgage loans.

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

Certain loans that we produce are pooled into Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae MBS. Disruptions in the general MBS market have occurred in the past. Any significant disruption or period of illiquidity in the general MBS market would directly affect our own liquidity and the liquidity of PMT because no existing alternative secondary market would likely be able to accommodate on a timely basis the volume of loans that we typically sell in any given period. Accordingly, if the MBS market experiences a period of illiquidity, we might be prevented from selling the loans that we produce into the secondary market in a timely manner or at favorable prices, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The geographic concentration of our servicing portfolio may decrease the value of our MSRs and adversely affect our consumer direct business, which would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2015, approximately 24 % of the aggregate outstanding loan balance in our servicing portfolio was secured by properties located in California .  To the extent that California or other states in which we have greater concentrations of business in the future experience weaker economic conditions or greater rates of decline in real estate values than the United States generally, such concentration may decrease the value of our MSRs and adversely affect our consumer direct business. The impact of property value declines may increase in magnitude and it may continue for a long period of time. Additionally, if states in which we have greater concentrations of business were to change their licensing or other regulatory requirements to make our business cost ‑prohibitive, we may be required to stop doing business in those states or may be subject to a higher cost of doing business in those states, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Related Party Risks

We rely on PMT as a significant source of financing for, and revenue related to, our mortgage banking business, and the termination of, or material adverse change in, the terms of this relationship, or a material adverse change to PMT or its operations, would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

PMT is the counterparty that currently acquires all of the newly originated mortgage loans in connection with our correspondent production businesses. A significant portion of our income is derived from a fulfillment fee earned in connection with PMT’s acquisition of conventional loans. We are able to conduct our correspondent production business without having to incur the significant additional debt financing that would be required for us to purchase those loans from the originating lender. In the case of government ‑insured loans, we purchase them from PMT at PMT’s cost plus a sourcing fee and fulfill them for our own account, typically by pooling the federally insured or guaranteed loans together into an MBS which Ginnie Mae guarantees. We earn interest income and gains or losses during the holding period and upon the sale of these securities, and we retain the MSRs with respect to the loans. If this relationship with PMT was terminated by PMT or PMT reduced the volume of these loans that it acquires for any reason, we would have to acquire these loans from the correspondent sellers for our own account, something that we may be unable to do, or enter into another similar counterparty arrangement with a third party, which we may not be able to enter into on terms that are as favorable to us, or at all. Also, the management agreement, the mortgage banking and warehouse services agreement and certain of the other agreements that we have entered into with PMT contain cross ‑termination provisions that allow PMT to terminate one or more of those agreements under certain circumstances where another one of such agreements is terminated. Accordingly, the termination of this relationship with PMT, or a material change in the terms thereof that is adverse to us, would likely have a material adverse effect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the terms of these agreements extend until February 1, 2017 (subject to automatic renewals for 18-month terms), but any of the agreements may be terminated earlier under certain circumstances or otherwise non-renewed. If any agreement is terminated or non-renewed, it would materially and adversely affect our ability to continue to execute our business plan.

We expect that PMT will continue to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, it is possible that PMT may not meet the requirements for qualification as a REIT. If PMT were to lose its REIT status, corporate-level income taxes, including alternative minimum taxes, would apply to all of PMT's taxable income at federal and state tax rates, thereby potentially impairing PMT’s financial position and its ability to raise capital, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A significant portion of our loan servicing operations are conducted pursuant to subservicing contracts with PMT, and any termination by PMT of these contracts, or a material change in the terms thereof that is adverse to us, would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

PMT, as the owner of a substantial number of all of the MSRs or whole loans that we subservice, may, under certain circumstances, terminate our subservicing contract with or without cause, in some instances with little notice and little to no compensation. Upon any such termination, it would be difficult to replace such a large volume of

subservicing in a short period of time, or perhaps at all. Accordingly, we may not generate as much revenue from subservicing for other third parties. If we were to have our subservicing terminated by PMT, or if there was a change in the terms under which we perform subservicing for PMT that was material and adverse to us, this would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

PMT has an exclusive right to acquire the loans that are produced through our correspondent production program, which may limit the revenues that we could otherwise earn in respect of those loans.

Our mortgage banking and warehouse services agreement with PMT requires PLS to provide fulfillment services for correspondent production activities exclusively to PMT as long as PMT has the legal and financial capacity to purchase correspondent loans. As a result, unless PMT sells some of these loans back to us, the revenue that we earn with respect to these loans will be limited to the fulfillment fees that we earn in connection with the production of these loans, which may be less than the revenues that we might otherwise be able to realize by acquiring these loans ourselves and selling them in the secondary loan market.

Our sale of excess servicing spread exposes us to significant risks

We also sell to PMT or its subsidiaries, from time to time, the right to receive certain ESS arising from MSRs that we own or acquire. The ESS represents the difference between our contractual servicing fee with the applicable Agency and the base servicing fee that we retain as compensation for servicing the related mortgage loans upon our sale of the ESS.

As a condition of our sale of the ESS, PMT was required to subordinate its interests in the ESS to those of the applicable Agency. With respect to our Ginnie Mae MSRs, our interest is also subordinated to the rights of Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital LLC (“Credit Suisse”) under a repurchase agreement, pursuant to which Credit Suisse has a blanket lien on all of our Ginnie Mae MSRs (including the ESS we sell to PMT and record as a financing). Credit Suisse also required PMT to enter into a security and subordination agreement with respect to the acquired ESS, pursuant to which it acknowledges Credit Suisse’s blanket lien. The security and subordination agreement contains certain trigger events applicable to PMT, including breaches of its representations, warranties or covenants and defaults under other of its credit facilities that would require us to either (i) repay in full the outstanding loan amount under our repurchase agreement or (ii) repurchase the ESS from PMT at fair market value. To the extent we are unable to repay the loan under our repurchase agreement or repurchase the ESS, an event of default would exist under the repurchase agreement, thereby entitling Credit Suisse to liquidate the ESS and the related MSRs. As a result, a default by PMT under its security and subordination agreement that requires us to repay our repurchase agreement or repurchase the ESS, or that results in a loss of our Ginnie Mae MSRs, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Credit Suisse may also liquidate the ESS along with our related Ginnie Mae MSRs to the extent there exists an event of default under our repurchase agreement. In the event PMT’s ESS is liquidated as a result of certain of our actions or inactions, we generally would be required to indemnify PMT under the applicable spread acquisition agreement. A claim by PMT for the loss of its ESS as a result of our actions or inactions would likely be significant in size and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In connection with our repurchase agreement with Credit Suisse, we also provide pass through financing to PMT under a loan and security agreement to facilitate its financing of the ESS it acquires from us. The loan security agreement subjects us to the credit risk of PMT. To the extent PMT defaults in its payments of principal and interest under its loan and security agreement with us, we would still be required to make the allocable and corresponding payments under our repurchase agreement with Credit Suisse. To the extent PMT fails to make payments of principal and interest to us or otherwise defaults under the loan and security agreement, this could also create an event of default under our repurchase agreement with Credit Suisse that could cause a cross default under other financing arrangements and/or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Other Risks

We may be required to indemnify the purchasers of loans that we originate, acquire or assist in the fulfillment of, or repurchase those loans, if those loans fail to meet certain criteria or characteristics or under other circumstances.

Our contracts with purchasers of newly originated loans that we fund through our consumer direct program or acquire from PMT contain provisions that require us to indemnify the purchaser of the related loans or repurchase those loans under certain circumstances. Our contracts contain provisions that generally require us to indemnify or repurchase these loans if:

We believe that, as a result of the current market environment, many purchasers of mortgage loans, including the Agencies, are particularly aware of the conditions under which loan originators or sellers must indemnify them against losses related to purchased loans, or repurchase those loans, and would benefit from enforcing any repurchase remedies they may have. Our loan sale agreements with purchasers, including the Agencies, include provisions permitting purchasers to demand that we indemnify them for losses suffered in connection with loans sold that were originated in violation of applicable law or with other defects or demand repurchase of such loans. Repurchased loans typically can only be financed at a steep discount to their repurchase price, if at all. They are also typically sold at a significant discount to the UPB. In certain cases, we would have contractual rights to recover from the mortgage lenders from whom loans were acquired through our correspondent production program some or all of the amount paid by us in connection with this indemnification, or contractual rights to cause these mortgage lenders to repurchase these loans from us. Depending on the volume of repurchase and indemnification requests, some of these mortgage lenders may not be able to financially fulfill their obligation to indemnify us or repurchase loans from us. If a material amount of recovery cannot be obtained from these mortgage lenders, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Although this exposure cannot be quantified with certainty, to recognize these potential indemnification and repurchase losses, we have recorded a liability of $20.6 million as of December 31, 2015. Because of the increase in our loan production since 2010, we expect that indemnification and repurchase requests are likely to increase. Should home values decrease, our realized loan losses from loan indemnifications and repurchases may increase as well. As such, our indemnification and repurchase costs may increase beyond our current expectations.

In addition, our mortgage banking and warehouse services agreement with PMT requires us to indemnify it with respect to loans for which we provide fulfillment services in certain instances. If we are required to indemnify PMT, or other purchasers against loans, or repurchase loans, that result in losses that exceed our reserve, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

In deciding whether to approve loans or to enter into other transactions with borrowers and counterparties in our consumer direct and correspondent production activities, we may rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of borrowers and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information. We also may rely on representations of borrowers and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. If any of this information is intentionally or negligently misrepresented and such misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, the value of the loan may be significantly lower than expected. Whether a misrepresentation is made by the loan applicant, another third party or one of our employees, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation. Our controls and processes may not have detected or may not detect all misrepresented information in our loan originations or from our business clients. Any such misrepresented information could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are required to make servicing advances that can be subject to delays in recovery or may not be recoverable in certain circumstances, which could adversely affect our liquidity, business, financial condition and results of operations.

During any period in which a borrower is not making payments, we are required under most of our servicing agreements in respect of our MSRs to advance our own funds to pay property taxes and insurance premiums, legal expenses and other protective advances and, in the case of certain Agencies, meet contractual principal and interest requirements for investors. We also advance funds under these agreements to maintain, repair and market real estate properties on behalf of investors. As home values change, we may have to reconsider certain of the assumptions underlying our decisions to make advances and, in certain situations, our contractual obligations may require us to make advances for which we may not be reimbursed. In addition, if a mortgage loan serviced by us is in default or becomes delinquent, the repayment to us of the advance may be delayed until the mortgage loan is repaid or refinanced or a liquidation occurs. If we receive requests for advances in excess of amounts that we are able to secure from our advance credit facility or, in the case of loans that we subservice, from the owner of the MSRs and loans, we may not be able to fund these advance requests, which could materially and adversely affect our loan servicing business. A delay in our ability to collect advances may adversely affect our liquidity, and our inability to be reimbursed for advances could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our counterparties may terminate our servicing rights, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The owners of the loans that we service may terminate our MSRs if we fail to comply with applicable servicing guidelines. As is standard in the industry, under the terms of our master servicing agreements with the Agencies in respect of MSRs that we retain in connection with our loan production, the Agencies have the right to terminate us as servicer of the loans we service on their behalf at any time (and, in certain instances, without the payment of any termination fee) and also have the right to cause us to sell the MSRs to a third party. In addition, the failure to comply with servicing standards could result in termination of our agreements with the Agencies with little or no notice and without any compensation. If the servicing rights were terminated on a material portion of our servicing portfolio, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our failure to deal appropriately with various issues that may give rise to reputational risk, including conflicts of interest, legal and regulatory requirements, and negative publicity involving certain of our officers, could cause harm to our business and adversely affect our earnings.

Maintaining our reputation is critical to attracting and retaining clients, customers, trading counterparties, investors and employees.  If we fail to deal with, or appear to fail to deal with various issues that may give rise to reputational risk, we could significantly harm our business prospects and earnings.  Such issues include, but are not limited to, conflicts of interest, legal and regulatory requirements, negative public opinion involving certain of our officers, and any of the other risks discussed in this Item 1A. 

Certain of our officers also serve as officers of PMT. As we expand the scope of our businesses, we increasingly confront potential conflicts of interest relating to investment activities that we manage for our clients.  In addition, investors may perceive conflicts of interest regarding investment decisions for funds in which certain of our officers have made and may continue to make personal investments. Similarly, conflicts of interest may exist regarding decisions about the allocation of specific investment opportunities between funds in which we receive an allocation of profits as the general partner and funds in which we do not.

The SEC and certain regulators have increased their scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest, and as we experience growth in our businesses, we must continue to monitor and mitigate or otherwise address any conflicts between our interests and those of our clients. We have implemented procedures and controls to be followed when real or potential conflicts of interest arise, but it is possible that potential or perceived conflicts could give rise to the dissatisfaction of, or litigation by, investors in our Advised Entities or regulatory enforcement actions. Appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and difficult and our reputation could be damaged if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with one or more potential or actual conflicts of interest. Reputational risk incurred in

connection with conflicts of interest could negatively affect our business, strain our working relationships with regulators and government agencies, expose us to litigation and regulatory action, impact our ability to attract and retain clients, customers, trading counterparties, investors and employees and adversely affect our results of operations.

Certain of our executive officers are former executive officers and senior managers of Countrywide Financial Corporation, which has been the subject of various investigations and lawsuits and ongoing negative publicity. Any existing or future investigations, litigation or negative publicity involving Countrywide, or our officers as a result of their former association with that entity, may generate negative publicity or media attention for us or adversely impact our business.

Reputational risk, or the risk to our business, earnings and capital from negative public opinion, is inherent in our business and can result from a number of factors. Negative public opinion can result from our actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending and debt collection practices, corporate governance, and actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public opinion can also result from media coverage, whether accurate or not. These factors can tarnish or otherwise strain our working relationships with regulators and government agencies, expose us to litigation and regulatory action, negatively affect our ability to attract and retain customers, trading counterparties and employees and adversely affect our results of operations.

We may not realize all of the anticipated benefits of potential future acquisitions of MSRs, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of potential future acquisitions of servicing portfolios will depend, in part, on our ability to appropriately service any such assets. The process of acquiring these assets may disrupt our business and may not result in the full benefits expected. The risks associated with these acquisitions include, among others, unanticipated issues in integrating information regarding the new loans to be serviced into our information technology systems, and the diversion of management’s attention from other ongoing business concerns. We have also recently seen increased scrutiny by the Agencies and regulators with respect to large servicing acquisitions, the effect of which could reduce the willingness of selling institutions to pursue MSR sales and/or impede our ability to complete MSR acquisitions. Moreover, if we inappropriately value the assets that we acquire or the fair value of the assets that we acquire declines after we acquire them, the resulting charges may negatively affect the carrying value of the assets on our balance sheet and our earnings. Furthermore, if we incur additional indebtedness to finance an acquisition, the acquired servicing portfolio may not be able to generate sufficient cash flow to service that additional indebtedness. Unsuitable or unsuccessful acquisitions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our prime servicing portfolio, which consists primarily of recently originated loans, has a limited performance history, which makes our future results of operations more difficult to predict.

The likelihood of mortgage delinquencies and defaults, and the associated risks to our business, including higher costs to service such loans and a greater risk that we may incur losses due to repurchase or indemnification demands, change as loans season, or increase with age. Newly originated loans typically exhibit low delinquency and default rates as the changes in economic conditions, individual financial circumstances and other factors that drive borrower delinquency often do not appear for months or years. Highly seasoned loan portfolios, in which borrowers have demonstrated years of performance on their mortgage payments, also tend to exhibit low delinquency and default rates. Most of the loans in our prime servicing portfolio were originated in the years 2010 through 2015. As a result, we expect the delinquency rate and defaults in the prime servicing portfolio to increase in future periods as the portfolio seasons, but we cannot predict the magnitude of this impact on our results of operations. In addition, because most of the loans in our portfolios were originated after the recent financial crisis, it may be difficult to compare our business to our competitors and others that have weathered the economic difficulties in our industry over the last several years.

Risks Related to our Investment Management Segment

Market conditions could reduce the fair value of the assets that we manage, which would reduce our management and incentive fees.

Volatile market conditions could adversely affect our investment management segment in many ways, including by reducing the fair value of our assets under management, which could materially reduce our management fee and incentive fee revenues and adversely affect our financial condition. A significant portion of the fees that we earn under our investment management agreements with clients are based on the fair value of the assets that we manage. The fair values of the securities and other assets held in the portfolios that we manage and, therefore, our assets under management may decline due to any number of factors beyond our control, including, among others, a decline in housing, changes to interest rates, stock or bond market, a general economic downturn, political uncertainty or acts of terrorism. The economic outlook cannot be predicted with certainty and we continue to operate in a challenging business environment. If market conditions cause a decline in the fair value of the assets that we manage, that decline in fair value could result in lower management fees and potentially lower incentive fees resulting from reduced performance under our management contracts with our Advised Entities. If our revenues decline without a commensurate reduction in our expenses, our net income will be reduced and our business will be negatively affected.

The historical returns on the assets that we select and manage for our clients, and our resulting management and incentive fees, may not be indicative of future results.

The historical returns of the assets that we manage should not be considered indicative of the future returns on those assets or future returns on other assets that we may select for investment by our Advised Entities. The investment performance that is achieved for the assets that we manage varies over time and the variance can be significant. Accordingly, the management and incentive fees that we have earned in the past based on those returns should not be considered indicative of the management or incentive fees that we may earn in the future from managing those same assets or from managing other assets for our Advised Entities. A decline in the investment performance of our managed assets will also adversely affect our ability to attract and retain clients.

We currently, and in the future may, manage assets for a small number of clients, the loss of any one of which could significantly reduce our management and incentive fees and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We currently manage the assets of the Advised Entities, and the majority of our management and incentive fees result from our management of PMT. The term of the management agreement that we have entered into with PMT, as amended, expires on February 1, 2017, subject to automatic renewal for additional 18-month periods, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the terms of the agreement.  In the event of a termination by PMT, we may be entitled to a termination fee in certain circumstances. However, the termination of such contract and the loss of PMT as a client would significantly affect our investment management segment and negatively impact our management fees, and could have a material and adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Also, because the management agreements we have entered into with the Investment Funds and PMT were negotiated between related parties without the benefit of the type of negotiations normally conducted with unaffiliated third parties, the terms of these agreements, including the fees payable to us, may prove to be more favorable to us than they would be if these agreements had been negotiated with unaffiliated third parties. Accordingly, we may not generate as much revenue from management agreements that we enter into with other third parties. In addition, the Investment Funds are limited ‑life funds that were established in 2008 with commitment periods that ended in 2011 and terms that end in December 2016 with the possibility of three one ‑year extensions. Accordingly, base fees generated by the Investment Funds will continue to decline as the assets under management run off.

Our failure to obtain consent of the Advised Entities in connection with certain dispositions by BlackRock and Highfields may cause us to breach agreements and lose management and incentive fees earned from such Advised Entities.

Because PCM is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), the management agreements between us and the Advised Entities would be terminated upon an “assignment” of these agreements without consent, which assignment may be deemed to occur in the event that PCM was to experience a direct or indirect change of control. Because BlackRock and Highfields may be deemed to control us, a significant disposition by either of them of their interest in us could trigger an “assignment.” We cannot be certain that consents required to assignments of our investment management agreements will be obtained if a change of control occurs. “Assignment” of these agreements without consent could cause us to lose the management and incentive fees we earn from such Advised Entities.

Our failure to comply with the extensive amount of regulation applicable to our investment management segment could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our investment management segment is subject to extensive regulation in the United States, primarily at the federal level, including regulation of PCM by the SEC under the Advisers Act and regulation of PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund LLC and PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund, LP under the Investment Company Act. The requirements imposed by our regulators are designed primarily to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and to protect investors in our Advised Entities and are not designed to protect our stockholders. Consequently, these regulations often serve to limit our activities.

These requirements relate to, among other things, fiduciary duties to clients, maintaining an effective compliance program, solicitation agreements, conflicts of interest, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, disclosure requirements, limitations on agency cross and principal transactions between an adviser and advisory clients and general anti ‑fraud prohibitions. Similar requirements apply to registered investment companies and to PCM’s management of those companies under the Investment Company Act which, among other things, regulates the relationship between a registered investment company and its investment adviser and prohibits or severely restricts principal transactions and joint transactions. Registered investment advisers and registered investment companies are also subject to routine periodic examinations by the staff of the SEC.

We also regularly rely on exemptions from various requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), the Investment Company Act and ERISA. These exemptions are sometimes highly complex and may in certain circumstances depend on compliance by third parties and service providers whom we do not control. If for any reason these exemptions were to be revoked or challenged or otherwise become unavailable to us, we could be subject to regulatory action or third ‑party claims, and our business could be materially and adversely affected.

Our business combines the production and servicing of loans and investment management, which presents particular compliance challenges. For example, regulations applicable to our investment management business that are easily applied to traditional investments, such as stocks and bonds, may be more difficult to apply to a portfolio of loans, and the regulations applicable to our investment management business can require procedures that are uncommon, impractical or difficult in our loan production and servicing business.

The failure by us to comply with applicable laws or regulations could result in fines, suspensions of individual employees or other sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if an investigation or proceeding did not result in a fine or sanction or the fine or sanction imposed against us or our employees by a regulator were small in monetary amount, the adverse publicity relating to an investigation, proceeding or imposition of these fines or sanctions could harm our reputation and cause us to lose existing clients.

Changes in regulations applicable to our investment management segment could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The legislative and regulatory environment in which we operate has undergone significant changes in the recent past. We believe that significant regulatory changes in the investment management industry are likely to continue, which is likely to subject industry participants to additional, more costly and generally more detailed regulation. New laws or regulations, or changes in the enforcement of existing laws or regulations, applicable to us and our clients may adversely affect our business. Our ability to function in this environment will depend on our ability to monitor and promptly react to legislative and regulatory changes.

Certain provisions of the Dodd ‑Frank Act will, and other provisions may, increase regulatory burdens and reporting and related compliance costs on our investment management segment. The scope of many provisions of the Dodd ‑Frank Act is being determined by implementing regulations, some of which will require lengthy proposal and promulgation periods. The SEC requires investment advisers such as us that are registered with the SEC and advise one or more private funds to provide certain information about their funds and assets under management, including the amount of borrowings, concentration of ownership and other performance information. These filings have required, and will continue to require, significant investments in people and systems to ensure timely and accurate reporting. The Dodd ‑Frank Act will affect a broad range of market participants with whom we interact or may interact, including banks, non ‑bank financial institutions, rating agencies, mortgage brokers, credit unions, insurance companies and broker ‑dealers, and may cause us to become subject to further regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Regulatory changes that will affect other market participants are likely to change the way in which we conduct business with our counterparties. The uncertainty regarding the continued implementation of the Dodd ‑Frank Act and its impact on the investment management industry and us cannot be predicted at this time but will continue to be a risk for our business.

We may be adversely affected as a result of new or revised legislation or regulations imposed by the SEC, other U.S. or non ‑U.S. governmental regulatory authorities or self ‑regulatory organizations that supervise the financial markets. We also may be adversely affected by changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules by these governmental authorities and self ‑regulatory organizations, as well as by U.S. and non ‑U.S. courts. It is impossible to determine the extent of the impact of any new laws, regulations or initiatives that may be proposed on us or the markets in which we trade, or whether any of the proposals will become law. Compliance with any new laws or regulations could add to our compliance burden and costs and adversely affect the manner in which we conduct business, as well as our financial condition and results of operations.

We may encounter conflicts of interest in trying to appropriately allocate our time and services between our own activities and the accounts that we manage, or in trying to appropriately allocate investment opportunities among ourselves and the accounts that we manage.

Pursuant to our management agreements with PMT and the Investment Funds, we are obligated to provide PMT and the Investment Funds with the services of our senior management team, and the members of that team are required to devote such time as is necessary and appropriate, commensurate with the level of activity of PMT and the Investment Funds. The members of our senior management team may have conflicts in allocating their time and services between our operations and the activities of PMT, the Investment Funds and other entities or accounts managed by us now or in the future.

Certain of the funds that we currently advise have, and certain of the funds that we may in the future advise may have, overlapping investment objectives, including funds which have different fee structures, and potential conflicts may arise with respect to our decisions regarding how to allocate investment opportunities among those funds. In addition, we and the other entities or accounts that we manage or will manage may participate in some of PMT’s investments now or in the future, which may not be the result of arm’s length negotiations and may involve or later result in potential conflicts between our interests in the investments and those of PMT or such other entities.

The investment management industry is intensely competitive.

The investment management industry is intensely competitive, with competition based on a variety of factors, including investment performance, management fee rates, continuity of the management team and client relationships, reputation and the continuity of buying and selling arrangements with intermediaries. A number of factors, including the following, serve to increase our competitive risks:

If we are unable to compete effectively, our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity may be materially and adversely affected.

We are subject to third ‑party litigation risk, which could result in significant liabilities and reputational harm to us.

In general, we may be exposed to the risk of litigation by investors in our client funds if our management of or advice to any Advised Entity is alleged to constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct. Investors could sue us to recover amounts lost by those entities due to our alleged misconduct, up to the entire amount of loss. Further, we may be subject to litigation arising from investor dissatisfaction with the performance of entities that we manage or from allegations that we improperly exercised control or influence over those entities. In addition, we are exposed to risks of litigation or investigation relating to transactions which presented conflicts of interest that were not properly addressed. In such actions we would be obligated to bear legal, settlement and other costs (which may be in excess of available insurance coverage). In addition, although we are generally indemnified by the entities that we manage, our rights to indemnification may be challenged. If we are required to incur all or a portion of the costs arising out of litigation or investigations as a result of inadequate insurance proceeds or failure to obtain indemnification from the entities that we manage, our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity would be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Business in General

We have experienced rapid growth, which may be difficult to sustain and which may place significant demands on our administrative, operational and financial resources.

Our rapid growth has caused, and if it continues will continue to cause, significant demands on our legal, accounting and operational infrastructure, and increased expenses. In addition, we are required to continuously develop our systems and infrastructure in response to the increasing sophistication of the investment management and mortgage lending markets and legal, accounting and regulatory developments relating to all of our business activities. Our future growth will depend, among other things, on our ability to maintain an operating platform and management system sufficient to address our growth and will require us to incur significant additional expenses and to commit additional senior management and operational resources. As a result, we face significant challenges in:

We may not be able to manage our expanding operations effectively and we may not be able to continue to grow, and any failure to do so could adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and control our expenses.

We depend on counterparties and vendors to provide services that are critical to our business, which subjects us to a variety of risks.

We have a number of counterparties and vendors that, among other things, provide us with financial, technology and other services to support our businesses. If our current counterparties and vendors were to stop providing services to us on acceptable terms, we may be unable to procure alternative services from other counterparties or vendors in a timely and efficient manner and on acceptable terms, or at all. With respect to vendors engaged to perform certain servicing activities, we are required to assess their compliance with various regulations and establish procedures to provide reasonable assurance that the vendor’s activities comply in all material respects with such regulations. In the event that a vendor’s activities are not in compliance, it could negatively impact our relationships with our regulators, as well as our business and operations. Further, we may incur significant costs to resolve any such disruptions in service which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our risk management efforts may not be effective.

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

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

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

Accounting rules for certain of our transactions are highly complex and involve significant judgment and assumptions. Changes in accounting interpretations or assumptions could impact our financial statements.

Accounting rules for mortgage loan sales and securitizations, valuations of financial instruments and MSRs, investment consolidations and other aspects of our operations are highly complex and involve significant judgment and assumptions. These complexities could lead to a delay in preparation of financial information and the delivery of this information to our stockholders and also increase the risk of errors and restatements, as well as the cost of compliance. Changes in accounting interpretations or assumptions could impact our financial statements and our ability to timely prepare our financial statements. Although we are an emerging growth company, we are electing to comply with new public company accounting standards. Our inability to timely prepare our financial statements in the future would likely adversely affect our share price significantly.

The failure of PennyMac Loan Services, LLC to avail itself of an appropriate exemption from registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 could have a material and adverse effect on our business.

We intend to operate so that we and each of our subsidiaries are not required to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “ICA”). We believe that our subsidiary, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (“PLS”), qualifies for the exemption provided in Section 3(c)(6) because it has been, and is expected to continue to be, primarily engaged, directly or through majority-owned subsidiaries, in (1) the business of purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages or other liens on and interests in real estate (from which not less than 25 percent of its gross income during its last fiscal year was and will continue to be derived), together with (2) an additional business or businesses other than investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, namely the business of servicing mortgages. Although we expect not less than twenty five percent (25%) of PLS’ gross income to be derived from originating, purchasing, or acquiring mortgages or liens on and interests in real estate, there can be no assurances that the composition of PLS’ gross income will remain the same over time.

To date, the SEC staff has provided limited guidance with respect to the applicability of Section 3(c)(6), and PLS has not sought a no-action letter from the SEC staff respecting its position. If PLS is ultimately unable to rely on the Section 3(c)(6) exemption due to a failure to meet the 25 percent of gross income test or to the extent that the SEC staff provides negative guidance regarding the applicability or scope of the exemption, we may be required to either (a) register as an investment company, or (b) substantially restructure our business, change our investment strategy and/or the manner in which we conduct our operations in order to qualify for another ICA exemption and avoid being required to register as an investment company, either of which could materially and adversely affect our business, liquidity, financial position, results of operations, and ability to pay dividends. 

In the case of a restructuring, PLS could temporarily rely on Rule 3a-2 for its exemption from registration. Rule 3a-2 provides a safe harbor exemption, not to exceed one year, for companies that have a bona fide intent to be engaged in an excepted activity but temporarily fail to meet the requirements for an exemption. In such case, PLS would likely be required to restructure its business by acquiring and/or disposing of assets in order to meet an exemption under Section 3(c)(5)(C), depending on the composition of its assets at the time. The SEC staff’s position on Section 3(c)(5)(C) generally requires that an issuer maintain at least 55% of its assets in mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate (qualifying assets) and at least 80% of its assets in qualifying assets plus real estate-related assets.  PLS would be more limited in its ability to hold mortgage servicing rights or would be required to acquire and hold more whole mortgage loans and real estate to adjust the composition of its assets to meet the 55% and 80% tests.

If PLS is required to register as an investment company, we would be required to comply with a variety of substantive requirements under the ICA that impose, among other things: limitations on capital structure; restrictions on specified investments; prohibitions on transactions with affiliates; compliance with reporting, record keeping, voting and proxy disclosure; and, other rules and regulations that would significantly increase our operating expenses. Further, if PLS was or is required to register as an investment company, PLS would be in breach of various representations and warranties contained in its credit and other agreements resulting in a default as to certain of our contracts and obligations. This could also subject us to civil or criminal actions or regulatory proceedings, or result in a court appointed receiver to take control of us and liquidate our business, any or all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and ability to pay dividends.

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

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

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately determine our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, our stockholders could lose confidence in our financial results, which could harm our business and the market value of our common stock.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud. We may in the future discover areas of our internal controls that need improvement. Section 404 of the Sarbanes ‑Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes ‑Oxley Act”) will require us to evaluate and report on our internal controls over financial reporting. We cannot be certain that we will be successful in continuing to maintain adequate control over our financial reporting and financial processes. Furthermore, as we rapidly grow our business, our internal controls will become more complex, and we will require significantly more resources to ensure our internal controls remain effective. If we or our independent auditors discover a material weakness, the disclosure of that fact, even if quickly remedied, could result in a breach under one of our lending arrangements and/or reduce the market value of shares of our Class A common stock. Additionally, the existence of any material weakness or significant deficiency would require management to devote significant time and incur significant expense to remediate any such material weakness or significant deficiency and management may not be able to remediate any such material weakness or significant deficiency in a timely manner.

The loss of the services of our senior managers could adversely affect our business.

The experience of our senior managers is a valuable asset to us. Our management team has significant experience in the mortgage loan production and servicing industry and the investment management industry. We do not maintain key life insurance policies relating to our senior managers. The loss of the services of our senior managers for any reason could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our business could suffer if we fail to attract and retain a highly skilled workforce.

Our future success will depend on our ability to identify, hire, develop, motivate and retain highly qualified personnel for all areas of our organization, in particular skilled managers, loan officers, underwriters, loan servicers and debt default specialists. Trained and experienced personnel are in high demand and may be in short supply in some areas. Many of the companies with which we compete for experienced employees have greater resources than we have and may be able to offer more attractive terms of employment. In addition, we invest significant time and expense in training our employees, which increases their value to competitors who may seek to recruit them. We may not be able to attract, develop and maintain an adequate skilled workforce necessary to operate our businesses and labor expenses may increase as a result of a shortage in the supply of qualified personnel. If we are unable to attract and retain such personnel, we may not be able to take advantage of acquisitions and other growth opportunities that may be presented to us and this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The success and growth of our business will depend upon our ability to adapt to and implement technological changes.

Our mortgage loan production business is dependent upon our ability to effectively interface with our borrowers, mortgage lenders and other third parties and to efficiently process loan applications and closings. The consumer direct and correspondent production processes are becoming more dependent upon technological advancement, such as our continued ability to process applications over the Internet, accept electronic signatures, provide process status updates instantly and other borrower ‑ or counterparty ‑expected conveniences. Maintaining and improving this new technology and becoming proficient with it may also require significant capital expenditures. As these requirements increase in the future, we will have to fully develop these technological capabilities to remain competitive and any failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war may cause disruptions in the U.S. financial markets, including the real estate capital markets, and negatively impact the U.S. economy in general. Any future terrorist attacks, the anticipation of any such attacks, the consequences of any military or other response by the United States and its allies, and other armed conflicts could cause consumer confidence and spending to decrease or result in increased volatility in the United States and worldwide financial markets and economy. The economic impact of these events could also adversely affect the credit quality of some of our loans and investments and the properties underlying our interests.

We may suffer losses as a result of the adverse impact of any future attacks and these losses may adversely impact our performance and may cause the market value of our common stock to decline or be more volatile. A prolonged economic slowdown, recession or declining real estate values could impair the performance of our investments and harm our financial condition and results of operations, increase our funding costs, limit our access to the capital markets or result in a decision by lenders not to extend credit to us. We cannot predict the severity of the effect that potential future armed conflicts and terrorist attacks would have on us. Losses resulting from these types of events may not be fully insurable.

Risks Related to Our Organizational Structure

We will be required to pay the owners of PennyMac other than us for certain tax benefits that we may claim, and the amounts we may pay could be significant.

As described in “Organizational Structure,” we have entered into a tax receivable agreement with the owners of PennyMac other than us that provides for the payment by us to those owners of 85% of the tax benefits, if any, that we are deemed to realize under certain circumstances as a result of (i) increases in tax basis resulting from exchanges of Class A units of PennyMac and (ii) certain other tax benefits related to our entering into the tax receivable agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the tax receivable agreement.

We expect that the payments that we may make under the tax receivable agreement will be substantial. It is possible that future transactions or events could increase or decrease the actual tax benefits realized and the corresponding tax receivable agreement payments. There may be a material negative effect on our liquidity if, as a result of timing discrepancies or otherwise, the payments under the tax receivable agreement exceed the actual benefits we realize in respect of the tax attributes subject to the tax receivable agreement or distributions to us by PennyMac are not sufficient to permit us to make payments under the tax receivable agreement after it has paid taxes. Furthermore, our obligations to make payments under the tax receivable agreement could make us a less attractive target for an acquisition, particularly in the case of an acquirer that cannot use some or all of the tax benefits that are deemed realized under the tax receivable agreement. The payments under the tax receivable agreement are not conditioned upon the continued ownership of us by owners of PennyMac.

Our only material asset is our interest in PennyMac and its subsidiaries, and we are accordingly dependent upon distributions from PennyMac and its subsidiaries to pay taxes, make payments under the tax receivable agreement or pay dividends.

We are a holding company and have no material assets other than our ownership of Class A units of PennyMac. We have no independent means of generating revenue. We are required to pay tax on our allocable share of the taxable income of PennyMac and payments under the tax receivable agreement without regard to whether PennyMac distributes to us any cash or other property. To the extent that we need funds, and PennyMac is restricted from making such distributions under applicable law or regulation or under the terms of financing arrangements, or is otherwise unable to provide such funds, it could materially and adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition.

In certain cases, payments under the tax receivable agreement to owners of PennyMac other than us may be accelerated and/or significantly exceed the actual benefits we realize in respect of the tax attributes subject to the tax receivable agreement.

The tax receivable agreement provides that upon certain mergers, asset sales, other forms of business combinations or other changes of control, or if, at any time, we elect an early termination of the tax receivable agreement, our (or our successor’s) obligations with respect to exchanged or acquired Class A units of PennyMac (whether exchanged or acquired before or after such transaction) would be based on certain assumptions, including that we would have sufficient taxable income to fully utilize the deductions arising from the increased tax deductions and tax basis and other benefits related to entering into the tax receivable agreement. As a result, we could be required to make payments under the tax receivable agreement that differ from the percentage specified in the tax receivable agreement of the actual benefits that we realize in respect of the tax attributes that are subject to the tax receivable agreement. Also, if we elect to terminate the tax receivable agreement early, we would be required to make an immediate payment equal to

the present value of the anticipated future tax benefits, which upfront payment may be made years in advance of the actual realization of such future benefits (if any). In these situations, our obligations under the tax receivable agreement could have a substantial negative impact on our liquidity, as well as our attractiveness as a target for an acquisition. In addition, we may not be able to finance our obligations under the tax receivable agreement.

Payments under the tax receivable agreement will be based on the tax reporting positions that we determine. Although we are not aware of any issue that would cause the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, to challenge a tax basis increase, we will not be reimbursed for any payments previously made under the tax receivable agreement. As a result, in certain circumstances, payments could be made under the tax receivable agreement in excess of the benefits that we actually realize in respect of (i) increases in tax basis resulting from exchanges of Class A units of PennyMac and (ii) certain other tax benefits related to our entering into the tax receivable agreement, including tax benefits attributable to payments under the tax receivable agreement.

Owners of PennyMac other than us will initially be able to significantly influence the outcome of votes of our outstanding shares of Class A common stock, and their interests may differ from those of our public stockholders.

Pursuant to separate stockholder agreements with BlackRock and Highfields, each of BlackRock and Highfields has the right to nominate one or two individuals for election to our board of directors, depending on the percentage of the voting power of our outstanding shares of Class A and Class B common stock that it holds, and we are obligated to use our best efforts to cause the election of those nominees. In addition, these stockholder agreements require that we obtain the consent of BlackRock and Highfields with respect to amendments to our certificate of incorporation or bylaws, and the limited liability company agreement of PennyMac requires the consent of BlackRock and Highfields for us to conduct certain activities. As a result, each of BlackRock and Highfields may be able to significantly influence our management and affairs. In addition, as a result of the size of their individual equity holding they will initially be able to significantly influence the outcome of all matters requiring stockholder approval, including mergers and other material transactions, and may be able to cause or prevent a change in the composition of our board of directors or a change in control of our Company that could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their Class A common stock as part of a sale of our company and might ultimately affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

In addition, because they hold their ownership interest in our business through PennyMac, rather than through the public company, these owners may have conflicting interests with holders of shares of our Class A common stock. For example, other owners of PennyMac may have different tax positions from us which could influence their decisions regarding whether and when to dispose of assets, whether and when to incur new or refinance existing indebtedness, especially in light of the existence of the tax receivable agreement that we entered into in connection with the initial public offering of our Class A common stock, and whether and when we should terminate the tax receivable agreement and accelerate its obligations thereunder. Further, the structuring of future transactions may take into consideration these owners’ tax or other considerations even where no similar benefit would accrue to us.

We may not pay dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

We are entitled to receive a pro rata portion of the tax distributions made by PennyMac. The cash received from such distributions will first be used to satisfy any of our tax liabilities and then to make any payments under the tax receivable agreement with the owners of PennyMac other than us. The declaration, amount and payment of any dividends on shares of Class A common stock with respect to any remaining excess cash will be at the sole discretion of our board of directors. Our board of directors may take into account general and economic conditions, our financial condition and operating results, our available cash and current and anticipated cash needs, capital requirements, contractual, legal, tax and regulatory restrictions and implications on the payment of dividends by us to our stockholders or by our subsidiaries to us, and such other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant. We may also enter into credit agreements or other borrowing arrangements in the future that restrict or limit our ability to pay cash dividends on our common stock. Accordingly, we may not pay any dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

Our certificate of incorporation contains provisions renouncing our interest and expectancy in certain corporate opportunities identified by or presented to BlackRock and Highfields.

BlackRock, Highfields and their respective affiliates are in the business of providing capital to growing companies, and may acquire interests in businesses that directly or indirectly compete with certain portions of our business. Our certificate of incorporation provides that neither BlackRock nor Highfields nor their respective affiliates has any duty to refrain from (i) engaging, directly or indirectly, in a corporate opportunity in the same or similar lines of business in which we now engage or propose to engage, or (ii) doing business with any of our clients, customers or vendors. In the event that either of BlackRock or Highfields or their respective affiliates acquires knowledge of a potential transaction or other business opportunity which may be a corporate opportunity for itself or its affiliates and for us or our affiliates other than in the capacity as one of our officers or directors, then neither BlackRock nor Highfields has any duty to communicate or offer such transaction or business opportunity to us and may take any such opportunity for themselves or offer it to another person or entity. Neither BlackRock nor Highfields nor any officer, director or employee thereof, shall be liable to us or to any of our stockholders (or any affiliates thereof) for breach of any fiduciary or other duty by engaging in any such activity and we waive and renounce any claim based on such activity. This provision applies even if the business opportunity is one that we might reasonably be deemed to have pursued or had the ability or desire to pursue if granted the opportunity to do so. Our separate stockholder agreements with BlackRock and Highfields provide that any amendment or repeal of the provisions related to corporate opportunities described above requires the consent of each of BlackRock and Highfields as long as it, or any of its affiliates, holds any equity interest in us. These potential conflicts of interest could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects if attractive corporate opportunities are allocated by BlackRock or Highfields to themselves or their other affiliates instead of to us.

Anti ‑takeover provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law might discourage or delay acquisition attempts for us that you might consider favorable.

Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that may make the acquisition of our company more difficult without the approval of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

These anti ‑takeover provisions and other provisions under Delaware law could discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving a change in control of our company, including actions that our stockholders may deem advantageous, or negatively affect the trading price of our Class A common stock. These provisions could also

discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing and to cause us to take other corporate actions you desire.

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

Our bylaws provide that the state or federal court located within the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty; any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law, our certificate of incorporation or our bylaws; or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This exclusive forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other associates, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find the exclusive forum provision contained in our bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Class A Common Stock

We are an “emerging growth company” and as a result of the reduced disclosure and governance requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, our common stock may be less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes ‑Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of the initial public offering of our Class A common stock, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.0 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our Class A common stock that is held by non ‑affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non ‑convertible debt during the prior three ‑year period.

Under Section 107(b) of the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we will be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

The market price and trading volume of our Class A common stock may be volatile, which could result in rapid and substantial losses for our stockholders.

The market price of our Class A common stock has fluctuated significantly in the past and may be highly volatile in the future and could be subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our Class A common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. Because the trading volume of our Class A common stock is relatively low, even in times of fluctuation, certain investors may be unwilling or prohibited as a matter of policy from making investments. Further, if the market price of our Class A common stock declines significantly, you may be unable to resell your shares at or above your purchase price, if at all. The market price of our Class A common stock

may decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our Class A common stock include:

These broad market and industry factors may decrease the market price of our Class A common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. The stock market in general has from time to time experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations, including in recent months. In addition, in the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. This litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources.

Future offerings of debt or equity securities by us may adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to obtain financing or to further increase our capital resources by issuing additional shares of our Class A common stock or offering debt or other equity securities, including commercial paper, medium ‑term notes, senior or subordinated notes, debt securities convertible into equity or shares of preferred stock. In particular, we intend to seek opportunities to acquire MSR portfolios. Future acquisitions could require substantial additional capital in excess of cash from operations. We would expect to obtain the capital required for acquisitions through a combination of additional issuances of equity, corporate indebtedness, asset ‑backed acquisition financing and/or cash from operations.

Issuing additional shares of our Class A common stock or other equity securities or securities convertible into equity may dilute the economic and voting rights of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our Class A common stock or both. Upon liquidation, holders of such debt securities and preferred shares, if issued, and lenders with

respect to other borrowings would receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our Class A common stock. Debt securities convertible into equity could be subject to adjustments in the conversion ratio pursuant to which certain events may increase the number of equity securities issuable upon conversion. Preferred shares, if issued, could have a preference with respect to liquidating distributions or a preference with respect to dividend payments that could limit our ability to pay dividends to the holders of our Class A common stock. Our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, which may adversely affect the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. In addition, the limited liability company agreement of PennyMac provides that new classes of units or other equity interests of PennyMac may be issued to third parties other than us only with the approval of BlackRock and Highfields as long as they, or any of their affiliates, hold any Class A units of PennyMac. Any such issuance will dilute the ownership of holders of our Class A common stock in substantially all of our operating assets. Thus, holders of our Class A common stock bear the risk that our future offerings, including any future offerings by PennyMac, may reduce the market price of our Class A common stock and dilute their stockholdings in us.

The market price of our Class A common stock could be negatively affected by sales of substantial amounts of our Class A common stock in the public markets.

Sales of substantial numbers of shares of our Class A common stock, including shares issued upon the exchange of Class A Units of PennyMac, in the public market, or the perception that such sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock and could impair our future ability to raise capital through the sale of equity securities or equity ‑related securities.

As of December 31, 2015, we have a total of 21,990,831 shares of Class A common stock outstanding. The issuance and sale (or resale) of up to 46,003,552 additional shares of our Class A common stock have been registered under the Securities Act so those shares, upon issuance, will be freely tradable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act.

A decline in the price of our Class A common stock might impede our ability to raise capital through the issuance of additional Class A common stock or other equity securities.

The future issuance of additional Class A common stock in connection with our incentive plans, acquisitions or otherwise will dilute all other stockholdings.

As of December 31, 2015, we have an aggregate of 20,234,089 shares of Class A common stock authorized and remaining available for future issuance under our 2013 Equity Incentive Plan or upon the exchange of Class A Units of PennyMac. We may issue all of these shares of Class A common stock without any action or approval by our stockholders, subject to certain exceptions. We also intend to continue to evaluate acquisition opportunities and may issue Class A common stock in connection with these acquisitions. Any Class A common stock issued in connection with our incentive plans, acquisitions, the exercise of outstanding stock options or otherwise would dilute the percentage ownership held by investors who purchase Class A common stock.

operations ,   which support our loan servicing and loan processing activities, occup y 116,000 square feet in Fort Worth, TX, and 30,000 square feet in Sacramento, CA. We have six loan production branches located in Eagan, MN, Henderson, NV, Honolulu, HI, Kansas City, MO, Seattle, WA and Alpharetta, GA. Our new commercial real estate finance business is housed in a leased facility in Irvine, CA, and we lease 20,000 square feet in Tampa, FL devoted to our correspondent production business.​ In the f ourth q uarter of 2015, the majority of our information technology division relocated to a 50,000 square foot leased facility in Agoura Hills, CA .  ​

The financial commitments of our leases are immaterial to the scope of our operations.